Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, the ability to marshal the State towards romanticized goals is intoxicating. What people do not realize is having that power invariably leads to assaults on rights and humanity.
I'm pretty sure they realize it and feel that their beliefs supersede rights and humanity. That sounds inflammatory, but it's actually true and easily demonstrated. For example, if you look at the climate change proponents, they believe that their "saving the planet" supersedes essentially any right at all. Therefore, they can tell you to use paper or plastic bags, what lightbulbs you can buy, what car to drive, if you can light candles, whether air conditioning is allowed, and so on. They start out as gentle suggestions and, if ignored, are soon followed by state-level edicts and then they just take the decision out of your hands entirely (as in banning incandescent lightbulbs because you were too stupid to get the hint).
To anyone who isn't mentally challenged it's as simple as asking who would you rather hang out with, Jesus, or Satan?
The above betrays a simple minded approach to understanding which is what I suspect triggers your question.
Which of these two statements do you find more suggestive of the ideals of Jesus?
A) From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.
B) Caveat emptor
Socialism mirrors the philosophy of Jesus to a great extent, capitalism, with its emphasis on winners and losers, clearly does not. Your hang out with Jesus/Satan metaphor is a huge misfire.
The failure here in the way you have phrased the question rises from not making a distinction between communism as it was outlined in its ideal form by Marx, and the communist dictatorships which were formed to enforce it.
Communism fails because because it requires idealistic minded people to succeed and they are far outnumbered by self interested people. The consequence is that the self interested must be compelled to cooperate. You can postulate a utopian neighborhood where everyone is honest and no door needs to ever be locked, but all it would take to wreck that dynamic is one non honest person. Then all doors will need to be locked.
Socialism mirrors the philosophy of Jesus to a great extent
No, it actually doesn't. Jesus said that you should give freely, while liberalism (and socialism) say that they will take it from you. And then, by the way, they don't give it to the poor. They just keep their cut, which is why both American liberals and socialists everywhere have this weird dynamic of always having an ultra-rich elite exhorting you to "give!" and an ultra-poor dependent class.
The most amusing thing is that socialists, communists, and liberals everywhere hate religion, but recognize that if they pervert it, it will make their universally despised beliefs somewhat more palatable as they lie furiously.
No, it actually doesn't. Jesus said that you should give freely, while liberalism (and socialism) say that they will take it from you. And then, by the way, they don't give it to the poor. They just keep their cut, which is why both American liberals and socialists everywhere have this weird dynamic of always having an ultra-rich elite exhorting you to "give!" and an ultra-poor dependent class.
The most amusing thing is that socialists, communists, and liberals everywhere hate religion, but recognize that if they pervert it, it will make their universally despised beliefs somewhat more palatable as they lie furiously.
While Repressives say "If you don't kill for it, you don't deserve it." Interesting philosophy.
No, it actually doesn't. Jesus said that you should give freely, while liberalism (and socialism) say that they will take it from you. And then, by the way, they don't give it to the poor. They just keep their cut, which is why both American liberals and socialists everywhere have this weird dynamic of always having an ultra-rich elite exhorting you to "give!" and an ultra-poor dependent class.
The most amusing thing is that socialists, communists, and liberals everywhere hate religion, but recognize that if they pervert it, it will make their universally despised beliefs somewhat more palatable as they lie furiously.
As with the OP, you are demonstrating an absence of understanding the difference between systems envisioned on an idealistic level, and systems put into practice in a practical manner.
Socialism, in its ideal form, very much mirrors the Sermon on the Mount in terms of how it anticipates the distribution of goods in a society. Conversely, try and find New Testament passages which condone the accumulation of wealth by outworking and outsmarting your competitors.
Neither socialism nor capitalism seems to work in the ideal form. The former requires an oppressive monitor to insure cooperation, the latter requires the construction of safety nets for the groundlings who do the grunt work and are unable to compete for great fortune. In pure communism the state was supposed to disappear. In pure capitalism the losers were supposed to just disappear.
No, it actually doesn't. Jesus said that you should give freely, while liberalism (and socialism) say that they will take it from you. And then, by the way, they don't give it to the poor. They just keep their cut, which is why both American liberals and socialists everywhere have this weird dynamic of always having an ultra-rich elite exhorting you to "give!" and an ultra-poor dependent class.
The most amusing thing is that socialists, communists, and liberals everywhere hate religion, but recognize that if they pervert it, it will make their universally despised beliefs somewhat more palatable as they lie furiously.
See...this is why we can't even have the conversation. You don't even understand the basic definition of a word like "liberal".
Socialism, in its ideal form, very much mirrors the Sermon on the Mount in terms of how it anticipates the distribution of goods in a society.
Actually, it doesn't. You're just saying that it does and hoping that nobody knows otherwise. Jesus didn't say "you get to work and support this guy who doesn't work" and He certainly didn't say "oh, by the way, we're going to set up a large centralized bureaucracy to oversee this and, of course, we need to make a living so we're going to take our salaries out of what you send us and eat caviar and drink vodka. Can I get an 'amen'?"
The thing is that liberals hate the Bible, therefore they get their biblical knowledge from Internet google searches where other liberals tell them what the Bible said. Then they excitedly tell each other that Jesus (who they still despise anyways) was on their side (which is really gross, but they'll take it anyways).
Actually, it doesn't. You're just saying that it does and hoping that nobody knows otherwise. Jesus didn't say "you get to work and support this guy who doesn't work" and He certainly didn't say "oh, by the way, we're going to set up a large centralized bureaucracy to oversee this and, of course, we need to make a living so we're going to take our salaries out of what you send us and eat caviar and drink vodka. Can I get an 'amen'?"
Again...proves that you do not even know what theoretical communism is.
Quote:
The thing is that liberals hate the Bible, therefore they get their biblical knowledge from Internet google searches where other liberals tell them what the Bible said. Then they excitedly tell each other that Jesus (who they still despise anyways) was on their side (which is really gross, but they'll take it anyways).
Generalize much? Ponder these...
Acts 2:44-45
And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
Acts 4:32
And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.
Acts 4:34-36
For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
