Does Socialism align with Scripture?

[NorrinRadd]

He does. But the world is fallen and we have to live with some of the consequences of that fact, including that human nature is also corrupted and uses their free will to sin. That is why socialism never works. People have a sin nature and rather than cooperate and help each other, they are selfish and want what others have.

But isn't it true that capitalism also doesn't "work" in the absence of some sort of altruistic conscience in the participants? It's based on the idea that the conflicting selfish desires of numerous individuals will smash together and work out to a very rough "fairness," but without some unselfish morality woven in, it's just the law of the jungle.

[Sparko]

But isn't it true that capitalism also doesn't "work" in the absence of some sort of altruistic conscience in the participants? It's based on the idea that the conflicting selfish desires of numerous individuals will smash together and work out to a very rough "fairness," but without some unselfish morality woven in, it's just the law of the jungle.

Not exactly. In capitalism, you can only succeed if you give the other person what they want. You have to satisfy other people's needs in order to satisfy your own. If you produce something they don't want, or something inferior, they won't buy it, and you will go broke and out of business. Even as an employee, you are giving your employer what they want, your labor, and in return they give you what you want, money and benefits.

[RumTumTugger]

Whereas when a conservative quotes scripture, you can already know he's off the rails else he wouldn't be a conservative?

sorry Starlight it was not the Conservative Christians who took the Annias and Saphira passage out of it's context you the liberal atheist did, as others have told you and I showed you by giving the full context of it in this post and you couldn't even get the teaching of the passage right in what they were being punished for as I showed in that same post You have to be purposely be blinding yourself to the truth so you can say the bible says what you want it to say when you ignore the clear teaching from even what you pulled out of it's context.

and as for the when Jesus told the rich man to give all he had that idiocy of yours was taken care of in my post here

Until you deal with those 2 posts of mine you have no right to tell us we conservatives are already off the rails. Context matters and we conservative Christians in this thread and on this board have been giving you the context. and all you have done is ignore it and gone on to the next idiot statement you make about Conservative Christians not taking the Bible seriously.

Something any one saying they are an unbiased Intellectual needs to learn when discussing anything Context matters learn it Starlight.

[simplicio]

Not exactly. In capitalism, you can only succeed if you give the other person what they want. You have to satisfy other people's needs in order to satisfy your own. If you produce something they don't want, or something inferior, they won't buy it, and you will go broke and out of business. Even as an employee, you are giving your employer what they want, your labor, and in return they give you what you want, money and benefits.

So socialism can't work because of our fallen nature, while capitalism does work? You ever read Charles Dickens or Upton Sinclair (two progressives!)?

[JimL]

No. Unless he takes away our sin nature. Which he will do. But if I have to give up my free will to sin, I would gladly do that. The reason we won't sin is because 1- We don't have a sin nature any longer and 2- We have experienced what sin has done in the world and our lives and don't want to repeat it.

Right, so if you don't have a sin nature, which, as you say, god will remove from you, then you won't sin. But unless that sin nature is removed, you will continue to sin, in heaven as on earth. So, what exactly was the point of an earthly crucible?

He gave man the free will to choose. They didn't have the benefit of knowing what sin was, or experiencing it. They chose to sin. Of course, God being God knew they would, so he already had a plan to redeem mankind and his creation. And now that we do have experience of sin, when we have a perfect nature, we will not want to sin.

Again, all of this could have been avoided had your god not given you a sin nature in the first place. Your point isn't making sense.

[Sparko]

Right, so if you don't have a sin nature, which, as you say, god will remove from you, then you won't sin. But unless that sin nature is removed, you will continue to sin, in heaven as on earth. So, what exactly was the point of an earthly crucible?

Again, all of this could have been avoided had your god not given you a sin nature in the first place. Your point isn't making sense.

[Sparko]

So socialism can't work because of our fallen nature, while capitalism does work? You ever read Charles Dickens or Upton Sinclair (two progressives!)?

Socialism ideally assumes man is altruistic and wants to share. Capitalism doesn't. It is based on realism. It forces men to help others in order to help themselves.

[simplicio]

Socialism ideally assumes man is altruistic and wants to share. Capitalism doesn't. It is based on realism. It forces men to help others in order to help themselves.

"socialism assumes man is altruistic". Really? Sounds like you are confusing socialism with a utopian philosophy, which it isn't.

[Sparko]

"socialism assumes man is altruistic". Really? Sounds like you are confusing socialism with a utopian philosophy, which it isn't.

Socialism is supposedly about people wanting to do work so that all can share equally in the rewards, right? That doesn't work if people are selfish. People will think, "What's in it for me?" and if they see that they can get stuff without having to work for it, they will not work for it. That is why most actual socialist countries end up being totalitarian, because the government can only get people to work by forcing them to.

In capitalist economies, if you want something you have to work for it. You trade your labor for money and benefits. Companies trade their products for profits. You have to give in order to get.

[mikewhitney]

Doesn't socialism make people better by forcing them to do what they won't do out of their own desire?

And doesn't that make us all better people?

And socialism gives free stuff to all people.

[simplicio]

Socialism is supposedly about people wanting to do work so that all can share equally in the rewards, right? That doesn't work if people are selfish. People will think, "What's in it for me?" and if they see that they can get stuff without having to work for it, they will not work for it. That is why most actual socialist countries end up being totalitarian, because the government can only get people to work by forcing them to.

In capitalist economies, if you want something you have to work for it. You trade your labor for money and benefits. Companies trade their products for profits. You have to give in order to get.

Wrong, socialism is not a utopian creed, although some in the past have framed it as such.

Do you think church run soup kitchens, food pantries, or clothing drives are compatible with capitalism?

[seer]

Do you think church run soup kitchens, food pantries, or clothing drives are compatible with capitalism?

Capitalism is simply the free exchange of goods and services. And the freedom to do what you will with your capital. Like supporting charities if you so choose.

[Cow Poke]

Capitalism is simply the free exchange of goods and services.

Well, yeah, but not "free" exchange --- the freedom for the buyer and seller to agree (or not) on the cost/price.

And the freedom to do what you will with your capital. Like supporting charities if you so choose.

EGGzackly!

[Starlight]

Doesn't socialism make people better by forcing them to do what they won't do out of their own desire?

Only some types of socialism involve any force. Cooperative worker ownership of companies isn't force.

And doesn't that make us all better people?

I think you could make a case that capitalism encourages humans to be greedy by rewarding their greed and incentivizing it.

Whereas those types of socialism that redistribute goods to the needy teach a public lesson that the needy should be helped and that those with a lot of possessions should share what they have.

Pretty easy to argue that those types of socialism are more moral than capitalism and teach better moral lessons to society.

And socialism gives free stuff to all people.

Some types do.

[Starlight]

Capitalism is simply the free exchange of goods and services.

Totally false.

A 'free market' isn't capitalism. Socialist systems can have free markets too.

The terms capitalist and socialist refer to business ownership, not how goods are traded.

And the freedom to do what you will with your capital. Like supporting charities if you so choose.

I am not aware of any type of socialist system in history that bans giving money to charity. You seem to be in loony tunes territory.