That's not what I'm saying. That only applies in cases where you're truly productive; land renters for instance are not necessarily productive at all, in fact they usually bottle up wealth and resources at the expense of millions of people, just to sit down and do some paperwork. See? This is an example of why I can't say I agree with anyone that says "people own themselves", because many of them would agree with for instance, Big Land Rent, when I don't even think that land itself is something that people should individually own. I don't think that defies liberty, self-ownership or morality, either. I think the opposite (in other words, the libertarian/rightists perspective of land ownership) would actually be violating liberty, self-ownership and morality. It's comparable to a company that sucked up all Earth's oxygen supply and then charged us all just to breathe, which is something that Jesus would be deathly opposed to as well. This is gonna be very un-Jesus-like, but I think that for economically/genetically inviable people, abortion/contraception/getting fixed should be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing MANDATORY. That way we don't get flooded with unproductive people damaging our economy, (*)(*)(*)(*) 'em.
If they had enough might, then they'd be able to control thoughts, too. I don't even think that anyone should ever be allowed to use some sort of technology or the like, to directly peer into someones' thoughts, let alone control them, but law enforcement will probably find a way to do that and do it, someday. But being able to think independently does not imply that there's an objective moral obligation on anyone to ever let anyone do or think anything in any situation for any reason.
Socialism is a economic system, not a political system, Sparky. For an excellent treatise on socialism's basic moral philosophy, read what Jesus advocated
Catch up with modern times (say the past 50 years). Brute Force is no part of contemporary socialist theory. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about the violent revolutions that installed socialism in most European countries
Can you name one Socialist Government that achieves its ends without brute force? [/end thread] Which one used something other than brute force? . . . .
Seeing as how socialism didn't exist until the late 19th century, I would say that Jesus was not a socialist. What you are doing is implying that current standards and beliefs of today are the same as standards and beliefs from 2 thousand years ago. That is the biggest offense in the name of history.
Disagree with Jesus..........Jesus DID NOT send men with guns/swords to your door. Get the picture Hilbert? Jesus wasnt a Socialist/Devil...... . . .
Yes, for a small group of people that were willing to do it voluntaraly. And even He followed along with socialism in the circle, unlike the way socialism has worked out for every country that has tried it. Socialism in large countries means socialism is for the people, NOT the socialist.
What's this "force" component of socialism all you righties harp on? Why aren't there "collectives" is Sweden or UK? Do you think your views of socialism are from the Soviet Era and need an injection of modern reality? :
Since Jesus and his deciples all shared in the work and got evenly compensated, what would you call that? Just cause they didn't have a name for the political ideology, doesn't mean that socialism didn't happen. Jesus even told a parable about day workers all getting paid the same even though a few workers didn't start working till the end of the day. Or are we talking about government forced socialism, where no matter what you do or how good you are or what you invent, it doesn't belong to you but to the state by force? For socialism to actually work, it must be a completely voluntary based structure. And if there is no production from someone, then they are expelled from the society so that the society continues to thrive.
Yes, obviously he was a socialist - our Founder, really. The ability of the money-grubbers to pretend otherwise was my first lesson in ideology - but, then, a lot of them do find reading hard.
are you saying that the US was founded on judeo christian principles? : that was a little slip there, wont it?
Forget about what you understand of socialism. When you are looking that far back into the past, you're set of values and beliefs must never factor into understanding of a different people, different culture, and a different time. You should remember that Christianity during this time was still regarded as Judaism. Most people in ancient Rome during this period were Pagans. They had very different political institutions, celebrated different holidays and had different customs. They did not view the world the same as Western society has in the past two or three hundred years. You and other people in this thread are suffering from Presentism.
What the HELL are 'judeo christian principles' when they'r at home, and what on earth do you think you are talking about? The US was founded, as you know, purely on the desire to pay no taxes for those who had died in the defence of its rich.
I get what you are saying, but what does it have to do with what socialism is based upon and what I said. I get what they were considered back then, but does socialism back then turn into capitalism as we know it today or something? Socialism, the sharing of resources amongst a group of people that put forth equal, or sometimes more than equal share of the work according to each owns ability. The peverted sense of socialism is where the government takes everything, and passes out what they don't use in "equal" shares to the rest of the population. Jesus and his group were willing voluteers of shared resources, but they never forced it upon others.
Jesus makes it clear that the rich are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed*, on any rational, human basis - they have as much chance of getting into 'heaven' as a great big camel of getting though a needle's eye. Anyone who intends to follow him must give up all possessions. Under captialism that means either becoming a monk/nun (and even then your order will get rich) or allowing your family to be exploited by the rich thieves. The answer is socialism: to each according to his/her need - and we don't need much. Nobody 'owns' anything - it is just something they or their parents stole from someone else - and 'equal' is just duckspeak. Everything belongs to everyone, and that is IT. *As a capitalist forum this one cannot, apparently, face the fact of condemnation to Hell for the rich. Very Republican!
Jesus and the Bible do not preach socialism. The New Testament and other scripture was initially written by people we remember today as Saints. Many of these saints gave up all their earthly possessions in order to be closer to God. By stripping themselves of wealth and material goods they believed they lived sin free. It is not a political ideology but rather it was a lifestyle choice. When they looked at the Romans, the wealthy aristocrats, government officials, they saw corruption. They believed those people were not following the word of God. You are simply reading scripture word for word and are apply your own belief system to those who lived 2,000 years before you.
Wow, you are totally still out of context with your rants. Jesus also said that if you don't try, you will be spit out like luke warm soup. Being rich doesn't exclude you from getting into heaven, Jesus just makes the observation that focusing on wealth leads you astray from following God. There are still some that can put Jesus and God first, while still being rich, but for man, that is rare. Now that is not to mean you can't be rich, but like everything else in the world, you need to understand that it is only temporary and you must keep your eyes on the prize. Really, if Romney wants to give 15% to charity or his church, that is fine. But if he is only doing it because God tells him to and not because he wants to (only God knows his true intentions), he isn't really doing it for the RIGHT reasons.
He says, very specifically, that it is easier for a camel to get through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into Heaven. That seems pretty exclusive to me. You got a new gospel, get crucified, rise again and spread it.
But it still can be done. Jesus didn't say it was a mortal sin to be rich. Jesus knows the hearts of men. He knows if Romeny is giving 15% cause it is easy for him, or because Romney has that kind of heart. It is a matter of what kind of sacrifice are you doing when you give to charity. Is it something that is going to make a slight hardship on the way you live your life, or will you not miss the money you give.
True, but the thing is, Republicans tend to assume that the only way to not be rich is to be stupid and utterly lazy..
