I have come to embrace Socialism!

reply to post by SassyCat


Socialism today does force you to give away your possessions. It's called foreclosure. Socialists who voted for Obama are unemployed in large numbers. They lose their homes cause they can't pay their mortgages. Now Bank of America has frozen all foreclosures. That means banks won't be giving out loans. There won't be any collateral from lenders. Socialists can hold onto their cardboard appliance box houses for as long as they can, until a bigger and burlier socialist comes along with a big bat to steal that cardboard box house. Or the city sends refuse trucks through the alleyways to pick up the cardbboard the Capitalist home owners complain as unsightly.

Originally posted by trash

Originally posted by seenitall
Jesus was a Christian?

LOL!

Yes, if you knew your biblical history you would know that Christianity was originally a Jewish sect. Jesus was a Christian, which was a branch of Judaism of the day.

You are confusing early Christianity with Catholicism. Peter served as the first Pope, Peter and Paul were both martyred. Things started to change with the rise of Catholicism.

The scribes Peter and Paul argued extensively with one another over how many of the traditions from the other Jewish sects should be carried over to the new Christian base. The timeline rolled onward.......And then we had that movie Mel Gibson made about the Crucifixion.

Where are you getting your information from?

Almost instantly Christianity was attacked by Judaism. Christianity also instantly spread to non-Jews. First to Samaritans then ultimately to Gentiles. It spread so fast and so deeply to Gentiles that the first council of the church met together primarily to discuss how to implement the Gospel to these Gentiles so quickly embracing Christ.

Of all the Jewish customs and religious practices there were the early church leaders mandated only THREE things to Gentile converts: Do not worship or eat meat sacrificed to idols. Do not drink blood and abstain from sexual immorality. That's it.

Peter did not make himself the first Pope nor was recognized as such. James the earthly brother of Jesus was recognized as the leader of the church of Jerusalem and was looked to as the leader in all major decisions until he was martyrd with the sword by Herod. The organized Catholic church under the rule of Constantine began to classify Peter as such in a "post-humous" fashion based upon the possible misunderstanding of the passage where Simon's name was changed to Peter by Jesus. Protestants will argue that the Church was not built on Peter himself but upon the utterance or revelation of Peter that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God and upon that revelation is the foundation for Jesus' church...not a man.

Half of the four Gospels were written by a Gentile physician and a half-Jewish man.

reply to post by JudgedCover


I'd rather sit on a pile of red ants eating Ben and Jerry's 'Cherry Garcia' then have to set you theologically straight. Or theologically gay, whatever your theological preference. You've presented so many 'far gone' conclusions that I hold more then enough wisdom to know that you will continue to walk nilly-willy down the yello brick road. But I will gladly referee a Texas Steel Death Cage Match between you and Mel Gibson. If you have the cahoons to get into the cage with the Gibster.

And now that Utopians have diverted the whole socialist conversation over to theological metaphors, I have this to say: No more comparisons to Jesus, okay? That's really, really silly.

Originally posted by trash
reply to post by JudgedCover

 

I'd rather sit on a pile of red ants eating Ben and Jerry's 'Cherry Garcia' then have to set you theologically straight. Or theologically gay, whatever your theological preference. You've presented so many 'far gone' conclusions that I hold more then enough wisdom to know that you will continue to walk nilly-willy down the yello brick road. But I will gladly referee a Texas Steel Death Cage Match between you and Mel Gibson. If you have the cahoons to get into the cage with the Gibster.

edit on 8-10-2010 by trash because: (no reason given)

My "theology" was entirely based upon the book of Acts. I won't resist any criticism someone may want to give on the historical accuracy of a Canonical New Testament Book, but if you believe yourself to be a believer in Christ and disagree with anything I said in that post then I suggest you tear the New Testament from your Bible to help you have integrity.

In regards to Mr. Gibson, I respect nearly all of his body of work and recognize him as an amazingly talented individual. As a man, I do not wish to judge him, but it's obvious he has his "demons" he battles with as do most of us and I hope he finds peace as do you my friend who has an affinity for colorful adjectives.

reply to post by JudgedCover


I'm really pleased to hear that you don't think enough of Mel Gibson to judge him one way or the other, but I am so thoroughly implanted into your thought processes that you go out of your way to judge me.

In a sense....and you won't consciously admit this.......you have pushed Mel Gibson aside while at the same time elevating my status.

This could become a script for South Park.

At least we have spared the audience of any more conversation equating Jesus to socialism. That, in itself, is a pure act of Samaritan mercy.

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet

I have been trying to understand how anyone could actually believe in socialism so I plant to read all of this thread and the article. But before I even start first question:

How can you equate the individual and self-start charity of Jesus to the forced kind that a socialist gov. would impose? How can it really be charity if someone makes you do it?

LOL! I don`t think I`ve ever read a post that`s made me chuckle so much ever. The arogance of Americans never ceases to amaze me. Always thinking ``We`re the best country in the world`` . Bah! Not even close. Socialism is the best example of how a country should be run for so many reasons. First reason: Health care. It baffles me why the people of the U.S.A. are so against government run health care. Geuss how much it cost me to have my first born? Nothing. If I get sick and need an operation I still pay nothing. I work my ass off and pay taxes, the least my government can do is provide me with free health care. A person should not need to go bankrupt if they become sick. Our economy is much more stable than that of the United States one reason is that we regulate our Banks more than the U.S. and our Government has direct control over our Central Bank. Oh! and we also don`t Permit our citizens to walk around with hand guns, that`s just stupid.

Jesus asked the wealthy man to relinquish his earthly treasures by choice, to break his bond with earthly things. THAT is not socialism! Socialism is the concept that believes we are all equally entititled to comfort and wealth, which we all are through the fruits of our own labors unless of course, we are socialist. In fact, Jesus saw wealth differently, he did not believe each of us was equally entitled to it although he did believe each of us could earn it.
Eutopia is a socialist pipe dream, and it could just as easily be a capitalist pipe dream. Instead of agreeing with a newspaper article, you might be better served to read some early socialist doctrine. Even early socialists did not believe we were equally endowed, some were more endowed and they would be the leaders. After reading your post, it is obvious where you would fit in a socialist society - is that OK with you?? If that is the case, you might prefer the poverty of a capitalist society in comparison to the poverty of a socialist society. If you believe you have anything to bring to the table, you will definately prefer the poverty of a capitalist society.
If you want to be like Jesus, put others first and relinquish your earthly desires. If you want to be a freeloader that believes life comes with prescribed entitlements of wealth, be a socialist - but, you will quickly learn that shared wealth is shared poverty.

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


There is not a right economic system of govt. Every single one has its problems and its enemies. Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, they all have one thing in common that prevents their idealistic solutions...People.

I have often heard the comical quote: "Communism looks great on paper" This quote could be used for any form of govt or economic system. They all look great on paper but once you implement them, there are just too many variables that cannot be accounted for. Namely the greed, ignorance, arrogance and stupidity of humanity.

In a computer model with non-human entities, everyone of these systems could be very successful(whatever that means) but once you input the human element, problems begin to arise.

And on that note, how does one determine the "success" on any of these systems?

Greed and power corrupt all men and women. Until this fact can be fixed, they will all have serious faults.

Actually, America was once the leader of the "Free World", so-called, but in many ways it is now the most backward Western nation by far, especially in social and economic inequality, lack of a real safety net, no national heath care system, a horrendously unequal education system, extreme divisions between classes and ethnic groups. It almost any comparison with all the Western nations, it comes in at the bottom of the list.


We have many powerful elite interests who want to keep things this way because they profit from it, and a large number of "useful idiots" who can always be manipulated into voting against their own interests by using racism, religion, flag waving and so on.

We really have gone downhill badly in the last 30-40 years and now I think it has become terminal. Oh well...

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


Socialism is all about theft of production equipment, whereas Jesus told people not to steal things. Jesus was non-political, which of course is great. That would make him a libertarian or voluntaryist seeing how he never forced people to do things against their will and never attempted to seize assets against people's will. Jesus wasn't so foolish as to think the government would solve other people's problems for them, and that makes him very non-political. Smart guy, apparently. If what the Bible says is true, then Jesus would have to have been imperfect to be a socialist, since socialists are in favor of theft (taking without people's permission).

Libertarians and voluntaryists help solve people's problems without involving the government. Sounds a lot like what Jesus did... which is if you want someone to be helped then do it your self instead of forcing others to do it against their will. And like Jesus, voluntaryists and Libertarians are persecuted by the government for daring to question their authority and whether we really need to rely on them so much rather than relying on each other. Jesus strategy of essentially ignoring and avoiding the government completely was brilliant and effective. Its what everyone should be doing and it sure as hell isn't remotely close to socialism. It is however, close to libertarianism and voluntaryism.

Socialists all have one thing in common. They assume that mankind has no capacity for helping each other out voluntarily and solving problems together. They assume people must be forced to help each other by government mandate. Libertarians, voluntaryists, and Jesus on the other hand assume mankind has capacity for good should they chose to do that and the capacity to take the moral high ground. They also believe mankind will choose good over selfishness.

reply to post by camaro68ss

Not everyone can be millionaires. this is one of the flaws of socialism

Almost no one will be a millionaire. This is one of the flaws of capitalism.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by inivux

 

I disagree. You are saying that theoretically socialism is good, Im saying its not even good theoretically. How is socialism good theoretically?

If we live on an Island, a small group of people, and I build a boat that I plan to give to the Community, how is it good for "the collective" to come take my boat away, depriving me of the chance to truly give?

In your scenario, wouldnt socialism be, everyone on the island helping to build the boat and everyone having an opportunity to use it?

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Not everyone can be millionaires. this is one of the flaws of socialism

Almost no one will be a millionaire. This is one of the flaws of socialism.

Since socialism has almost always been a movement of the working class, small farmers and peasants, it never promised that all of them would be millionaires. It promised that it would smash the ruling elites that were oppressing them politically and economically, create a more just society in which the health, education, housing and working conditions of the common people would be improved. This cannot happen when all the wealth of society is in the hands of an elite or aristocracy.

Many people on this thread are confuseing Socialism with Communism. Know what you are talking about before you start chirping.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by JudgedCover

 

I travel 3 miles to and from work on a piece of crap road full of pot holes, so...
I went to school, but now I pay a large amount in school taxes to two different counties and I have no children.

And when you were a child attending public school, there were many people without children that paid taxes to support your education. Its paying back into a system that allowed you the tools to succeed.

That pothole filled road might be a dirt trail had taxes not paid for it to be built.

Originally posted by trash
reply to post by JudgedCover

 

And now that Utopians have diverted the whole socialist conversation over to theological metaphors, I have this to say: No more comparisons to Jesus, okay? That's really, really silly.

edit on 8-10-2010 by trash because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2010 by trash because: (no reason given)

Placing Jesus in his proper historical context, I would say he was a popular prophet, teacher and peasant revolutionary who wanted to overthrow the rule of the Romans and their local Jewish collaborators. He thought that he was in communication with God in some way and that the unjust social order would be overthrown by an an act of divine intervention. Perhaps even the whole Roman Empire--the Kingdom of Satan--would be overthrown. Then the Utopian Kingdom of God that took its place would be just to the poor, the blind, the disabled, the common people--the last shall be first and the first shall be like.

Naturally American fundamentalists who embrace the capitalist system do not comprehend that message, but it still resonates with the poor of the world, who were the real audience of Jesus in any case.

There was a resaon that so many of the slaves and urban poor of the Roman Empire embraced this religion, even in Paul's version, and it was seen as a threat to the state before finally being co-opted by Constantine and turned into an "official" state religion.

it's interesting that in these economic times, almost the entire world (except Venezuela and the U.S.) are moving to the right economically. google the austerity measures france, portugal, spain, and greece are going through right now and ask yourself if that sounds like a bright future.

reply to post by witness63


I had a mis type. I have corrected the error.

My post makes a little more sense now.

Darkmask-

In Scandinavia, for example, one probably doesn't feel the need for a gun for protection from the government. However, as the U.S. has become increasingly (essentially) Fascist, a gun provides a certain sense of security against a growing tyranny that has taken root here, in particular after 9/11.

Your medical care sounds fantastic. One of the greatest problems in the U.S. is that it doesn't matter how much taxes are raised to supposedly cover health care and even build new infrastructure. America is so corrupt at this point, that the money will just be siphoned away to pay for some ridiculous war that will drag the country down even further.

If we ever saw our tax dollars go for anything that actually improved our own lives that we could see, then Americans might be less reluctant about having a heavier tax burden. However, it's hard to get excited about paying more when you never see anything for your tax money, except for a few more kids being butchered by Predator Drones in Afghanistan or Pakistan.