Is Socialism Moral? Especially, Christian?

[Purple Knight]

The question for debate is whether a socialist system is closer to how Jesus intended people to behave than a capitalist one.

The sub-question is for those who think socialism is moral whether that was inspired by religion or not: If a country's laws were very close to what Jesus (or your morality) taught, but as a consequence, the country was a very bad place to live, would you move there? For example, a country that has a lot of assault because it is a law that you turn the other cheek and don't hit back, and you'll be punished for retaliating. Or a country where ministers roam around, imbued with legal authority, and they decide when you must sell all your possessions and give to the poor, including your house and car.

It's very easy to have high morals when the consequences are less present because the system you happen to live in works to protect you from them. Is there something extra moral about choosing to live where the system doesn't do that? Or is it just foolish? Because perhaps the goal is to have and hold the highest morals possible and if you've been given an ivory tower with which to protect them, that's simply a logical choice to achieve maximum morality.

[marke]

Marke: I mention rich leftists who are making all the noise about the rich allegedly not caring for the poor. Do they not see the hypocrisy of their argument as they apply their nonsense to conservatives but disregard the massive guilt of those on the left who would also be condemned if their arguments were true and honest?

This is typical method of distraction, away from so much obvious hypocrisy by many comfortably wealthy Christians towards anywhere or anybody else.

Marke: I again reference the multitude of wealthy democrat politicians who have increased their net worth by millions or even billions while in office and while handling government funding with suspected kickbacks. Why? Because leftists don't care that super rich leftists don't share a dime of their hoarded wealth while condemning Christians for allegedly not sharing their wealth with the poor. This is about bashing Christians, not about alleviating the distresses of the poor.

But it does show a classical example of how many 'Christians' have wrapped politics up in to their religion.
Jesus told his followers again-and-again that to grasp riches to themselves whilst forsaking people like the disabled, young families, unemployed, etc is wicked, and that they would not be true followers of himself.
It's all there in the gospels but they won't acknowledge this.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #121]

This is about bashing Christians, not about alleviating the distresses of the poor.

It isn't about bashing Christians. It's about calling out people who call themselves Christian while making every market-friendly excuse under the sun for blaming poverty on the poor instead of caring for the poor as Jesus instructed.

I have no more admiration for affluent "leftists" living in their bourgeois comfort zone than you do, but the poor aren't going to get the care which Jesus said they deserve as long as either ideological faction is waiting for the other to go first.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #121]

This is about bashing Christians, not about alleviating the distresses of the poor.

It isn't about bashing Christians. It's about calling out people who call themselves Christian while making every market-friendly excuse under the sun for blaming poverty on the poor instead of caring for the poor as Jesus instructed.

I have no more admiration for affluent "leftists" living in their bourgeois comfort zone than you do, but the poor aren't going to get the care which Jesus said they deserve as long as either ideological faction is waiting for the other to go first.

Marke: You show your irreligiously biased hand by slandering Christians while offering no solutions whatsoever to the problem you claim Christians make worse by not believing the Bible like you do.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #123]

You show your irreligiously biased hand by slandering Christians while offering no solutions whatsoever to the problem you claim Christians make worse by not believing the Bible like you do.

If I'm "irreligiously biased", it's only in that I don't subscribe to an organized religion.

How does it slander Christians to remind them that it isn't Christian to accuse the poor of being "greedy" and "selfish"?

I do offer a solution, or at least something in the way of an improvement: socialism.

It isn't about Christians not believing the Bible like I do; it's about people calling themselves Christian but not keeping the words of Jesus like they should.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #123]

You show your irreligiously biased hand by slandering Christians while offering no solutions whatsoever to the problem you claim Christians make worse by not believing the Bible like you do.

If I'm "irreligiously biased", it's only in that I don't subscribe to an organized religion.

How does it slander Christians to remind them that it isn't Christian to accuse the poor of being "greedy" and "selfish"?

I do offer a solution, or at least something in the way of an improvement: socialism.

It isn't about Christians not believing the Bible like I do; it's about people calling themselves Christian but not keeping the words of Jesus like they should.

Marke: Socialism does not promote wealth generation by hard work and free enterprise entrepreneurship as much as it promotes a Marxist redistribution of wealth enforced by a despotic strong-armed government.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #125]

Socialism does not promote wealth generation by hard work and free enterprise entrepreneurship as much as it promotes a Marxist redistribution of wealth enforced by a despotic strong-armed government.

Then, I ask again, why didn't Peter side with Ananias?

[oldbadger]

Marke: Socialism does not promote wealth generation by hard work and free enterprise entrepreneurship as much as it promotes a Marxist redistribution of wealth enforced by a despotic strong-armed government.

Oh dear........ When 'Christians' (who don't care about the needy, poor or sick) fling insults at political groups, this proves beyond any doubt that they are not followers of Jesus.

To be a true follower of Jesus it would be necessary to follow what he said and did in life and again-and-again he told his followers not to gather riches to themselves amongst needy and poor.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #125]

Socialism does not promote wealth generation by hard work and free enterprise entrepreneurship as much as it promotes a Marxist redistribution of wealth enforced by a despotic strong-armed government.

Then, I ask again, why didn't Peter side with Ananias?

Marke: Why would Peter side with Ananias?

[marke]

Marke: Socialism does not promote wealth generation by hard work and free enterprise entrepreneurship as much as it promotes a Marxist redistribution of wealth enforced by a despotic strong-armed government.

Oh dear........ When 'Christians' (who don't care about the needy, poor or sick) fling insults at political groups, this proves beyond any doubt that they are not followers of Jesus.

To be a true follower of Jesus it would be necessary to follow what he said and did in life and again-and-again he told his followers not to gather riches to themselves amongst needy and poor.

Marke: Many Christian charities that minister to the poor put to shame the lack of giving to the poor by the non-Christians.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #128]

Why would Peter side with Ananias?

Good question, since Ananias was essentially behaving as if the apostles were enacting a Marxist redistribution of wealth enforced by a despotic strong-armed government.