Does Socialism and Christianity follow the same economic principals?

[Tambourine]

Depends on the property. If they are destroying a statue then no. If the damage is to a hospital or something that will cripple the economy then yes. This is because the destruction of these properties have a direct effect on people's lives.

The protests I am referring to are the ones here in South Africa which is a whole different ball game to the protests in America.

Also I am pro protest depending on the context of the protest.

In my experience, nearly everyone is "pro protest depending on the context of the protest".

 

[Samael_Khan]

In my experience, nearly everyone is "pro protest depending on the context of the protest".

I know a religion and its adherents who are not pro protest. But anyway, what was the purpose of the question you asked me which I replied to?

 

[Tambourine]

I know a religion and its adherents who are not pro protest. But anyway, what was the purpose of the question you asked me which I replied to?

The purpose of my question was to get an answer from you.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The purpose of my question was to get an answer from you.

Why that specific question though?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I'm not American.

Well, where are you from. And it still does not change the fact that the US police are the greatest in the world.
Then the Japanese, then England and Europe

 

[SA Huguenot]

Do you think property damage should warrant the death penalty?

Yes, Shoot any looter, and arsonist because they have no consideration to the lives and well being of others.
Make an example of these terrorists.
Who the hell burns down a Church, police station, library, goverment buildings, and other people's propperty.
If you catch or identify them at a later stage, charge them on Terrorism and attempted murder.
Get a backbone and dont allow these rubbish to destroy what the western civilization built over the last 1000 years.

 

[columbus]

The way I see it, Peter is questioning why Ananias lied when he owned the proceeds. But yes, as per usual, the NT is not being very specific in its language. I wish it would say explicitly what was wrong and what was not.

I think a big part of the problem in interpretation of the NT is that much of the context is lost. Things "everybody knows" at the time weren't necessary to mention, for the author's purposes. Probably A & S were claiming some status, like disciple, for which they didn't qualify.

Here's another biggy that's been mostly scrubbed from Christian tradition. I'm confident that the earliest Christians believed in "Jesus the Messiah". A messiah is not a god or even demigod. A messiah is a human, Anointed by God, as a warrior king who would rescue the Israelites from foreign oppression and return them to their rightful place as a powerful sovereign nation. Judea was on the verge of destruction by the Romans and the Christians clung to the hope that Jesus's Second Coming was about to happen.
As years turned into decades and then centuries, and Judea was crushed, and gentiles became more Christian than the original Jewish audience, the definition of Messiah changed to suit the new circumstances.

But a lot of the NT makes a good deal more sense if Jesus were a strong member of the "Jewish Underground", fighting the Romans(and their lackeys in the Jewish elite) by whatever means necessary, including violence. But, of course, the original apostles couldn't tell Paul that given his history. So, Paul created a new religion based on a sanitized version of Jesus's Message. And people started reading things into the various writings about Jesus, without knowing the context of Jesus's Ministry.
Tom

 

[Koldo]

I loved this statement by a OP, and thought it might be a nice thread.


I tend to disaggree.

1. Democracy is the practice where the people collectively ellect their leaders and allow these leaders to distribute the taxes to where the country needs it for their bennefit.
2. Sociliasts deceive everyone in believing that their policy of distributing the wealth to everyone will be the answer to get rid of inequality concerning the estates of the people.

Now the outcome will be.

1. Democracy will allow the rich to get richer, thereby allowing anyone in the country to reach their full potential. Obviously the able and hardworking will achieve great rewards, and the not so intelligent and hard working person will at least have employment.
2. The socialist will tax the people they call "Rich" and give to those they call "Poor". However, they will be the guys who will collect the money, and who decide who is rivch and poor. Eventually the "Rich" sitizen's money will run out, and the government will sit with a "poor" economy where the capital of the country was misusedon political promises such as Equal Pay, free Medical, Free education, free water and free electricity. Once this happens, the country is bancrupt, because the "Rich businussmen" just dont have any recources to continue. In this case the socialists make draconical laws and eventually ban all other political parties who do not want to continue with socilaism.

And Bang goes the country.
If you think the police in the USA is somewhat heavy handed, fck, go to Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mosambique, Venezuela, Quba, North Corea, China!
I grew up with people who fled from Poland, Romenia, Russia, East Germany who were under communist rule.
Do not even try to tell me that Communism does not adhere to socialism. Socialism is the economic constitution of Communism.

Furthermore, The Christians also paid taxes, but when it came to social reform, they were charitable. The Government never took the rich persons' capital and gave to to who they thought needed it. Socialism and Christianity is incompatable.


What do you say, where am I wrong?

First of all, Democracy and Socialism can exist in the same society. So... well... You are completely wrong from the very start.

 

[Tambourine]

Why that specific question though?

You seemed incredibly concerned by the property damage, but not so much the number of people killed, as if human lives weighed less on you than private property. I asked to either confirm or refute my own suspicions in that regard.

@SA Huguenot actually surprised me by throwing himself even more overtly onto the side of private property and favoring it even harder against human life.

 

[Samael_Khan]

You seemed incredibly concerned by the property damage, but not so much the number of people killed, as if human lives weighed less on you than private property. I asked to either confirm or refute my own suspicions in that regard.

@SA Huguenot actually surprised me by throwing himself even more overtly onto the side of private property and favoring it even harder against human life.

That is a weird conclusion for you to come to since in post 14 I was mainly concerned about innocent people getting killed by random bullets and kids and women raped and murdered and the police being too incompetent to do anything about it.

Also for me it is not about how many people get killed but that the innocent people do not get killed. I don't care if certain criminals get killed because they bring it on themselves. Rapist and serial murderers life means less to me than property. The lives of those who aren't rapists or serial murders mean more to me than property. The argument isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, because how many people would kill a human or want them killed over property, such as someone ruining their car for example or breaking their pencil?

By the way, is your question about property damage genuine or are you asking the question since is it just the "in topic" at the moment?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, Shoot any looter, and arsonist because they have no consideration to the lives and well being of others.
Make an example of these terrorists.
Who the hell burns down a Church, police station, library, goverment buildings, and other people's propperty.
If you catch or identify them at a later stage, charge them on Terrorism and attempted murder.
Get a backbone and don't allow these rubbish to destroy what the western civilization built over the last 1000 years.

I think certain people aren't seeing the real point. The argument isn't that people should be shot for the properties sake but that destroying property has a repercussive effect which is harmful. There could be collateral damage of human lives, such as people no longer having jobs so that they can feed their families.

If people were really OK with people getting killed for properties sake then they would want people to be killed for small things like destroying an ipad or pencil.

Here is a good example of property damage:

The Twin Towers.
The building was property of the government.
It was destroyed.
The plains were also property.
Loads of innocent people died as a result of the buildings collapsing.

Now lets scale it down.
A library gets destroyed.
What if there was a child or librarian in the building when it was destroyed?
The destruction of property led to someones life being lost.

Now lets see the repercussions of the libraries destruction.
The Library gets destroyed.
There is an employee that wasn't there so wasn't hurt.
But now their job is lost.
Can they now feed their family?
What if they needed to buy important items for a family member's survival?
Who knows how the property damage affected their lives.

The people who are in support of property damage seem to have an extremely short sighted view of the consequences of those actions. They don't seem to care about the lives of everyday people.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I think certain people aren't seeing the real point. The argument isn't that people should be shot for the properties sake but that destroying property has a repercussive effect which is harmful. There could be collateral damage of human lives, such as people no longer having jobs so that they can feed their families.

If people were really OK with people getting killed for properties sake then they would want people to be killed for small things like destroying an ipad or pencil.

Here is a good example of property damage:

The Twin Towers.
The building was property of the government.
It was destroyed.
The plains were also property.
Loads of innocent people died as a result of the buildings collapsing.

Now lets scale it down.
A library gets destroyed.
What if there was a child or librarian in the building when it was destroyed?
The destruction of property led to someones life being lost.

Now lets see the repercussions of the libraries destruction.
The Library gets destroyed.
There is an employee that wasn't there so wasn't hurt.
But now their job is lost.
Can they now feed their family?
What if they needed to buy important items for a family member's survival?
Who knows how the property damage affected their lives.

The people who are in support of property damage seem to have an extremely short sighted view of the consequences of those actions. They don't seem to care about the lives of everyday people.

If a mob goes on rampage, and burns buildings and vehicles, and the police is present, shoot the person who throws a molotof coctail.
If people go on rampage and breaks windows of shops, then stats too loot, shoot them, because what they are doing is not survival, but collective terrorism. Poor does not steal TV's, Jewelry, Playstations etc.

On the other hand, Obama did the correct thing during Catarina when he issued the go ahead to shoot looters, because the people were simply stealing food from the weakest. Children and Women were robbed in daylight by men, even stabbing them with screwdrivers and knives.

 

[Samael_Khan]

If a mob goes on rampage, and burns buildings and vehicles, and the police is present, shoot the person who throws a molotof coctail.
If people go on rampage and breaks windows of shops, then stats too loot, shoot them, because what they are doing is not survival, but collective terrorism. Poor does not steal TV's, Jewelry, Playstations etc.

On the other hand, Obama did the correct thing during Catarina when he issued the go ahead to shoot looters, because the people were simply stealing food from the weakest. Children and Women were robbed in daylight by men, even stabbing them with screwdrivers and knives.

Exactly, these people are just giving in to their inner criminal.

It would be different if a poor person stole food to survive.

 

[Stevicus]

The Library gets destroyed.
There is an employee that wasn't there so wasn't hurt.
But now their job is lost.
Can they now feed their family?
What if they needed to buy important items for a family member's survival?

Well, there are always repercussions to anything. People can end up losing their jobs when a business owner decides to shut down domestic production and outsource for cheaper labor. Should they be executed for doing so, since they made a choice which negatively impacted on human lives?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well, there are always repercussions to anything. People can end up losing their jobs when a business owner decides to shut down domestic production and outsource for cheaper labor. Should they be executed for doing so, since they made a choice which negatively impacted on human lives?

The business would also be the property of the owner, therefore he/she can make decisions for it. They have signed a contract with the employees that they have agreed to and any choices he makes involving them would be in the contract that both parties agreed to. Labour law also protects the workers. And if the boss is doing anything illegal then he/ she can be held accountable by law.

On the other hand, a couple of people destroying buildings are not involved in the contracts therefore they have no right to do so.

Your comparison is like comparing disciplining a child by grounding them to physically beating a child with a hammer. In both instances the child cries. Should the parent grounding the child be viewed the same way the child abuser should be? Should social workers come and monitor both of them?

 

[Tambourine]

That is a weird conclusion for you to come to since in post 14 I was mainly concerned about innocent people getting killed by random bullets and kids and women raped and murdered and the police being too incompetent to do anything about it.

Also for me it is not about how many people get killed but that the innocent people do not get killed. I don't care if certain criminals get killed because they bring it on themselves. Rapist and serial murderers life means less to me than property. The lives of those who aren't rapists or serial murders mean more to me than property. The argument isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, because how many people would kill a human or want them killed over property, such as someone ruining their car for example or breaking their pencil?

How would you know if somebody is a criminal, if they never got to stand trial but were murdered beforehand? I doubt you would want people who are rumored to have committed financial fraud to be murdered on the spot without trial, would you?

As for rapists, as far as I have heard on the subject, their crime tends to be incredibly hard to prove in court because you usually just have two competing statements, and very little empirical evidence beyond that. Besides, a lot of men like to whine about "false accusations" if women are being believed to much. In light of these factors, do you really think killing a man accused of rape or sexual harassment on the spot is worthwhile?

It's easy to pronounce some people as inherently evil and then consign them to death or a life of suffering, when we do not actually care about establishing reasonable guilt in the first place, but that means we would abandon the Rule of Law. Do you actually think getting rid of the rule of law, and just going by the whims of whatever group of people is going around killing suspects is conducive to establishing a just social order?

By the way, is your question about property damage genuine or are you asking the question since is it just the "in topic" at the moment?

I don't understand what you are asking with that question, sorry. Could you elaborate?
I personally think that human lives should always be preserved over objects, if that is what you are asking.

 

[Stevicus]

The business would also be the property of the owner, therefore he/she can make decisions for it. They have signed a contract with the employees that they have agreed to and any choices he makes involving them would be in the contract that both parties agreed to. Labour law also protects the workers. And if the boss is doing anything illegal then he/ she can be held accountable by law.

On the other hand, a couple of people destroying buildings are not involved in the contracts therefore they have no right to do so.

Your comparison is like comparing disciplining a child by grounding them to physically beating a child with a hammer. In both instances the child cries. Should the parent grounding the child be viewed the same way the child abuser should be? Should social workers come and monitor both of them?

I'm merely addressing the argument which attempts to justify the use of deadly force to protect property. Whoever might be the legal owner of that property is beside the point and irrelevant to this particular argument.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm merely addressing the argument which attempts to justify the use of deadly force to protect property. Whoever might be the legal owner of that property is beside the point and irrelevant to this particular argument.

By "shot" I do not necessarily mean deadly force. Rubber bullets would suffice. By this I mean that those who attack property people should be incapacitated. I would want to prevent them from moving further for a few minutes as opposed to taking them out for good so that they can be arrested.

Whether someone is the legal owner or not is relevent to your comparison that you made.

 

[Samael_Khan]

How would you know if somebody is a criminal, if they never got to stand trial but were murdered beforehand? I doubt you would want people who are rumored to have committed financial fraud to be murdered on the spot without trial, would you?

This is a different scenario though. With the area I am talking about in my country, the gangsters are well known by the community and police, as they should in daylight and they are people's neighbours. It is just that the police don't do anything or are corrupt. The criminals are known and therefore should be shot, because they are serial murderers and rapists. They can be easily caught in the act. To let them continue is to let the criminals thrive and the innocent suffer.

As for rapists, as far as I have heard on the subject, their crime tends to be incredibly hard to prove in court because you usually just have two competing statements, and very little empirical evidence beyond that. Besides, a lot of men like to whine about "false accusations" if women are being believed to much. In light of these factors, do you really think killing a man accused of rape or sexual harassment on the spot is worthwhile?

Regarding these gang groups, well known in the community, yes. If someone has been proven as being a rapist then yes too. Or at least castrated.

It's easy to pronounce some people as inherently evil and then consign them to death or a life of suffering, when we do not actually care about establishing reasonable guilt in the first place, but that means we would abandon the Rule of Law. Do you actually think getting rid of the rule of law, and just going by the whims of whatever group of people is going around killing suspects is conducive to establishing a just social order?

I don't view people as inherently evil. My points are to prevent further suffering by the innocent through eliminating the guilty. There is a chance that they could reform but I care about the here and now as opposed to a future possibility.

As for Rule of Law, and peoples whims, I am not talking about going around and killing people in random areas based on rumours.

This is the scenario:

I hear gunshots every night in the next door neighbourhood. People in the community know who are gangsters since the gangsters openly admit they are such and the people see them walking around as gang members. They see them shooting others. So these aren't mere rumours. Someone can just go undercover and confirm such things. Simple.

The current situation is that sticking to the rule of law in this situation hasn't been conducive to establishing just social order.

I don't understand what you are asking with that question, sorry. Could you elaborate?
I personally think that human lives should always be preserved over objects, if that is what you are asking.

Ignore the question. You have shown in your reply that you have thought out the subject.

 

[sayak83]

I loved this statement by a OP, and thought it might be a nice thread.


I tend to disaggree.

1. Democracy is the practice where the people collectively ellect their leaders and allow these leaders to distribute the taxes to where the country needs it for their bennefit.
2. Sociliasts deceive everyone in believing that their policy of distributing the wealth to everyone will be the answer to get rid of inequality concerning the estates of the people.

Now the outcome will be.

1. Democracy will allow the rich to get richer, thereby allowing anyone in the country to reach their full potential. Obviously the able and hardworking will achieve great rewards, and the not so intelligent and hard working person will at least have employment.
2. The socialist will tax the people they call "Rich" and give to those they call "Poor". However, they will be the guys who will collect the money, and who decide who is rivch and poor. Eventually the "Rich" sitizen's money will run out, and the government will sit with a "poor" economy where the capital of the country was misusedon political promises such as Equal Pay, free Medical, Free education, free water and free electricity. Once this happens, the country is bancrupt, because the "Rich businussmen" just dont have any recources to continue. In this case the socialists make draconical laws and eventually ban all other political parties who do not want to continue with socilaism.

And Bang goes the country.
If you think the police in the USA is somewhat heavy handed, fck, go to Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mosambique, Venezuela, Quba, North Corea, China!
I grew up with people who fled from Poland, Romenia, Russia, East Germany who were under communist rule.
Do not even try to tell me that Communism does not adhere to socialism. Socialism is the economic constitution of Communism.

Furthermore, The Christians also paid taxes, but when it came to social reform, they were charitable. The Government never took the rich persons' capital and gave to to who they thought needed it. Socialism and Christianity is incompatable.


What do you say, where am I wrong?

You are wrong in the idea that being rich has much to do with talent.