Comments on: Shouldn’t all Christians be socialists?

By: kai5263499

kai5263499 — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:43:56 +0000

That depends, was the redistribution voluntary or coerced? Since God himself established the notion of private property I fail to see how redistribution, which is wholly different than voluntarily selling one's possessions (which, itself connotates a notion of private property) in order to serve others, is in any way a Biblical concept.

BTW: Missed you last Sunday. Hope you are doing alright

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:46:36 +0000

Did this brother say "christians ought to be socialists" or that the quoted scriptures show common posessions and redistribution of property so "there was no needy among them" is closer to socialism than capitalism?

It is easy to demonize with terms of fear like "liberal" or "socialist" until you see the ministry of the church did not look like the Christian coalition!

By: portwes

portwes — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:12:54 +0000

You have too much faith in human nature: given it's tendency to self-interest and self-preservation, capitalism, socialism, and most other forms of economic and political governance will tend towards corruption and oppression, without proper independent oversight and regulation.

There are shining examples of socialistic-leaning governments doing quite well in northern Europe through this depression, without sacrificing individual freedom and initiative, just as there are of capitalistic economies doing well. I think the key to successful government is not the economic model used, but the representative democracy behind it.

I also think that any amount of non-ideological research will show that plenty of capitalism existed before Jesus lived on earth, as did democracy. Tying the life of Jesus to any one political or economic system is a huge stretch of the imagination, and would probably go against the spirit of what he taught.

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:43:57 +0000

Corruption and greed are never a capitalistic principals simply because they are setup to fail in the long-run. In Stark's book he makes a point of citing nations that had large amounts of wealth and describing how they were not capitalistic because they didn't re-invest their wealth into their business (which includes their workers) and they tended to consume (or attempt to consume) all their profits (which makes long-term investing impossible).

Capitalism isn't perfect, but at least it does have built-in controls to guard against corruption and oppression. The problem is that we, as a free market of consumers, have largely abdicated our responsibility to government officials who are easily bought.

By: portwes

portwes — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:38:59 +0000

"relatively free (unregulated) market, taking a systematic, long-term approach to investing and reinvesting wealth (directly or indirectly) in productive activities . . . "

How'd that work out for Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Enron? (I guess if you're an exec at one of those, life is pretty good for you: fail at investing, get a huge bonus.)

By: music2myear

music2myear — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:39:22 +0000

I'd add that an important basis of any economic and governmental system that Christians in particular ought to consider is the freedom it allows the individual to make their own choices about how they live their lives. A system that allows greater freedom also allows the true character of the individual to show more than a system that forcibly and unvoluntarily redistributes wealth.

Before God we ought to be able to say, after confirmation of our salvation by our names being found in the Book of Life, that we of our own free will lived our lives voluntarily and by personal choice (I'm kinda harping on that) in such a way that brought glory to Him. Saying the government made me do it somehow has less impact,

This was one point of my most recent article "Why Conservative, Christian?"