Replies

Clarity is served if we reverse the order in which the remarks below were made:

'- Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.
Socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin, - it would work if everyone desperately wanted it to. -'

I find this comment interesting, since it implies (without evidence that I'm aware of) that Stolyarov is somehow socialist,

On the contrary, - as we see by the reversal, - the author is attempting to justify a socialist POV; - that our golden rule "only makes sense" when used in a communal way, when "there is something bigger to consider than number one."

and reflects a blurring of Christianity with Capitalism/America.
Before we critique socialism though, we should remember that in the book of Acts, - All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. - (Acts 2:44-45). Karl Marx had a background in Christian schools if I recall correctly, and his mistake perhaps lies in trying to enact some of Christ's teachings separated from their totality, and more importantly, separate from Christ.
Which is closer to scriptural teaching? To provide and share what we have with all people, or to seek after our own wealth and benefit?

Constitutionally speaking, after seeing to your own wealth and benefit, nothing prevents you from providing and sharing with all people. -
- However, forced sharing of "what we have" is not permissible.

I might also add that most other countries in the world would be considered socialist by American standards, and as China in particular demonstrates, they are not in economic ruin.

China is not in economic ruin because the are rapidly adopting a non-socialist "Capitalism/America" style business system. - Unfortunately, individual rights are not a part of their system.

Clarity is served if we reverse the order in which the remarks below were made:

'- Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.

Socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin, - it would work if everyone desperately wanted it to. -'

I find this comment interesting, since it implies (without evidence that I'm aware of) that Stolyarov is somehow socialist,

On the contrary, - as we see by the reversal, - the author is attempting to justify a socialist POV; - that our golden rule "only makes sense" when used in a communal way, when "there is something bigger to consider than number one."

Sorry for being slow, but which author are you referring to? The posts are an amalgam of the statements of 2-3 different individuals writing about yet another writer.

As a follower of Christ, while I respect the Constitution and obey the laws of US authority, it is the word of God that I follow. There can be no other gods placed before God... not even the goddess of democracy. The 'Golden Rule' is not 'ours'... rather, it was freely given to all people by a sovereign God, and it rests upon the 'Greatest Commandment'. We are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind, and to love our neighbour as ourselves.

I think you're entirely correct that true sharing cannot be forced, but it is not merely sharing from our excess after we are provided for. All good things we have are given by God, and we should know that if we seek after God, He will always provide for our needs. Even in poverty, I have much to share.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'forced sharing' in a national context. If you mean the providing of public services through tax dollars, this is already done in the US. Please clarify if I've misunderstood your meaning.

China is not necessarily adopting a 'Capitalist/American' business system. What they are transforming into has its roots very strongly in a Chinese history of entrepeneurship and private enterprise. If anything, it is much more free market in application than 'American Capitalism'. Deng Xiao Ping referred to it as 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics'. Others may call it simply Chinese pragmatism.

If you dislike China as an example of Socialism not leading to economic ruin, you could look at any of the leading economic nations of Europe. All are to varying degrees socialist.