Lithe Oleander;110412 wrote:
You have to understand the difference between charity and socialism. Charity means you want to give, socialism means you are force to give. Jesus does not want us to be socialists, he wants us to be charitable.
Hello, Lithe and welcome to the forum. Socialism has it pinching points as we have numerous ways of defining it. Socialism, my definition is people caring for one another and that just about sums it up. Does that mean we have to be charitable. No. If we really care there would be no reason for charity to exist. The sharing of knowledge would be intermingled with talents, resources and there would be a balance among people that would be understood. Not all are the same and it is one's gifts that they offer for others determines what others bestow on the one. It is not due to what one wants for there is a load of wealth in the giving in and of itself that most just do not realize. (Take away the tax advantages, and watch what happens to "giving" and those charities attached) Most who have more who do give, do so privately so others will not be so asking. The world it seems is full of those who have less and we rationalize those as being "undeserving" for a variety of stupid reasons.
When one gives freely, it is, likewise, returned freely. What I mean by that is hard to understand when it is related to the costs "imposed" today. We have no idea of what "free" means for everything has costs attached.
Didymos Thomas;98964 wrote:
You can appreciate his moral teachings and be a socialist. But Jesus is pretty clear that his message, his mission, is not political, but spiritual. It's about personal spiritual transformation, not governmental reform.
Matt 22:21 "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
For Jesus and moral teachers like him, giving political guidance was unnecessary. As I said, correct the individual's morals and the government will finally follow accordingly.
In other words what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, is government and those "individuals" involved in it, should care little about morals and it is up to the people to establish morality? Please offer how that can be done, in your opinion without major consequences ensuing or revolution or uprising?
How can a government rule without a moral base? Our forefathers had one, and look what we did to that? It seems anytime the word "morality" appears it is referred to religion and the church, and we know we are trying to separate church and state. Does that mean morality and state? We have laws that prevent morality and we call them civil liberties in which it means, for the most part, anyone can do anything they want to or desire to. We know that is wrong but we effort so little in speaking of it for being branded hateful or a bigot or a zealot or a homophobe.
Christ was preaching to the choir for the most part, his words were for those who govern and they killed him for it. (Or so it is written) It put their rule in jeopardy or that is how it seems anyway. The rulers of the day said it was god's decision that he die. What a crock. Great escape clause though, don't you think. What a diversion! And so the story goes on and on......!
That is not different than it is today and what it is you are saying that is highlighted above. Most are powerless to offer anything that will be defined as moral in today's reality if there is such a thing anymore and the "rich are getting richer". Ha! WWJD today? Do you think he would ride into town on an ass? I think God would indeed do things a little different than what is understood the bible brings forth. History is written by those who hung heroes and it is rift with it.
The whole idea that is expressed offers the futility of being good and what that means and instead instills fear if one would dare go against any governing body. "Find your peace in the after life". Ha, LOL!!! Yeah, right. If that were the case then what is the use for living in the first place for anyone. What good is it to rule if there is no one to rule over. Set your throne in a graveyard. Best they keep their mouth shut and just suffer until they die, huh?
They will get used to it. That's just the way it is now, isn't it? Forced governing laws over man will never work and never have. As long as he does not have the entitlements he deserves in that this is his planet too he will resort to anything to ensure those needs are met, Some are not so meek and the bible states. Equity and balance is the answer and nothing else will suffice as it relates to all the Earth has to offer and we all are a part of that. It is the oneness and the equillibrium objective rarity will never furnish yet that is were we determine what has value. Now that's a word for you, isn't it?
As Christ was said to have said "The meek shall inherit the Earth." What Earth. The one most Christians think god is going to destroy? What a prize that is? The bible is filled with conundrums such as this but it is so worded so none would dare question it and it is working and has worked for about 6oo years now; since it was published. You know what that Guttenberg fellow did with the "Book" and all. It seem that book was the first book or so it is written anyway.
It has been my experience most do not wear their faith on their sleeve and for the most part it is private. It it is right, they show it in many ways. Yes, also in my experience, those who do seem to voice their faith the loudest is the Christian, yet even many Christians do not do that. I have had many conversations with such Christians with good results for I know their heart is in the right place, they just don't realize the damage they are doing by forcing how they believe on others who they effort to preach to. I guess it helps them resolve their own shortcomings somehow.
Didymos Thomas;98964 wrote:
We cannot speculate about what Jesus would say about a national healthcare system because he never said anything relating to something like that system - there was nothing remotely like it in his day. It's baseless.
DT, very little if anything was past forward relating to such. We have no idea, other than the plagues and famines that were mentioned and many of those could have been metaphors as to the health of anyone or for that matter how long the average person lived. It is all speculation. Trusting written history is indeed a tenuous task to say the lease. Even today we effort to revise what was said so it fits today's reality.
Didymos Thomas;98964 wrote:
What we might be able to say, however, is that Jesus would have approved of people who act politically for the sake of their fellow human beings - but that's about as far as we can go. And the trouble here is obvious: the socialist believes himself to be helping fellow human beings just as the crazies on conservapedia believe they do the same.
There are crazies behind all labels, groups and bunches. Take Mother Teresa for instance. A Saint. There are some who would think her crazy for giving up any life she might have had for being so selfless and devoting all her time to caring for others.
On another forum one even called her selfish for she had an agenda and was doing it for her own benefit. How so very callous that was. It just goes to show how we effort to prove there are no selfless acts that defend the ego and the selfishness in ourselves. There are indeed rewards, it's just few can imagine what those are. The are not empirical; the are of mind and mind alone.
One would be surprised how very little is needed when the mind is content. Most have no idea of what that means and why so many minds are trouble as they are. As I have said so very, very many times, eliminate cost as we know it and devise another way and the inequity that is so rampant in the world will just go away along with all the iniquity that goes along with it. (See list).