Corporation Socialism

[Alexiev]

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

That's unclear. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) suggests Belinda's position.

[Alexiev]

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

That's unclear. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) suggests Belinda's position.

[Immanuel Can]

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

That's unclear. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) suggests Belinda's position.

You'll have to explain how you get that. It's not at all obvious that you're talking about the wealthy there.

It looks, rather, like what is being referred to is two groups of people: one who thinks they're good enough for God (the goats), and another that can't imagine they're good enough to be in relationship to God (the sheep). And only that makes sense of what they say. Wealth, or anything about social status is totally absent from that parable.

[Alexiev]

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

That's unclear. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) suggests Belinda's position.

You'll have to explain how you get that. It's not at all obvious that you're talking about the wealthy there.

It looks, rather, like what is being referred to is two groups of people: one who thinks they're good enough for God (the goats), and another that can't imagine they're good enough to be in relationship to God (the sheep). And only that makes sense of what they say. Wealth, or anything about social status is totally absent from that parable.

I wasn't referring to the wealthy, but to acts in general. Jesus offers the Kingdom to those where "gave him to drink (etc.)" and bars those who did not.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[Immanuel Can]

That's unclear. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) suggests Belinda's position.

You'll have to explain how you get that. It's not at all obvious that you're talking about the wealthy there.

It looks, rather, like what is being referred to is two groups of people: one who thinks they're good enough for God (the goats), and another that can't imagine they're good enough to be in relationship to God (the sheep). And only that makes sense of what they say. Wealth, or anything about social status is totally absent from that parable.

I wasn't referring to the wealthy, but to acts in general.

Oh. So you aren't defending Belinda's association of Christ with Socialism. You're advocating some version of salvation by works, instead? Honest question. I really don't know which you're saying, because B. and I were talking about Socialism.

But here's another interesting one: why is everybody so intent of trying to make out that Jesus was some sort of Socialist? I don't see anything like the mental gymnastics they use when it comes to Mo, or Buddha, or Vishnu, or Ahura Mazda, or Odin, or Baal, or some other putative guru or godlet. I don't even see the Socialists trying to co-opt Moses the Lawgiver as exemplar of collectivism, big government and forcible wealth redistribution. Why do they always seem to invest so much effort on Jesus the Carpenter of Galilee?

The answer, I suspect, is obvious: because everybody already realizes he's the paragon of morality. The others are not. There's nothing with which they can invest Socialism by way of a sheen of virtue, at least nothing close to comparable. But all the Socialists are desperate to bring Jesus Christ into their fold, because there's automatic moral credibility in any association with Him. Everybody knows He's good.

Interesting what they betray they know by what they choose to do, isn't it?

[promethean75]

"That's unclear. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) suggests Belinda's position."

The Gospel of Belinda is likely a more accurate and comprehensive guide to human morality if only because it was written thousands of years later after the scientific revolution and age of enlightenment.

[promethean75]

There's no way Mark or Matthew or any of those guys knew as much as Belinda knows about anything. I find no contest between these gospels and am including the Gospel of Belinda in the official canon therefore.

[Belinda]

That's not what Jesus Christ said. That's "The Gospel of Belinda." What Jesus Christ said was that such things were simply wrong. He did not bar the Kingdom of God based on them. Good deeds aren't how one gets there in the first place.

Maybe. But first the rich man would have to repent before God could forgave past errors.

That is true. But he wouldn't be evil just for being a rich man. Several of Jesus' followers, like Zaccheus, Johanna, and Joseph of Arimathea were well-to-do, and they were not commanded to divest themselves of their income. In fact, as the Bible says of Christ, "...he was with a rich man in His death..." (Is. 53:9) So God has no particular antipathy to people who have earned wealth fairly and manage it generously.

The problem with the rich young ruler had not been his riches, but rather his love of riches, which had transcended his commitment to God.

It's like one of the most commonly misquoted verses in the whole Bible, which people repeat as "Money is the root of all evil," but which actually says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Tim. 6:10) Check it out.

So how would a rich man "repent"? Not by joining some Socialist plan, but by becoming charitable and responsible in his attitude to wealth.

Yes, but charities and private philanthropy are no longer enough to be practicable as the only source of welfare . Charities often say they prefer a regular subscription to a one-off donation as the charity has to plan its spending in advance. At one time when the church was a major influence in people's lives the church was the source of welfare but as you will know this is no longer the case.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe. But first the rich man would have to repent before God could forgave past errors.

That is true. But he wouldn't be evil just for being a rich man. Several of Jesus' followers, like Zaccheus, Johanna, and Joseph of Arimathea were well-to-do, and they were not commanded to divest themselves of their income. In fact, as the Bible says of Christ, "...he was with a rich man in His death..." (Is. 53:9) So God has no particular antipathy to people who have earned wealth fairly and manage it generously.

The problem with the rich young ruler had not been his riches, but rather his love of riches, which had transcended his commitment to God.

It's like one of the most commonly misquoted verses in the whole Bible, which people repeat as "Money is the root of all evil," but which actually says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Tim. 6:10) Check it out.

So how would a rich man "repent"? Not by joining some Socialist plan, but by becoming charitable and responsible in his attitude to wealth.

Yes, but charities and private philanthropy are no longer enough to be practicable as the only source of welfare .

That's certainly not the case. The real problem is that we have let "charity" as a public virtue drop, and have opted for institutionalizing "solutions" that don't "solve."

At one time when the church was a major influence in people's lives the church was the source of welfare but as you will know this is no longer the case.

That is so. But if people are no longer charitably disposed, it is not the churches' fault. And there really isn't another solution than addressing the cause of that lapse than becoming better people ourselves. You can't institutionalize charity. It never works. The fact that, in our minds, "charity" has stopped meaning "doing the right thing for the poor," and has come to mean "a para-governmental institution that can demand subscription" is the other half of the problem.

[Immanuel Can]

There's no way Mark or Matthew or any of those guys knew as much as Belinda knows about anything.

They claimed to know Jesus. Did Belinda?

[Belinda]

That is true. But he wouldn't be evil just for being a rich man. Several of Jesus' followers, like Zaccheus, Johanna, and Joseph of Arimathea were well-to-do, and they were not commanded to divest themselves of their income. In fact, as the Bible says of Christ, "...he was with a rich man in His death..." (Is. 53:9) So God has no particular antipathy to people who have earned wealth fairly and manage it generously.

The problem with the rich young ruler had not been his riches, but rather his love of riches, which had transcended his commitment to God.

It's like one of the most commonly misquoted verses in the whole Bible, which people repeat as "Money is the root of all evil," but which actually says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Tim. 6:10) Check it out.

So how would a rich man "repent"? Not by joining some Socialist plan, but by becoming charitable and responsible in his attitude to wealth.

Yes, but charities and private philanthropy are no longer enough to be practicable as the only source of welfare .

That's certainly not the case. The real problem is that we have let "charity" as a public virtue drop, and have opted for institutionalizing "solutions" that don't "solve."

At one time when the church was a major influence in people's lives the church was the source of welfare but as you will know this is no longer the case.

That is so. But if people are no longer charitably disposed, it is not the churches' fault. And there really isn't another solution than addressing the cause of that lapse than becoming better people ourselves. You can't institutionalize charity. It never works. The fact that, in our minds, "charity" has stopped meaning "doing the right thing for the poor," and has come to mean "a para-governmental institution that can demand subscription" is the other half of the problem.

Institutionalising accepted behaviour is always what men do in all cultures and societies. The church is an institution that was instituted for social control of good behaviour, with the paragon of Jesus to add the backbone of permanence. The church did institutionalise charity and still does.I bet there is no local church that lacks jumble sales and sales of work for charitable giving; all all institutionalised and a Good Thing too! The good people who do charitable work under te aegis of their local church would be hurt by "it never works".

Hospitals run by monks ,for instance , were instituted along travellers' accustomed routes to provide shelter and medical attention for travellers. You may still see the ruins of some of those and you may still see some dark soil areas--- evidence of medieval blood letting by the monks. These medieval church works worked according to the best way they knew.

[Will Bouwman]

Don't worry Imp, it ain't gonna happen. If, as Mr Can believes, someone who had a face to face with Jesus Christ couldn't be persuaded to follow him*, there is fuck all chance that today's oligarchs will be persuaded.

And the Socialist response is to kill them all and steal their wealth? That's how it's worked out historically.

Not something I'd recommend. As a social democrat, I'm fully in favour of people profiting from their contributions to society, but not to the extent that they can manipulate policy to favour them over the general population.

Nowaday, though, it's the Socialists who are helping out the oligarchs.

Well again, if you think people are being exploited by socialists and oligarchs, how do you propose they resist?

[Immanuel Can]

Institutionalising accepted behaviour is always what men do in all cultures and societies.

Actually, no...they don't have to institutionalize things. They can just do them for moral reasons. Once they institutionalize them, they die. The only thing that can keep them alive is the lively commitment of the people within them to do the right thing.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't worry Imp, it ain't gonna happen. If, as Mr Can believes, someone who had a face to face with Jesus Christ couldn't be persuaded to follow him*, there is fuck all chance that today's oligarchs will be persuaded.

And the Socialist response is to kill them all and steal their wealth? That's how it's worked out historically.

Not something I'd recommend.

Good.

As a social democrat,

I understand the term "Socialist." I understand the term "democrat." But put together, they make no sense. Socialism is, by its very nature, antidemocratic. It's collectivist, instead.

I'm fully in favour of people profiting from their contributions to society, but not to the extent that they can manipulate policy to favour them over the general population.

Then are you concerned that Socialism is now the tool of that very thing? It now serves the oligarchs, the elites, the soviets, the globalists, Big Business and Big Media. How does that fit with "democratic"?

Nowaday, though, it's the Socialists who are helping out the oligarchs.

Well again, if you think people are being exploited by socialists and oligarchs, how do you propose they resist?

By not becoming Socialists, for one thing. By not surrendering their property, their rights, their freedoms and their responsibilities to the Big Three. By thinking for themselves, doing for themselves, and taking the responsibility for themselves and others on their own shoulders, and refusing collectivist promises of social justice and personal betterment, when Socialists have never been able to deliver these things.

[iambiguous]

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-26 New King James Version (NKJV)

So, it would seem by "hard" Jesus means "impossible".

To be fair, it does appear that Jesus maybe used the term "hard" and did not mean "impossible". (Or maybe "unbelievably hard" would be the right words.)

Well, unless JC was able to explain how it was not impossible at all for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for all practical purposes it was impossible. Or didn't anyone feel it was necessary to point that out to him? Just produce another miracle? Or, perhaps, make the eye of a needle a...metaphor?

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, 'Who then can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

Well, when will IC get around to explaining why none of this is relevant until and unless one accepts Jesus Christ as one's own personal savior? Otherwise, one is, among other things, Hell-bound. Then the part where IC insists that the William Lane videos at YouTube will provide you with all the historical and scientific evidence you'll ever need to prove the existence of the Christian God. Yet he refuses to explore that in depth with me.

The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, which the man replied that he had done so. Jesus responded, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do that. Jesus then spoke that response, leaving his disciples astonished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle

Now, watch as Catholics rationalize the fact that "bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion.". Then all those who reconcile "prosperity gospel" with, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

To wit: https://youtu.be/zSOcaE0UhZs?si=uDQdUY4_O4eBd9QP