Is Socialism biblical?
- Thread starter Jesus4ever
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
in theory yes you are correct. but its hard to find rich people that are not full of greed and care very little for others. people dwell to much on money, to many times i have heard people say if i only had money i could help so many, you dont need money to help people, the biggest givers are usually the ones that have very little. why does it always work like that.
haha i have no idea what the solution is. corruption and bad leaders may be part of our Lords plan or maybe a judgment. read the conditions the Lord put on the people when they chose a man to lead them rather than the Lord Most High. it sounds a lot like whats going on around us today and in the past.
haha i have no idea what the solution is. corruption and bad leaders may be part of our Lords plan or maybe a judgment. read the conditions the Lord put on the people when they chose a man to lead them rather than the Lord Most High. it sounds a lot like whats going on around us today and in the past.
No, the driving force of capitalism is in the heart of the person operating in it. Some seek to be blessed to be a blessing, and to leave an inheritance to their children's children ( a righteous action according to the bible). I think you mistake greed to only be applicable to the rich. Are not those in scarcity greedy? Do they not hold tight to the little they have? Do they not steal and destroy so that they may have material possessions?
A man with great riches and wealth is not inherently greedy. Look at some of the top donors and you'll see rich men giving charity/alms. Too often you have, in times past, a church that thinks poverty is pious, or spiritual. It isn't. A poverty mentality is actually at odds with the Gospel because it hinders the spreading of it. As I once read in Acres of Diamonds, "Money prints your bibles, sends your missionaries, and builds your churches." Money is important and is a tool that is used for the glory of God.
A man with great riches and wealth is not inherently greedy. Look at some of the top donors and you'll see rich men giving charity/alms. Too often you have, in times past, a church that thinks poverty is pious, or spiritual. It isn't. A poverty mentality is actually at odds with the Gospel because it hinders the spreading of it. As I once read in Acres of Diamonds, "Money prints your bibles, sends your missionaries, and builds your churches." Money is important and is a tool that is used for the glory of God.
J
i couldnt disagree more. but rather than say what it is and isnt lets look at some examples of capitalism. what we have today is not pure capitalism as we still have a bit of left over legislation from 50 yrs back which was put there to protect the people but as we can see in the last 20 years of rolling back these social programs the gap between rich and poor has become greater than ever.
the purest form of capitalism would be back at the turn of the century (1800s - 1900s) a factory worker worked 6 - 7 days a week 14 - 16 hours a day, no over time, no health benefits, no compensation for the family when you died at work (good thing cause life was cheap in a factory in those days) come home to a small apartment, wages so bad you had to send your kids to work at an incredibly young age. when labor tried to organize the capitalist fought it, when people pushed for a 6 and 5 day work week the capitalist fought it, benefits for workers, they fought it. if its such a great fair system, why do they fight so hard against the workers when they ask for a little bit of fairness?
when the rich give we always know about it cause they have a giant article in a magazine or tv about how much they give. are they truly givers or do they just want to get their pic in the paper.
one of the most dangerous jobs back then was a train brakeman, only the Irish would do it. when vanderbilt was asked about installing air brakes he said it was cheaper to keep hiring Irishman "whats another irishman haha" he said and the same people were starving the irish to death back in Ireland. human life means nothing to these people, only their profits.
the purest form of capitalism would be back at the turn of the century (1800s - 1900s) a factory worker worked 6 - 7 days a week 14 - 16 hours a day, no over time, no health benefits, no compensation for the family when you died at work (good thing cause life was cheap in a factory in those days) come home to a small apartment, wages so bad you had to send your kids to work at an incredibly young age. when labor tried to organize the capitalist fought it, when people pushed for a 6 and 5 day work week the capitalist fought it, benefits for workers, they fought it. if its such a great fair system, why do they fight so hard against the workers when they ask for a little bit of fairness?
when the rich give we always know about it cause they have a giant article in a magazine or tv about how much they give. are they truly givers or do they just want to get their pic in the paper.
one of the most dangerous jobs back then was a train brakeman, only the Irish would do it. when vanderbilt was asked about installing air brakes he said it was cheaper to keep hiring Irishman "whats another irishman haha" he said and the same people were starving the irish to death back in Ireland. human life means nothing to these people, only their profits.
A gift noticed is still a gift received. Do you think a self-righteous man giving a $100 bill to a homeless man in front of an audience lessens the gift to the needy man? No, the man is still grateful but the self-righteous man has received his reward. The motive, yes, is important but this doesn't mean that gift didn't hold an impact.
You see, the "these people" sentiment towards the wealthy is antithetical to progress. You ought to be wealthy and rich, not as your sole focus. By no means, but as a means to be a blessing. The issue is the love of money. There is a saying, "Love people and use money, never the other way around." There is such a reality as being rich and righteous. You can do so by honoring the Lord with your finances and stewarding your money properly.
The issue of poverty comes with it a lack of knowledge. Rather, a lack of revelation. The truth of the matter is that there is an infinite abundance, have we forgotten that God spoke and so it was? The only limitations we have are the ones we perceive and receive in our hearts. In reality scarcity is simply operating strictly in the natural, and ignoring the spiritual. God has set things in motion, principles, that if lived by lead to multiplication. Capitalism if used properly can take advantage of these principles and then the gain can be used for the extension of God's Kingdom and in spreading the Gospel.
All of us must expand our mindsets, alter them to a place of faith that comes in agreement with His word. Not only that, but that we would take action and see that God isn't a liar. Capitalism is honorable, not as a chief aim in life but as a means to blessing others. Remember, love people and use money, never the other way around.
You see, the "these people" sentiment towards the wealthy is antithetical to progress. You ought to be wealthy and rich, not as your sole focus. By no means, but as a means to be a blessing. The issue is the love of money. There is a saying, "Love people and use money, never the other way around." There is such a reality as being rich and righteous. You can do so by honoring the Lord with your finances and stewarding your money properly.
The issue of poverty comes with it a lack of knowledge. Rather, a lack of revelation. The truth of the matter is that there is an infinite abundance, have we forgotten that God spoke and so it was? The only limitations we have are the ones we perceive and receive in our hearts. In reality scarcity is simply operating strictly in the natural, and ignoring the spiritual. God has set things in motion, principles, that if lived by lead to multiplication. Capitalism if used properly can take advantage of these principles and then the gain can be used for the extension of God's Kingdom and in spreading the Gospel.
All of us must expand our mindsets, alter them to a place of faith that comes in agreement with His word. Not only that, but that we would take action and see that God isn't a liar. Capitalism is honorable, not as a chief aim in life but as a means to blessing others. Remember, love people and use money, never the other way around.
C
Is this capitalism? lol
For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.2*Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.*3*And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,*4*and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went.*5*Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.*6*And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7*They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’
8*“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them*their*wages, beginning with the last to the first.’*9*And when those came who*were hired*about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius.*10*But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius.*11*And when they had receivedit,*they complained against the landowner,*12*saying, ‘These last*men have worked*only*one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’*13*But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?*14*Take what is*yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man*the same*as to you.15*Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’
For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.2*Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.*3*And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,*4*and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went.*5*Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.*6*And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7*They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’
8*“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them*their*wages, beginning with the last to the first.’*9*And when those came who*were hired*about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius.*10*But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius.*11*And when they had receivedit,*they complained against the landowner,*12*saying, ‘These last*men have worked*only*one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’*13*But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?*14*Take what is*yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man*the same*as to you.15*Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’
J
just pointing out they are not givers when they only do it to be seen. bible teaches against this.
if i only had more money i could help so many. this is the dumbest philosophy and you are falling for it hook line and sinker. how much money did Jesus and the 12 have, very little if any and they helped many. you need money for a bible but if you dont have a bible you can still talk to someone about the Lord. or do something nice for someone or go to the home of some elderly people and ask them if they need help with work around the house, or just sit and visit with them for an hour. they would love it and you dont need money to do it. no money is nothing but a garbage excuse to turn your back on those that are in need.
the issue of poverty comes from the rich taking it all and therre is none left for the many. go to africa and look. are those peaple poor as crap because of dumb luck, stupidy, because they are balck no they are underdeveloped and poor because they were made to be that way by rich western countries that wanted to exploit their resources. before the west got there they were developing just fine.
if i only had more money i could help so many. this is the dumbest philosophy and you are falling for it hook line and sinker. how much money did Jesus and the 12 have, very little if any and they helped many. you need money for a bible but if you dont have a bible you can still talk to someone about the Lord. or do something nice for someone or go to the home of some elderly people and ask them if they need help with work around the house, or just sit and visit with them for an hour. they would love it and you dont need money to do it. no money is nothing but a garbage excuse to turn your back on those that are in need.
the issue of poverty comes from the rich taking it all and therre is none left for the many. go to africa and look. are those peaple poor as crap because of dumb luck, stupidy, because they are balck no they are underdeveloped and poor because they were made to be that way by rich western countries that wanted to exploit their resources. before the west got there they were developing just fine.
That's nice and all, but even Jesus said those who give out of their abundance, meh... but a widow who gives two mites, (what amounts to nothing) gave more than THEM ALL... because of the sacrifice. In this country, if you cite donations on your tax return, you get it all back! How is that giving, if you have an incentive to see it back later?
I think Jesus points out that there is alms, and then there is ALMS, where you give OF YOURSELF. He also says to keep it secret. A large donation may sound like A LOT to a poor person, but what is it to the rich person donating? And are they claiming it on their taxes? If they are, it's not charity. Not from a biblical definition.
There's a reason for this. Now, I agree that rich people can be saved and poor people can be greedy, oh yes! But the reason poverty is thought as pious is because 1) the Bible hints at such OFTEN, in both the Psalms, Proverbs, and Jesus Himself and 2) when we are scraping by, we are much more inclined to call on God for what we can't do, where as more money means more self-sufficiency and less need for God.
It can be. Depends on the heart of the person.
That's a good point. Money is needed, and it has to come from somewhere. But I would be very hesitant to say that the power of God (the Gospel) depends on it or even hindered by it. The poorest homeless person can show love and kindness to another, and tell the Gospel. But I see your point.
I think Jesus points out that there is alms, and then there is ALMS, where you give OF YOURSELF. He also says to keep it secret. A large donation may sound like A LOT to a poor person, but what is it to the rich person donating? And are they claiming it on their taxes? If they are, it's not charity. Not from a biblical definition.
There's a reason for this. Now, I agree that rich people can be saved and poor people can be greedy, oh yes! But the reason poverty is thought as pious is because 1) the Bible hints at such OFTEN, in both the Psalms, Proverbs, and Jesus Himself and 2) when we are scraping by, we are much more inclined to call on God for what we can't do, where as more money means more self-sufficiency and less need for God.
It can be. Depends on the heart of the person.
That's a good point. Money is needed, and it has to come from somewhere. But I would be very hesitant to say that the power of God (the Gospel) depends on it or even hindered by it. The poorest homeless person can show love and kindness to another, and tell the Gospel. But I see your point.
J
when i read about USA involvement in poor Latin america countries as well as others around the world ( read the history of united fruit company) i see that we take far more than we give. and if we give what you say its only in order to get the american owned factories back up to production as fast as possible, love that 20 cents an hour cheap labor!!
K
I don't see what you're saying is backed up by stats. The Red Cross and Salvation Army along with Samaritans Purse are always there in every natural disaster. America is more generous than any other country,stats back that up.
World's most big-hearted nation: the United States
If I may, he is talking about American's giving pitted against America's love for wealth. He is talking about American examining her faults, rather than glossing over them by comparing herself to others.
Think about it. Everyone has to have the latest this, and the latest that... when the old works fine. This demand drives production, it gives birth to incentive to technology that moves so fast, that it is becoming crippling, as more and more can't keep up, financially or with such learning curves... and it gets to the point that products are MADE to fail and brake soon, so that they can sell more of them. But we, the consumer, drive this demand by buying the latest thing the minute it comes out. When Jay talks about greed, I think, he is talking about it on every level - the consumer feeds the captistist, then the capitalist gets so big they abuse the consumer... but the consumer has no choices now. That is called a monopoly, and is illegal and has been for DECADES. And in getting all the new goodies, how are they produced so we can all think we're keeping up with each other and have nice things?
People who work for 20 cents an hour, in poor conditions, in other countries FOR WHOM? That's right, American based companies. When we turn a blind eye to the suffering of these workers because "well, it's not a sin to be rich" well it's a sin to exploit, and no one wants to talk about this. I do not claim to know the hearts of rich people, but they are VERY far removed lower class worker, those who work for them.
Last edited:
J
banana massacre - more than 1000 workers were gunned down when they tried to organize for a better wage. why did they want a better wage, to buy new cars, fancy clothes? no their children were dying from hunger and malnutrition, they organized because they were starving to death. not one person went to jail and the company is still thriving today laughing all the way to the bank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre
here is a factory fire in the philippines. the philippines is nothing more than a giant forced labor camp for usa (with big hearts) business interest. why else would we have gone to war to take that country. 70 people died in that fire. no safety regulations, bars on the windows, over crowded. i wonder what it feels like to be burned alive?
Factory fire puts spotlight on working conditions in Philippines | Reuters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre
here is a factory fire in the philippines. the philippines is nothing more than a giant forced labor camp for usa (with big hearts) business interest. why else would we have gone to war to take that country. 70 people died in that fire. no safety regulations, bars on the windows, over crowded. i wonder what it feels like to be burned alive?
Factory fire puts spotlight on working conditions in Philippines | Reuters
J
yes thats pretty much what i am saying. i dont hate my country. i try and love and get along with everyone, but our leaders i dont have such a high opinion of because i see them for what they truly are.
we are lead to believe USA and capitalism is serving the greater good but are never told the dark side of it. i dont think its proper to turn a blind eye to it as if it does not exist.
There is no dark side to capitalism, the dark side is in the heart of the person using people to gain profits. Capitalism in and of itself is amoral, though I would place it slightly on the good side. It is the person operating within the confines of capitalism that sways it, as a force for good or evil. How can a person defame capitalism as evil when through it the Gospel has reached the world?
A person can take anything good and use it for evil, but it doesn't taint that which is good. It is still righteous. In the same way, for example, dance is a holy thing to be used to worship God but it has turned into a means of seduction and sensuality. However, dance is still a good and righteous thing to partake in. In the same way capitalism is a good and honorable thing, so much so that in giving to the Lord you praise Him for His providence.
Socialism on the other hand, though it appears to be "fair" to some is truly and completely opposite of what God's word stands for. Take free will for example, God respects it and it is He who has given it. Socialism takes free will away and instead of depending on the heart of a person it simply reaches into their pocket to take their "fair share." A socialistic government is not one based in love, but greed. It is covetous and discontented, and for the sake of "equality" it robs individuals.
Darkness can be found in capitalism not because it is inherently an evil concept but because of the heart of man that is evil and in need of sanctification. Capitalism does serve a greater good, and many people do use it for the glory of God in spreading the Gospel. They use finances gained to send missionaries, to build churches and to help those in need. Socialism takes the heart out of giving, and simply robs people of free will.
A person can take anything good and use it for evil, but it doesn't taint that which is good. It is still righteous. In the same way, for example, dance is a holy thing to be used to worship God but it has turned into a means of seduction and sensuality. However, dance is still a good and righteous thing to partake in. In the same way capitalism is a good and honorable thing, so much so that in giving to the Lord you praise Him for His providence.
Socialism on the other hand, though it appears to be "fair" to some is truly and completely opposite of what God's word stands for. Take free will for example, God respects it and it is He who has given it. Socialism takes free will away and instead of depending on the heart of a person it simply reaches into their pocket to take their "fair share." A socialistic government is not one based in love, but greed. It is covetous and discontented, and for the sake of "equality" it robs individuals.
Darkness can be found in capitalism not because it is inherently an evil concept but because of the heart of man that is evil and in need of sanctification. Capitalism does serve a greater good, and many people do use it for the glory of God in spreading the Gospel. They use finances gained to send missionaries, to build churches and to help those in need. Socialism takes the heart out of giving, and simply robs people of free will.
J
of course mankind has a sinful desire, i have not said anything to suggest otherwise. temptation prays on that sinful desire and i am pointing out those temptations that exist in capitalism.
socialism is no worse than capitalism. let me attempt to show you again. capitalism - economy in the private sector. socialism - economy is nationalized (state owned).
Pacific Gas & Electric is a private power company, 500 kilowatts of power cost a family about $97.00
Sacramento municipal is a state owned company that charges about $58.00 for the same power.
PG&E spent 2 million on lobbying congress and 5.1 billion to its top stock holders and executives over a 3 yr period.
Sacramento municipal transferred its profits ( i couldnt find the exact figure, its usually more than a million) back into the cities budget to best serve the people.
the state owned company is a social program (socialism) its not put there against the will of the people, it is put there because of the people and the people have a say in how it operates. this is how democracy works. these social programs are being cut one by one against the will of the people at the will of the capitalist.
pure socialism does not work, neither does capitalism. you have to have a balancing point in the middle. as of now the USA is in the process of moving closer and closer to the pure form of capitalism. and if it keeps going, the few will have everything. thats what the system is designed to do. kinda like the monopoly board game.
socialism is no worse than capitalism. let me attempt to show you again. capitalism - economy in the private sector. socialism - economy is nationalized (state owned).
Pacific Gas & Electric is a private power company, 500 kilowatts of power cost a family about $97.00
Sacramento municipal is a state owned company that charges about $58.00 for the same power.
PG&E spent 2 million on lobbying congress and 5.1 billion to its top stock holders and executives over a 3 yr period.
Sacramento municipal transferred its profits ( i couldnt find the exact figure, its usually more than a million) back into the cities budget to best serve the people.
the state owned company is a social program (socialism) its not put there against the will of the people, it is put there because of the people and the people have a say in how it operates. this is how democracy works. these social programs are being cut one by one against the will of the people at the will of the capitalist.
pure socialism does not work, neither does capitalism. you have to have a balancing point in the middle. as of now the USA is in the process of moving closer and closer to the pure form of capitalism. and if it keeps going, the few will have everything. thats what the system is designed to do. kinda like the monopoly board game.
The good old "free will" of capitalists is why some people argue for socialism - money REALLY does talk, in the sense that lawmakers and politicians get paid by those with the money to adjust laws to their interests.
The medical industry is a monopoly. There are laws approved now that if a doctor comes along and offers treatments at a much lower costs in a private clinic, he has to seek approval from certain big dog hospitals before he can open these prices... that's the law, but you think they're going to approve a service far cheaper than theirs, even though it's the exact same thing? Heck no... but money and lobbying is how these laws are set in place to protect the interests of those in the monopoly.
This is illegal, there are anti-trust laws that forbid this practice... but money talks, and the judge looks the other way. And so, if capitalism is about making more and more and more of yourself, accumulating what you can because you are free and dog gone it, therefore yes you can... the temptation is there to maximize profit by cutting competition. This was a runaway in the US in the late 1800s, lawmakers saw the problem and addressed it, but here we are.
This is not the "good" form of capitalism, which allows competition in a free market in which the consumer drives the demand, rewards good products by buying them and shuns bad/outrageously expensive products. That is where it must be balanced with socialist aspects, ie some form of gov. cap and regulation... which again has BEEN addressed in the past, but special interest and money has overlooked these laws meant to protect the free market.
But then with socialism, I can see how that doesn't work in its purest form precisely because people have desires, they want more, and they don't want the same as someone who does virtually nothing... that's not fair, they want something to show for their harder work.
If anyone wants articles, I can google and find some that say it better than I can.
If men can be trusted with riches on average, and wealth does not tempt one to sin, then why out of ALLLLL the Israelite kings, we only have a small handful that were righteous? I wouldn't stop anyone from accumulating wealth with hard work, only stress they should be wary of a hard heart... it's sooo easy to get into a "well, I worked long and hard to get here, I'll enjoy my goods and if people want the same, they can do the same." It's easier than you think.
The medical industry is a monopoly. There are laws approved now that if a doctor comes along and offers treatments at a much lower costs in a private clinic, he has to seek approval from certain big dog hospitals before he can open these prices... that's the law, but you think they're going to approve a service far cheaper than theirs, even though it's the exact same thing? Heck no... but money and lobbying is how these laws are set in place to protect the interests of those in the monopoly.
This is illegal, there are anti-trust laws that forbid this practice... but money talks, and the judge looks the other way. And so, if capitalism is about making more and more and more of yourself, accumulating what you can because you are free and dog gone it, therefore yes you can... the temptation is there to maximize profit by cutting competition. This was a runaway in the US in the late 1800s, lawmakers saw the problem and addressed it, but here we are.
This is not the "good" form of capitalism, which allows competition in a free market in which the consumer drives the demand, rewards good products by buying them and shuns bad/outrageously expensive products. That is where it must be balanced with socialist aspects, ie some form of gov. cap and regulation... which again has BEEN addressed in the past, but special interest and money has overlooked these laws meant to protect the free market.
But then with socialism, I can see how that doesn't work in its purest form precisely because people have desires, they want more, and they don't want the same as someone who does virtually nothing... that's not fair, they want something to show for their harder work.
If anyone wants articles, I can google and find some that say it better than I can.
If men can be trusted with riches on average, and wealth does not tempt one to sin, then why out of ALLLLL the Israelite kings, we only have a small handful that were righteous? I wouldn't stop anyone from accumulating wealth with hard work, only stress they should be wary of a hard heart... it's sooo easy to get into a "well, I worked long and hard to get here, I'll enjoy my goods and if people want the same, they can do the same." It's easier than you think.