Posted on 05/03/2009 9:53:16 AM PDT by OneVike
It has been the aim of the Democrat party since they lost the Presidential election in 2004 to subvert the Christian doctrine with the claim that Jesus was a socialist. Their goal is to convince Christians that their Social agenda is morally equivalent with the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. Considering the lack of historical and Biblical knowledge most Americans have, it is not surprising that many have fallen for the misinformation on what Jesus taught (and for whom the teachings were given). These Biblical revisionists have become especially adept at cherry picking Scripture to suit their agenda. Hence, many have come to misunderstand the gospel of Christ by equating it with modern day Socialism.
My first point of contention with the idea that Christ was a socialist, is His teachings and the example of His life. Throughout the time that Christ lived with His disciples, He never worked. Instead he was dependent upon the charity and good hearts of those who surrounded Him. Now that is not to say Jesus was lazy or a bum either. Jesus was always about His Fathers business, and that business was the salvation of mankind. Nowhere in the Scriptures will you find Jesus telling His followers to rely upon anyone except those who were willing to hear the gospel and share what they had. If the people refused to hear the gospel or be charitable, Jesus told His disciples to rebuke them and go to others who were willing to hear the teachings, as when He sent them out by pairs. (Matthew chapter 10)
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
“If anything, God is a populist.” ~ knarf
“I disagree. God is a CAPITALIST.” ~ usconservative
I report - you decide:
“Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power. In all things they act on the presumption that they know best. Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature.” ~ Dr. Ronald H. Nash
Excerpted from: In Defense of Capitalism http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352736/posts
<>
“..the word “capitalism” is actually a Marxist term..”:
January 21, 2009
The End of Capitalism?
Michael Miller
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Miller-The-End-Of-Capitalism.php
Who would have imagined 20 years ago when the Berlin Wall fell and we celebrated the death of socialism that capitalism would begin 2009 under heavy fire. The Cardinal of Westminster, Cormack Murphy O’Connor, reportedly went so far as to say that, as 1989 marked the end communism, 2008 was the year when “capitalism had died.”
What are we to make of capitalism in light of all the crises, fraud, and government intervention, when even some traditional supporters of markets are supporting bailouts and seem to have lost faith in the market order? Is capitalism no longer credible? Is capitalism really to blame for the financial woes we now face?
Before we try to answer this question, it is important to point out that the word “capitalism” is actually a Marxist term, and while we use it interchangeably with “market economy,” the Marxist view of capitalism surprisingly still shapes the way we tend to understand economics. The term capitalism gives the impression that the market is something out there: a nebulous force which can create great wealth but can also turn and harm us. This impersonal understanding can lead us to blame markets when things go wrong instead of looking for reasons that are harder to diagnose and often reveal deeper cultural and spiritual issues.
Pope John Paul II specifically rejected the term capitalism and its mechanistic, amoral, and impersonal image, preferring instead “market economy,” “business economy,” or “free economy.” He did so not to be pedantic, but to illustrate the important truth that markets are fundamentally networks of human relationships. Understanding markets this way sheds light not only on many economic problems, but also on the underlying moral nature of markets. If markets are intrinsically connected to human action then they necessarily have a moral dimension. Capitalism as seen by Marxists, or even within neo-classical mathematical models, separates markets from moralityand thus from reality. This, as we have seen, can have disastrous consequences.
Markets are the combined activities of millions of individuals and families. They are not composed merely of some guys on Wall Street; they are made up by us. Like anything else run by humans, markets are not perfect and can fail. If we become overly speculative and convinced that prices can go nowhere but up so that we violate all norms of prudence and keep buying at outlandish pricesas happened in the Tulip Bubble in 1637 the dot.com bubble in 2000 and the housing bubble last yearsooner or later reality will set in.
Despite their failures however, free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and helped create prosperity and peace better than any system ever devised. So much so that even in today’s financial downturn, as hard as it may be, very few people who live in mature market economies are completely without resources or on the brink of starvation. Notice that markets are often blamed for the downturns, yet we tend to forget the cause of the upturn.
In these days of financial turmoil, we often hear critics speaking about de-regulation or “unbridled capitalism.” Both of these are straw men. Unbridled capitalism is a myth. Try to think of one country where there are no regulations on the economy or business. For free markets to succeed and be sustainable, they require a framework built of rule of law, contracts, and secure property rights.
The real question is what kind of regulation and what level of intervention we should choose. It is important to remember that many of the contributing causes of this crisis were precisely an overly invasive government. Federal regulators required banks to provide mortgages to customers who could not pay back the loans; the Federal Reserve manipulated the money supply, exacerbating the housing boom; and politicians of all stripes promised bailouts that incentivized irresponsible behavior.
These are prime examples of what Friedrich Hayek labeled “the fatal conceit”: the notion that bureaucrats and politicians have enough knowledge to plan an economy better than individuals and businesses.
At least on equal par with a juridical framework as a factor in sustaining market systems is a specific moral culture. This includes trust, diligence, collaboration, honesty, perseverance, and prudence. If this crisis has taught us anything, it is the importance of morality for a market economy. The list of the seven deadly sins comprises an outline of the crisis’s causes. How many of us out of greed, gluttony, or pride used credit cards to buy things we did not need or could not afford, just so we could have the latest gadget or keep up with the Joneses? What about Wall Street bankers who couldn’t resist the chance to make ever more and took imprudent risks with clients’ money, or out of pride bought financial instruments they hardly understood. Markets cannot succeed without a strong moral fabric among the citizenry.
Yet instead of learning the lessons of the past, we again hear calls for increased regulation and government involvement. Some regulation is necessary, but we must not look to regulation to solve our moral problems. Here is where the realization that markets are networks of human relationships is important.
If we regulate too much, we concentrate the power of markets in fewer and fewer hands. This has led to all sorts of evil and corruption. Socialist economies, cartels, oligarchies, and union-controlled industries where the price mechanism cannot function produce stagnation and create incentives for corruption. It is a false hope to believe that regulation will make everything right. This is a utopian dream that ignores human failing and is the same promise that has been peddled by the socialists.
It is likewise delusional to believe that markets alone are enough. Markets require more than just efficiency; they require virtue. Our Founders taught us that without virtue political liberty could not long be sustained. The same holds true for economic liberty. And yet without economic liberty there can be no political liberty. Like liberty, the market must be moral, or it cannot exist at all.
I'm just quoting Jesus.
Ask him.
Oh, no! I’m sorry about him losing his keys and your physical problems from the fallout of driving back and forth so much!! GRRRR! Why is nothin’ ever easy?
“No, there is NO justification for socialism beyond the members of the Church that is ever mentioned in the Bible.” ~ Mr.B
See my #59:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2243243/posts?page=59#59
<>
“Maybe someone could help me out, though. I’m doing a little “self opposition” research. Does anyone know of ANY scriptural justification for the idea that “man is basically good”?” ~ Mr.B
“Whenever I meet someone who claims to find faith in God impossible, but who persists in believing in the essential goodness of humanity, I know that I have met a person for whom evidence is irrelevant.” ~ Dennis Prager ( Ultimate Issues , July- September, 1989)
Emory Report 11/29/99 Vol.52. No. 13 Excerpt:
“...Marci Hamilton ... [is] a nationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law. ....
Her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and asserts that the American “copyright regime” is grounded in Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the producer.
Calvinism? Hamilton’s interest in the intersection of Calvinist theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars. She was puzzled by their “theme of a system of self-rule.” “They talked about it as if it were in existence,” she said. “My gut reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that doesn’t really exist.”
What Hamilton found was that a “deep and abiding distrust of human motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the Constitution.” Her investigation of that issue has led to another forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What the Framers Meant by Representation.
That our country’s form of government is a republic instead of a pure democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional framers “expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the Constitution constructs a representative system of government that places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials.”
And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and communication with their elected representatives, she said.
“The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on distrust of all social entities, including the people.” ...
..Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison, were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.
It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that “more than any other Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man’s will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good.”
In other words, Calvinism holds that “we can hope for the best but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions humans devise.”
More: http://www.freerepublic.com/~matchettpi/
Socialists recoil from any sign of Christianity like a vampire from a cross.
That tells you all you need to know about whether Jesus was a socialist.
None. Which is why socialism is NEVER going to work.
No, I’m asking you. What do you do in light of those verses?
I also got a chance to examine just about every place in that resort while searching for my keys, and I also commend the wonderful staff people there for their assistance .................. FRegards
God instituted civil government, church government, individual government and family government, each with (mostly) separate areas of jurisdiction. Any attempt to place civil government over church, family and individual in the manner advocated by the socialists (ie. secular humanists) will lead to tyranny and the destruction of Christian civilization.
All forms of socialism are a denial of God, Chrisitanity and the rule of law.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Personally I don't have that level of faith in God, so I going to work tomorrow to make sure I have food, clothing and shelter.
Yes, I agree that a great time was had by all at the conference! It was GREAT seeing you guys, too. I hope we can get together again soon! Whoo Hoo!
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
I saw what was happening a while ago and stopped playing nicey-nice with leftists under religious garb.
You try to put socialism over me, you support slavery. Don't expect me to turn the other cheek.
I had one liberal ahole during an argument over teachers’ unions and their holding families hostage by illegally striking in September tell me: “It's your Christian duty to support them.”
Thanks for the excerpt.
Isn’t the threat of eternal damnation compulsory?
When it comes to Jesus, most would prefer to believe the lie.
No, but because they LIED to the Holy Spirit.
Acts 5:1-11
Ac 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. 11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things
Here's where you went wrong: The sinners that Jesus forgave were his own; None of that crowd in DC is any part of his own!
Jesus is a Monarchist. He’s the Monarch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.