Jump to content


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


Recommended Posts

Here is where I think some of the 'rub' is that Comfortably Numb may be trying to say (I don't pretend to speak for him - just trying to read between the lines -- so he can correct me as needed). 

Christian compassion and giving is to be internally motivated out of a love of God and a love for our neighbor.  It is not an external compulsion that motivates our giving and care.  Knapp accurately and thoughtfully captured the essence of Christian giving and what is to be our heart.  (Knapp - one day I hope you return to your faith roots - you have a good heart. But with that I affirm that one can have a good heart wtout a particular faith)

The rub is this:

Socialism is an external "mechanism' which exerts pressure via taxes forcing others to be "compassionate' in the way and to the recipients of the govt choosing.  In that way, it is not different than any other govt - democratic or otherwise - it may exert more pressure than let's say a very conservative or libertarian democratic govt and it may exert less pressure than a full bore communist govt - looking at the extremes.  Govts should be all about providing a safety net for its citizens - the debate is where to balance it out - how much 'giving' comes from private sector and how much from the public sector.   If govts take so much through very high taxes it will leave little funds for individuals (Christian or non-Christian, religious or non-religious) to give freely as their conscience dictates to the individuals or organizations they wish to personally assist.  I will say that the USA as the world's richest nation could have a greater and more encompassing safety net than what it does have.  If our priorities were right we would be spending less money in some areas so that we could provide better health care and other assistance to the needy.  However, the USA has also taken on the burden of caring for the world in so many other areas. Without our military, much of the world may be under dictatorships now.  We are usually the first nation to help in a disaster - providing food, medical supplies, etc for people around the world.  So we cannot flippantly say - just cut the military or cut foreign aid.  We could however make better choices - like not fighting 2 wars in the MidEast at the same time.  That could have funded a lot of safety net things here. 

 

This isn't a matter of being compassionate or not - it is a matter of how or the method by which compassion is to be administered in a free society.  Too much 'govt sponsored' compassion leaves less funds available for private donors (unless you are the very wealthy) to contribute freely as they desire.

 

So I think in an ideal world - socialism would work and we should and could all endorse it.  But we aren't in an ideal world - there is too much selfishness at every level (sin) to make it not work.  As a Christian we believe the ideal is yet to come.  In the mean time we are called to render to Cesar that which is Cesar's and render to God that which belongs to God(our lives).  And if we live in a society where Cesar is unusually large, we are to trust God for grace to give sacrificially both to Cesar and directly to our neighbor as our conscience dictates.  If we live in a society where Cesar is small, then as Christians we aren't to let the god of materialism to take over our hearts and the best way to do that is to give generously and freely to those who are in need out of a hear of obedience to God and love for our neighbor.  

 

Let me add: it isn't just in socialism that the sin of selfishness can ruin the utopia we try to build.  Capitalism, at its core, has a lot of 'self interest'.  So while the left leaning person may try to build a utopia through govt largeness, and while the right leaning may try to build a utopia via capitalism both utopias will ultimately fail because each are vulnerable to the seed of destruction - our internal selfishness or self interest.  

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

14 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Here is where I think some of the 'rub' is that Comfortably Numb may be trying to say (I don't pretend to speak for him - just trying to read between the lines -- so he can correct me as needed). 

Christian compassion and giving is to be internally motivated out of a love of God and a love for our neighbor.  It is not an external compulsion that motivates our giving and care.  Knapp accurately and thoughtfully captured the essence of Christian giving and what is to be our heart.  (Knapp - one day I hope you return to your faith roots - you have a good heart. But with that I affirm that one can have a good heart wtout a particular faith)

The rub is this:

Socialism is an external "mechanism' which exerts pressure via taxes forcing others to be "compassionate' in the way and to the recipients of the govt choosing.  In that way, it is not different than any other govt - democratic or otherwise - it may exert more pressure than let's say a very conservative or libertarian democratic govt and it may exert less pressure than a full bore communist govt - looking at the extremes.  Govts should be all about providing a safety net for its citizens - the debate is where to balance it out - how much 'giving' comes from private sector and how much from the public sector.   If govts take so much through very high taxes it will leave little funds for individuals (Christian or non-Christian, religious or non-religious) to give freely as their conscience dictates to the individuals or organizations they wish to personally assist.  I will say that the USA as the world's richest nation could have a greater and more encompassing safety net than what it does have.  If our priorities were right we would be spending less money in some areas so that we could provide better health care and other assistance to the needy.  However, the USA has also taken on the burden of caring for the world in so many other areas. Without our military, much of the world may be under dictatorships now.  We are usually the first nation to help in a disaster - providing food, medical supplies, etc for people around the world.  So we cannot flippantly say - just cut the military or cut foreign aid.  We could however make better choices - like not fighting 2 wars in the MidEast at the same time.  That could have funded a lot of safety net things here. 

 

This isn't a matter of being compassionate or not - it is a matter of how or the method by which compassion is to be administered in a free society.  Too much 'govt sponsored' compassion leaves less funds available for private donors (unless you are the very wealthy) to contribute freely as they desire.

 

So I think in an ideal world - socialism would work and we should and could all endorse it.  But we aren't in an ideal world - there is too much selfishness at every level (sin) to make it not work.  As a Christian we believe the ideal is yet to come.  In the mean time we are called to render to Cesar that which is Cesar's and render to God that which belongs to God(our lives).  And if we live in a society where Cesar is unusually large, we are to trust God for grace to give sacrificially both to Cesar and directly to our neighbor as our conscience dictates.  If we live in a society where Cesar is small, then as Christians we aren't to let the god of materialism to take over our hearts and the best way to do that is to give generously and freely to those who are in need out of a hear of obedience to God and love for our neighbor.  

 

 

 

 

 

Would we also say it's true that the just punishment of not having that internal love of God/people that motivates you to pool your resources is to be instantly killed on the spot, ala Ananias and Sapphira? :P

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

Would we also say it's true that the just punishment of not having that internal love of God/people that motivates you to pool your resources is to be instantly killed on the spot, ala Ananias and Sapphira? :P

Well I'm thankful that was a very unusual situation and that God's grace allows us the ability to overcome & mature out of those less than pure motives we often have in the way we serve.  If we look deeper we see that 2 deep character flaws came to the forefront: (1) Remember they did give and were generous - they gave money from the sale of the land.  However, they did not give out of that love of God/people as you noted - they gave out of a desire to be 'well thought of'.  They wanted others to 'see their generosity' whereby they would be the object of praise and not God who supplied for the needy through them.  This is partly how we 'steal the glory of God' when we take credit and not reflecting gratefulness back to God (we can think of Romans 1:18-22 - applying the 'not being thankful' portion to any of us .)  The other aspect of this is that it builds the illusion that the needy or the church in this case is dependent on certain wealthy donors and not on God.  Thus faith is deflected from its rightful object to an inferior object.  (2) More seriously - they lied to the Holy Spirit as the biblical account notes.  They said they gave all of the money from the sale of the land but in reality they only gave a portion. Pride was at the center of their giving and at the center of their deceit. They wanted to be well though of but they were also consumed by greed (they wanted to have their cake and eat it too)  This was a seed (pride) that had to be squashed at the beginning of the church age less it spoil the whole group.  Pride is the 'parent seed' of all sin. It is the core or center of sin.  The result was that a healthy 'fear of the Lord' was in the church to do right and to live purely.  I'm thankful that this type of 'strong mercy' isn't administered by the Holy Spirit outside of that one case. 

Link to comment

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

You throw your share of darts. Don't play the victim.

 

 

 

 

 

Not playing the victim at all and never said I wasn't willing to trade barbs. However,  I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong or misworded something. I'm also willing to acknowledge I'm not perfect and that I don't have all the answers. But I do get pretty annoyed when someone, you in this case, acts like to be a Christian means that person has to be perfectly Christian in all their beliefs and actions and, if they aren't, then somehow that makes them a hypocrite. If you don't realize what a steaming pile of dogsh!t that approach is I'm sure I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

 

As TG stated so we'll, there is God and then there is Ceasar. I know what my religion and Jesus has to say about these things. Unfortunately I also know how and what our government does to try to address these things. I have no problem separating the two, religion and government, and in some cases opposing some policies that seemingly run counter to what Jesus said. So the other thing that annoys me is when people, you in this case again, want to act like this is some amazing unacceptable thing. The problem is too often you approach these discussions as Christians are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You would have a problem if I strictly followed the religion line in political matters, claiming separation of church and state is required but apparently you also have a problem when people do separate church from state. So it leaves me quite bewildered as to which way you really want it. And that is what precipitates accusations of not wanting to have an honest discussion or being mired in preconceived notions. As far as comments about missing the point, that's about the nicest way I can put it when someone takes something I've said and twists it to serve their purpose. But yeah, comments like "it's a real headscratcher" or "thanks for replying as expected" is just me taking a cheapshot and throwing my own darts. I'm a big boy and I won't be made a victim.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

But I do get pretty annoyed when someone, you in this case, acts like to be a Christian means that person has to be perfectly Christian in all their beliefs and actions and, if they aren't, then somehow that makes them a hypocrite.

 

I didn't say this, it's a strawman, and yes, it's a "steaming pile of dogs#!t" as you so eloquently put it. 

 

43 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

You would have a problem if I strictly followed the religion line in political matters, claiming separation of church and state is required but apparently you also have a problem when people do separate church from state. So it leaves me quite bewildered as to which way you really want it.

 

You don't know that. And frankly, it's another strawman.  And it's not honest discussion.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Here is where I think some of the 'rub' is that Comfortably Numb may be trying to say (I don't pretend to speak for him - just trying to read between the lines -- so he can correct me as needed). 

Christian compassion and giving is to be internally motivated out of a love of God and a love for our neighbor.  It is not an external compulsion that motivates our giving and care.  Knapp accurately and thoughtfully captured the essence of Christian giving and what is to be our heart.  (Knapp - one day I hope you return to your faith roots - you have a good heart. But with that I affirm that one can have a good heart wtout a particular faith)

The rub is this:

Socialism is an external "mechanism' which exerts pressure via taxes forcing others to be "compassionate' in the way and to the recipients of the govt choosing.  In that way, it is not different than any other govt - democratic or otherwise - it may exert more pressure than let's say a very conservative or libertarian democratic govt and it may exert less pressure than a full bore communist govt - looking at the extremes.  Govts should be all about providing a safety net for its citizens - the debate is where to balance it out - how much 'giving' comes from private sector and how much from the public sector.   If govts take so much through very high taxes it will leave little funds for individuals (Christian or non-Christian, religious or non-religious) to give freely as their conscience dictates to the individuals or organizations they wish to personally assist.  I will say that the USA as the world's richest nation could have a greater and more encompassing safety net than what it does have.  If our priorities were right we would be spending less money in some areas so that we could provide better health care and other assistance to the needy.  However, the USA has also taken on the burden of caring for the world in so many other areas. Without our military, much of the world may be under dictatorships now.  We are usually the first nation to help in a disaster - providing food, medical supplies, etc for people around the world.  So we cannot flippantly say - just cut the military or cut foreign aid.  We could however make better choices - like not fighting 2 wars in the MidEast at the same time.  That could have funded a lot of safety net things here. 

 

This isn't a matter of being compassionate or not - it is a matter of how or the method by which compassion is to be administered in a free society.  Too much 'govt sponsored' compassion leaves less funds available for private donors (unless you are the very wealthy) to contribute freely as they desire.

 

So I think in an ideal world - socialism would work and we should and could all endorse it.  But we aren't in an ideal world - there is too much selfishness at every level (sin) to make it not work.  As a Christian we believe the ideal is yet to come.  In the mean time we are called to render to Cesar that which is Cesar's and render to God that which belongs to God(our lives).  And if we live in a society where Cesar is unusually large, we are to trust God for grace to give sacrificially both to Cesar and directly to our neighbor as our conscience dictates.  If we live in a society where Cesar is small, then as Christians we aren't to let the god of materialism to take over our hearts and the best way to do that is to give generously and freely to those who are in need out of a hear of obedience to God and love for our neighbor.  

 

Let me add: it isn't just in socialism that the sin of selfishness can ruin the utopia we try to build.  Capitalism, at its core, has a lot of 'self interest'.  So while the left leaning person may try to build a utopia through govt largeness, and while the right leaning may try to build a utopia via capitalism both utopias will ultimately fail because each are vulnerable to the seed of destruction - our internal selfishness or self interest.  

Very good points . I think any pure form of “ism” is flawed and will eventually have unintended bad results .

My beef with unregulated, unadulterated capitalism is the fact that it’s totally based on money . There isn’t much if any motivation in that system,  for the haves to help the have nots , or to worry about humanitarian issues at all . That’s where you need the government to “make” the haves contribute to the greater good  . Imo 

Pure socialism puts too much power in the governments hands though,  and since everyone gets the same,  it can kill motivation , and incentive . Government corruption would also have even a bigger impact in that system than it does now. 

I think a blend of those two systems (like we already have) is the best option, though i do agree we could do much better on social issues .

As far as God is concerned , Christians are supposed to emulate God and his teachings . Be humble, kind, loving, and compassionate etc  . Socialism in my mind does a much better job with that than capitalism . 

 

Link to comment

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

If Jesus had to choose between Capitalism and Socialism, which do you think he'd choose?

 

 

He'd probably dismantle your restrictive hypothetical with some transcendent third-way nonviolent protest of whichever was the form of power and oppression.

Link to comment
On 7/16/2018 at 8:01 AM, knapplc said:

It's always amazing to me when self-declared Christians speak out against Socialism.

 

Socialism looks good on paper, but it doesn't work and is against human nature imo. Not sure what religion has to do with an economic system. Seems like an emotional plea. I'm non-religious fwiw. 

 

In Socialism, the people in government end up getting wealthy and and everyone else gets the scraps. At least with capitalism the big earners get a lot but the standard of living increases for everyone. Assuming the economy is good of course.

 

I'm not overly impressed in Cortez's brilliance at this point either. Her answers on Firing Line were not impressive to say the least. Looked like the left's answer to Sarah Palin.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, alwayshusking said:

 

In Socialism, the people in government end up getting wealthy and and everyone else gets the scraps. At least with capitalism the big earners get a lot but the standard of living increases for everyone.

 

 

I'm not quite sure this is true. The bottom half is, although I believe the US is going to reach a breaking point where things are too top heavy.

 

Socialist countries tend to have less economic disparity. The wealthy aren't as much richer than the poor as they are in capitalist socities. But overall they have less wealth.

 

I think there is a happy medium to be found that we haven't found yet. Certainly health care should be free and we can afford it if we're willing to not have tax policy that allows the rich to get richer, which they are already doing by buying politicians and policies. If we're going to let them have all the advantages in politics that allow them to screw people over if they desire, we shouldn't also let them have low taxes.

 

They have spent a lot of money to convince people to hate big government and be perfectly fine with corporations screwing them over and sometimes even poisoning and killing them.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

Not playing the victim at all and never said I wasn't willing to trade barbs. However,  I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong or misworded something. I'm also willing to acknowledge I'm not perfect and that I don't have all the answers. But I do get pretty annoyed when someone, you in this case, acts like to be a Christian means that person has to be perfectly Christian in all their beliefs and actions and, if they aren't, then somehow that makes them a hypocrite. If you don't realize what a steaming pile of dogsh!t that approach is I'm sure I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

 

As TG stated so we'll, there is God and then there is Ceasar. I know what my religion and Jesus has to say about these things. Unfortunately I also know how and what our government does to try to address these things. I have no problem separating the two, religion and government, and in some cases opposing some policies that seemingly run counter to what Jesus said. So the other thing that annoys me is when people, you in this case again, want to act like this is some amazing unacceptable thing. The problem is too often you approach these discussions as Christians are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You would have a problem if I strictly followed the religion line in political matters, claiming separation of church and state is required but apparently you also have a problem when people do separate church from state. So it leaves me quite bewildered as to which way you really want it. And that is what precipitates accusations of not wanting to have an honest discussion or being mired in preconceived notions. As far as comments about missing the point, that's about the nicest way I can put it when someone takes something I've said and twists it to serve their purpose. But yeah, comments like "it's a real headscratcher" or "thanks for replying as expected" is just me taking a cheapshot and throwing my own darts. I'm a big boy and I won't be made a victim.

 

 

 

Hypocrite isn't the right word here. It just makes no sense. One of the two most essential figures in the whole religion seems to believe in socialism and Christians tend to conveniently completely ignore it or rail against it. It's just plain confusing.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Hypocrite isn't the right word here. It just makes no sense. One of the two most essential figures in the whole religion seems to believe in socialism and Christians tend to conveniently completely ignore it or rail against it. It's just plain confusing.

 

I guess I don't find it confusing at all. Maybe because socialism in the biblical sense is much different than political socialism. I believe in charity, helping the less fortunate etc. But when it comes to governments, politicians and forced sharing for the collective, I think history has shown us the downfalls of such a system. A person would have to severely spin the Bible to interpret that Jesus desired widespread political socialism. But yes many "Christians" do act in confusing ways when it comes to the welfare of their fellow man. Also many non-Christians but it isn't as easy to catagorize them into one tidy little group. Like most things the real problem is people in general but that doesn't drive division or seemingly provide any motive.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...