Morality

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.

Really, his teachings advocated a focus on the spiritual, on growth in one's connection to the Almighty, irregardless of one's pelf. He did seem to assert that fixating on the materialistic was an impediment to this, not that the existence of wealth was of itself an evil.

[HoreTore]

The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.

That would be liberation theology. I've never seen much sense in it. It's not the christianity in liberation theology I have a problem with, but how they bastardize Marx to fit christianity...

Still, every socialist party in western europe contains a christian faction.

[Beskar]

I do not think you can explain or grasp Jesus' entire "philosophy" based on a single quote.
"Love your neightbor as much as you love yourself" can also mean that if you would pay the best doctors to treat you, you should also pay for your neighbors to see the best doctors.

Well, hypothetically, that is the concept behind socialised health-care.

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK I think it came out of the theory that preventative care would be of economic benefit to society - as the cost of treatment would be less than the improved productivity. How wrong they were!

[Kadagar_AV]

NVM, me being stupid.

[HopAlongBunny]

The responsibility toward the "other" is central to Christ's teaching.
The parable of the good Samaritan makes it clear that the well being of the "other" is almost the definition of a Christian's lot.

[Sigurd]

Early Christianity were Communalistic. See Acts 2-5

[Vincent Butler]

But socialism is the government taking care of people, not people taking care of people. Study the Bible, the care of the poor is the responsibility of the church, not the government. That is why so many European countries (and now America) are going bankrupt, look at the social programs. Defense is important, to quote Sun Tsu, "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or ruin." Social spending, no, you kill the will and motivation of your people because you take care of them.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27

Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. Galatians 2:10

The government's role is the protection of the citizen and the execution of justice.

Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 1 Peter 2:14

What about individual accountability? Maybe that is why America is, or at least was, the world leader. Americans have always been about taking care of themselves, more motivated, though not so much any more; Europeans are content to let the government take care of them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.

Certainly, I would agree that the principles of helping each other, of justice and equality, are all central to Christianity. But it is quite a leap to suggest that a socialist system, with state ownership of the means of production, is somehow a true (or at least, Christian) manifestation of such principles. Human liberty is another core Christian value, and one that is hard to reconcile with a truly socialist system (if not so much, say, a more social democratic system).

The Catholic Church does a good job at articulating a Christian approach to politics in the form of Catholic social teaching. In terms of wealth/inequality/socialism etc, it has some interesting ideas. For example, distributism - the idea that every individual should privately own a portion of the means of production.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

It's almost as if the Bible is not consistent. Note I said "should". I really couldn't care less about what I read in 90% of the Bible, including some of the things Jesus says. All I care about is the message of goodwill, something that is lacking among many political ideologies.

The two passages are hardly in conflict, since they are dealing with different issues. My understanding of biblical teaching on the issue of wealth is that it can be a major stumbling block for a Christian's growth in the faith, but it is not inherently evil. Remember, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself as that verse is so often misquoted to say.

[Vincent Butler]

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Look at the context of that verse, Jesus was telling the Jews that it was not wrong to pay tribute to Rome. Rome was in power over Judea, so they had the right to demand tribute. Jesus himself paid tribute, and did not deplore Rome for collecting it. The modern application, and I believe an accurate one, is that paying taxes is not wrong. The government needs to run somehow.

[Sigurd]

That is why so many European countries (and now America) are going bankrupt, look at the social programs. Social spending, no, you kill the will and motivation of your people because you take care of them.

Scandinavia throws a spear in your spokes.

[Vincent Butler]

I was thinking of countries like Greece. By the way, what do you pay in taxes?

[HoreTore]

I was thinking of countries like Greece. By the way, what do you pay in taxes?

36% income tax, 25% sales tax, plus some additional (smaller) ones based on behaviour.

...And Greece did not go bankrupt because of expanded government programs. Neither will the US. The countries who have gone downhill has done so because of a mismatch between revenue and expenses, plus financial shenanigans.

The welfare state arose in the biggest increase in general wealth the world has ever seen. It doesn't tank your economy. Further, the idea that social security destroys your desire to improve your standing is bullshit. The countries with the largest welfare states are also the countries with the largest social mobility. Countries with a small welfare state, like the US, have the social mobility of a third world country.

[Greyblades]

That is why so many European countries (and now America) are going bankrupt, look at the social programs. Social spending, no, you kill the will and motivation of your people because you take care of them.

Look, we might not exactly be booming right now, but we are not going bankrupt.

[a completely inoffensive name]

nvm, kad being silly.

[Husar]

Really, his teachings advocated a focus on the spiritual, on growth in one's connection to the Almighty, irregardless of one's pelf. He did seem to assert that fixating on the materialistic was an impediment to this, not that the existence of wealth was of itself an evil.

How many people do you know who became rich without having a fixation on money that was greater than their fixation on god?
Exactly, that's where the camel -> needle thing comes from.

But socialism is the government taking care of people, not people taking care of people. Study the Bible, the care of the poor is the responsibility of the church, not the government. That is why so many European countries (and now America) are going bankrupt, look at the social programs. Defense is important, to quote Sun Tsu, "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or ruin." Social spending, no, you kill the will and motivation of your people because you take care of them.

Is that how conservative christianity works in the US? If the Bible doesn't have a quote fitting your world view, just take Sun Tsu?

[Kadagar_AV]

Kad, I am an atheist.

Complete brainfart, thought I was quoting TS.

I really have no defense for that one

Edited it, please do the same with your post, so people don't get confused reading it. You can of course edit it with "NVM, Kad being stupid".

[Vincent Butler]

Is that how conservative christianity works in the US? If the Bible doesn't have a quote fitting your world view, just take Sun Tsu?

Start another crusade, right?

36% income tax, 25% sales tax, plus some additional (smaller) ones based on behaviour.

Don't know what behavior might affect your taxes, but you pay over half of your income in taxes. If you don't mind that, fine. At least you are getting what you pay for. I would rather have that money for other things, but to each his own.

Countries with a small welfare state, like the US, have the social mobility of a third world country.

Don't know about social mobility, I know we used to be very socially mobile, not so much now, but that is because of more socialist policies. When we were less socialist, we had greater mobility. Anyway, when more people rely on the federal government, how do they move up, unless your social mobility is all downward. With the socialist trend in America, more people are on foodstamps. Ronald Reagan said that the goal of the welfare state is to force itself out of existence. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

The countries who have gone downhill has done so because of a mismatch between revenue and expenses, plus financial shenanigans

I agree with that statement, my point is that the mismatch is due to the social spending. Well, or other things, I guess you can attribute that to whatever part of the budget you want. From my conservative standpoint, it is the social programs. Reagan said that the best social program is a job. Democrats seem to want to cut the military part. That is why I brought up Sun Tsu, to emphasize the importance of a military. Countries have gotten along fine without socialism, but those without a military have been taken over or forced to rely on other countries, hence the creation of groups like NATO. A country, like, say, the Netherlands (I use them because I am half Dutch) could not really defend itself if say Russia or France attacked it. Well, maybe they could against France. NATO is very beneficial for countries in that situation, after all, what are allies for.

I am going to have to reduce my time on The Org, what with college starting I have more important things to focus on now, not to mention my Viking raids. Got to pay for school somehow. (I am descended from Vikings) I probably won't really respond but every now and then, so if I do, it will only be on the most recent posts. I did not expect this thread to get so controversial, but it was interesting.

[HopAlongBunny]

Some clarity might help.

US social spending is not all that much lower than most European countries

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-...0743904-table1

So you might want to quibble more about value for money, or need/allocation mismatch.

In fact, social spending is lower than it has been in the past; this lack of gov't investment in the populace has not lifted all boats...so what's up with that?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending

Unless you can show that somehow abolishing social spending will help everyone, it's kind of insane to wish to follow that policy.

[Ironside]

Start another crusade, right?

Don't know what behavior might affect your taxes, but you pay over half of your income in taxes. If you don't mind that, fine. At least you are getting what you pay for. I would rather have that money for other things, but to each his own.

Don't know about social mobility, I know we used to be very socially mobile, not so much now, but that is because of more socialist policies. When we were less socialist, we had greater mobility. Anyway, when more people rely on the federal government, how do they move up, unless your social mobility is all downward. With the socialist trend in America, more people are on foodstamps. Ronald Reagan said that the goal of the welfare state is to force itself out of existence. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

The US is lower on social mobillity (source) than more socialist countries. The US is notable with the poor staying poor and the rich staying rich, while those in the middle moves more.

The socialist policies are there to keep people from getting stuck with a bad start (poor parents) or crashing down if they have bad luck with their jobs.
I think two misconceptions are common. One is that everyone will jump to abuse the system if they got the opportunity for it. It happens, but is quite rare, unless you've done a really poor system. For most people, it'll work as intended and be temporary.
The second is that if you push out unemployed people into extreme poverty, they will somehow create valid jobs out of desperation. According to that logic, there wouldn't be economic depressions. And poor countries would have high employment.

Add that many Americans haven't been poor, thus getting the wrong impression. Most poor people knows how to keep the costs down, simply by getting forced into it. It's not uncommon that winning a few millions wrecks them and places them in debt, because suddenly they spend more money that they earn and don't go back to the poor living habits when the money is spent.

That means that if you know how to save, you can afford that giant TV after a while. The richer guy don't know how to save, because he considers all his extra expenses as basic stuff. And he can never afford that giant TV, despite earning twice as much. And of course that proof that the poor guy is getting too much, not that the richer guy has excessive living expenses compared to what he earns.

[Papewaio]

Australia has a fairly robust economy despite social welfare.

Universal healthcare
Cheap university access (until the current government removes it)
Good (not great) unemployment benefits
Decent minimum wage

So I see a robust economy, greater opportunity to further oneself and a wage system that means the government isn't subsidizing the private sector.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But socialism is the government taking care of people, not people taking care of people.

Certainly, I would agree that the principles of helping each other, of justice and equality, are all central to Christianity. But it is quite a leap to suggest that a socialist system, with state ownership of the means of production, is somehow a true (or at least, Christian) manifestation of such principles. Human liberty is another core Christian value, and one that is hard to reconcile with a truly socialist system (if not so much, say, a more social democratic system).

The Catholic Church does a good job at articulating a Christian approach to politics in the form of Catholic social teaching. In terms of wealth/inequality/socialism etc, it has some interesting ideas. For example, distributism - the idea that every individual should privately own a portion of the means of production.

Governments are nothing but many people. I'm not advocating for a move from free market systems, I am saying that the Church needs to be present as a massive bleeding heart that's constantly asking the government how the poor and disadvantaged are surviving. Might be different in Europe from what HoreTore says, but in the US religion goes hand in hand with the right wing and right wing ideology just does not mix well with Christianity. The last 35 years have been one long string of television evangelicals bible thumping from McMansions they call super churches asking for the poor to sacrifice so that the "rights" of rich individuals are preserved.

Extreme individualism strips away the only beauty I see in religion, which is the duty towards community.

Don't know about social mobility, I know we used to be very socially mobile, not so much now, but that is because of more socialist policies. When we were less socialist, we had greater mobility. Anyway, when more people rely on the federal government, how do they move up, unless your social mobility is all downward. With the socialist trend in America, more people are on foodstamps. Ronald Reagan said that the goal of the welfare state is to force itself out of existence. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

I agree with that statement, my point is that the mismatch is due to the social spending. Well, or other things, I guess you can attribute that to whatever part of the budget you want. From my conservative standpoint, it is the social programs. Reagan said that the best social program is a job. Democrats seem to want to cut the military part. That is why I brought up Sun Tsu, to emphasize the importance of a military. Countries have gotten along fine without socialism, but those without a military have been taken over or forced to rely on other countries, hence the creation of groups like NATO. A country, like, say, the Netherlands (I use them because I am half Dutch) could not really defend itself if say Russia or France attacked it. Well, maybe they could against France. NATO is very beneficial for countries in that situation, after all, what are allies for.

You are just wrong. You are wrong. What you just said, is incorrect. It is false. Your ideas do not represent reality. Before FDR, troops lived in shanty towns outside Washington D.C. and elderly people died overwhelmingly in poverty, from poverty. Inequality has been rising on a direct correlation since the rise of neo conservatism and the election of Reagan.

I remember an episode of True Detective when Marty's father in law starts ranting about the world going to hell and how families "sticked together" back then. And Marty looks at him and says if things really were that great, why did people change it in the first place?

[HoreTore]

Don't know about social mobility, I know we used to be very socially mobile, not so much now, but that is because of more socialist policies. When we were less socialist, we had greater mobility. Anyway, when more people rely on the federal government, how do they move up, unless your social mobility is all downward. With the socialist trend in America, more people are on foodstamps. Ronald Reagan said that the goal of the welfare state is to force itself out of existence. I guess that is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

lolwut?

The American welfare state is at an all-time low. It used to be bigger back in the 60's and 70's, at which time you had social mobility at levels equal to a standard European country.

But then Reagan came along and slashed the welfare state, which also slashed your social mobility. No president(including Obama) has made any serious attempt to rebuild the welfare state you built up after ww2, and so social mobility in the US remains low.

[HoreTore]

Governments are nothing but many people. I'm not advocating for a move from free market systems, I am saying that the Church needs to be present as a massive bleeding heart that's constantly asking the government how the poor and disadvantaged are surviving.

I may not have a very positive view of Christianity, but I have always liked and respected the church. The reason for that is what you're saying: they stand up for the weak, the poor and the helpless. They fight on their behalf, and does its best to ensure the rest of society do not forget their existence.

[Husar]

Start another crusade, right?

How is that a reply to what I said/asked, right?

[Kadagar_AV]

Vincent Butler, would you mind clearly showing who you quote. You are just quoting sentences, and it at times gets hard to understand just who you are answering.

Saw that you quoted me way earlier, but as my name wasn't there, I just skimmed it and missed to reply.

Cheers :)

[Crandar]

I may not have a very positive view of Christianity, but I have always liked and respected the church. The reason for that is what you're saying: they stand up for the weak, the poor and the helpless. They fight on their behalf, and does its best to ensure the rest of society do not forget their existence.

By doing what?
Excommunicating revolutionaries?

[HoreTore]

By doing what?
Excommunicating revolutionaries?

By doing what I said in the last two sentences.

[rory_20_uk]

I may not have a very positive view of Christianity, but I have always liked and respected the church. The reason for that is what you're saying: they stand up for the weak, the poor and the helpless. They fight on their behalf, and does its best to ensure the rest of society do not forget their existence.

They like to say they do.

Of course, they also like to hide all evidence to the contrary for as long as possible. And swear victims to secrecy.

And although looking after the poor is of course the main reason for existence, one can't really look after the poor without spending loads of money on oneself and those around one...

[HoreTore]

They like to say they do.

Of course, they also like to hide all evidence to the contrary for as long as possible. And swear victims to secrecy.

And although looking after the poor is of course the main reason for existence, one can't really look after the poor without spending loads of money on oneself and those around one...

There are certainly a few of those.

Still, my main impression of the priesthood here is that they are a valuable ally in the good fight. They are good guys for the most part.

Note that I am talking of mainstream churches here, not the pentecostals. I have yet to see a sane one among those.