As we careen towards socialism, keep this in mind

[WhitemoonG]

His Always, Mr. "Uda" Mann, Mercyandgrace, Oncewaslost, and Issachar


Great posts! I guess I would differ only slightly on the point about the rich don't want to share their wealth. Depends on the individuals, although often generally true. However, Bill and Melinda Gates donated some 20-30 BILLION to their charitable foundation for 3rd world health causes, my son's private Christian post grad school received a HUGE endowment to help fund some critical facilities from a Christian author whose name everyone here would likely immediately recognize, who evidently had earned a bundle from royalties and other unspecified sources, and another interesting one:

Paul Newman, aka Butch Cassidy, aka the great Henry Gondorff, founded "Newman's Own" foods, which undoubtedly took a large bundle of start up capital, such that as owner, he has been able to donate all profits after taxes and expenses, to charities, which apparently is now up to 200 million dollars. And, it appears from reading some of the labels, he's also had some good constructive fun and enjoyment while doing it.


There are numerous other examples. And, also many ultrarich who are miserly jerks. (Ebenezer Scrooge?_


There are also lots of situations with ultra wealthy who don't necessarily out and out donate their wealth, but do other things that do benefit people other than just themselves.

My grandfather once taught me something important years ago, that seems stupidly simple, but nevertheless has a lot of wisdom I think. Namely, no matter how ultra wealthy someone may become, he still is able to wear only one pair of pants at a time, even if able to purchase 50 million dollars worth of pants.


Some wealthy, who despite having a bundle, just can't feel happy unless doing something with their money, such as starting some new activity or company, or TV show (Donald Trump), or endeavor to occupy their time, keep them from getting bored silly in their wealth, depending on what makes them tick. Although not expected to solve things on a widespread scale, these things multiplied by thousands do, as part of the setup, involve JOBS that are created for millions of middle income folks. And, like it or not, if governance suddenly compels them to divest some or a lot of that wealth, and pay considerably higher taxes, all that kind of stuff tends to shrink and go away, with downer effects on many who aren't wealthy.


Anyway, great posts, and just an added thought!

[OnceWasLost]

Anyway, great posts, and just an added thought!

Back atcha WhitemoonG :thumb

To add on to that thought, if guys like Gates and Newman were the vocal ones about the rich vs. poor issue I could at least respect them since their money is where their mouth is. They are still clueless (politically IMO Newman moreso than Gates), but they at least earned the right to be clueless.

As for people like john edwards or babbs streisand making the case and living like
scrooge, well those people are worth all the ridicule and contempt that can be thrown their way.

[Stinker]

hmmm ... thinking some more on this ....

We do have "scriptural directives regarding Christlike living for INDIVIDUALS". I see from other of your posts elsewhere that we don't need to go into all that as you apparently know scripture. However, I do wonder about you saying, "is not one and the same as turning over our means to a secular bureaucracy". We don't determine that. The bureaucracy just takes a chunk of our means. How much they take won't be reversed and if they want more, it won't be stopped. Some might consider that pessimistic. I don't believe much is pessimism or optimism. There is just how things are in this world and being in the world but not of it, we are content in Christ. (I know you know that ... I say some stuff for the benefit of possible passers by) If being contented came from circumstances, we'd be as miserable, if not more, then those that are still lost in sin. We'd still be wanting this and wanting that ...

I'm still left with wondering this:
Suppose that there is a case where a company ships it's work offshore and .... say 100 people are out of work and without insurance. One of those people, after the benefits run out (usually the end of the month) is involved in an accident. They are transported to the hospital in an ambulance ($1000?) and receive emergency surgery followed by 8 days of recovery. He gets the bill two weeks later. $43,000.00. Should that person receive help from someone? What if it sinks him financially and he can't make the mortgage and loses his house. Now his family is homeless because without a job, no will even rent to the guy. A simplistic scenerio to be sure, but what about that? :idunno

The fact is, society, due mostly to gross moral breakdown over the past few decades, has some really, really messed up situations. There are many homeless or about to be homeless. Now I'm not talking about the coccaine users and meth users, etc. In my mind, there needs to be a distinction between the above scenerio and the druggies. At least in how they are helped. I don't want to see the druggies just dropped off of a cliff either. Some of them grew up in abusive situations, split homes, violent homes ... just plain garbage. I am friends with a brother that is involved in a couple cases that are so sad and so complicated. I crossed paths with a man who is involved in a very bad situation through no fault of his own. Talking with my friend, it turns out that he it the case worker in this other mans situation. Talk about a small world. It's easy for most Americans to live in the 'burbs and have a Toyota and a SUV and two incomes and live decent lives and be oblivious to what's across the river or at the other end of town. Those folks are usually lumped together as one "class" of people and it's easy to assume that they all get welfare and so their needs are met.

Still with no clue as to what a good solution is, but the more I work on it, the more I think that there is no good solution. I am in NW Ohio and I can say that there is nothing but an increasing amount of folks out of work in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc. and most jobs that they have the skills to do are being offered as "temporary" which means, usually, work as much as you want for a lower wage and no vacation pay, holiday pay, overtime pay and above all, no insurance. These folks resent holidays because the plant is shut down and so they don't get paid for those days. The financial stess, for some reason I don't quite get, causes more divorces which means more kids growing up in split homes which statistically puts them more at risk for abuse and eventual drug usage.

We live in a messed up world. Christians/the church, cannot cure it all. Free enterprise certainly cannot fix it and is often, due to greed, part of the problem and gov't cannot fix it, to be sure. I guess, as Christians, we can only deal with individuals as we are able and in the meantime, the "world", which obviously includes the gov't, will hobble along in it's own ungodly ways.

Issachar

Wise words. Hats of to you

and the more those Jobs disapear, the more votes will go to the Dems. Again, Hello Hillary C.

[Cory]

Seeing this history of atheist murderers chasing after the same vision...
How Cory, can you as a Christian socialist follow this same path? A path that has never been described in the Bible?

Will killing babies and gay marriages be a part of your socialist vision?
I would like to know, Cory.

Abortion: It all depends on the amount of people in comparison to the avaliable resources. If we have fewer resources than needed for the population, the abortion will be legal to control the population to a reasonable level. If we have underpopulation than abortion would b outlawed because we need more people.

Gay marriage: Would be legal because it's not my right to force religion on them by saying "you can't get married and have legal rights because of my religion".

One must alos note that all of the nations thus far that have tried to achieve communism have been backwards nations for their time. Marx once wrote that "the revloution" must take place in a modern society first(although I don't agree with his views on christianity).

[Sing4Him]

[13] No Liberal or Left Wing Agendas, Anti-American Conspiracies, or Anti-War Propaganda. This board is overall a conservative board that falls in line with the Word of God in that we uphold God's word as the final authority on all matters.

[OnceWasLost]

Abortion: It all depends on the amount of people in comparison to the avaliable resources. If we have fewer resources than needed for the population, the abortion will be legal to control the population to a reasonable level. If we have underpopulation than abortion would b outlawed because we need more people.

Gay marriage: Would be legal because it's not my right to force religion on them by saying "you can't get married and have legal rights because of my religion".


You have just demonstrated why "Christian" and "socialist" are mutually exclusive. It is further why, as a Christian, I could never support it if for no other reasons than the ones you stated. Abortion, as you illustrated in your example, it is forced genocide.:ohno Do you not see the problem here Cory?

[MrMannn]

One must alos note that all of the nations thus far that have tried to achieve communism have been backwards nations for their time. Marx once wrote that "the revloution" must take place in a modern society first(although I don't agree with his views on christianity).

Cory you cannot blame the failure of communism on backwards countries. The system is flawed from the start. It doesn't work because its pie in the sky, not because backwards people tried it first.

The problem with your statement is this: Communism can only appeal to uneducated, backwards nations. There simply is NO reason for educated people in the more civilized nations to embrace communism.

So are you really a "Christian Communist?" Marx was an atheist. Communism is based on atheism. "Religion is the opiate of the masses," said some dead communist now likely burning in hell.
In EVERY instance of communist rule, Christianity has been regulated and persecuted. Even Chavez is threatening to persecute and take control of the Church. Your brand of socialism/commie lunacy is simple not compatible with Christianity...as evidence with your embrace of baby killing for the good of society.

One cannot take the atheism out of communism without gutting the entire concept. the two are one.

Thats why I kinda wonder, if you are communist, doesn't that mean you are really an atheist?

If you are not, would your system of government be forced to regulate or shut down churches? Pastors feed their flock, they are supported by their congregations...they aren't working to support the collective. Indeed they will teach that gay marriage is WRONG, that homosexuals will go to hell, and that killing babies is murder. None of which is supported by your government.

Doesn't this put Christianity at odds with your government?

[Biblenuggetlady]

Anyone catch Hilary today...she said that in her "Progressive" stand...she would take the profits of the oil companies away and give them to the gov't. Regardless of your views on oil profits, ANYONE thinking they can take profits away from companies, in a capitalistic country, and give it to the gov't is a very alarming statement. "Progressive" means "Socialism at best"..."Communism at worst". Just something to think about.

[OnceWasLost]

Anyone catch Hilary today...she said that in her "Progressive" stand...she would take the profits of the oil companies away and give them to the gov't. Regardless of your views on oil profits, ANYONE thinking they can take profits away from companies, in a capitalistic country, and give it to the gov't is a very alarming statement. "Progressive" means "Socialism at best"..."Communism at worst". Just something to think about.

I did catch that, although she said it before some weeks back, did she say it again? If so, it can't be sold as a gaff or a misunderstanding. She, with a straight face, has no problem using the term "take" when it comes to a company's profit.:shocked People who support her will either think "ya, get the rich" or they will be clueless that she believes that way. :tsk

[Issachar]

People who support her will either think "ya, get the rich" or they will be clueless that she believes that way. True. In fact, I find that most folks that vote are of the clueless variety. It is rare to find another; i.e. in the the workplace, that has watched or listened to a congressional candidate debate or presidential candidate debate, etc. They will base their voting on what their union leaders told them to do or what the stupid 15 second or 30 second commercial spots state, etc. But become informed? No WAY! Cut into my bowling time? American Idolatry time? A STUPID debate is on? I'll rent a movie since they prempted MY tee vee show!

:panic

Issachar