CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Isn't Christianity too individualist to be socialist? Private property rights is an individualist concept, after all. Many scholars have made the case that individualism's roots ultimately stem from the Christian idea that there is incalculable intrinsic value to every human. This is supported by the fact that the most individualistic cultures have Christian roots.
Christianity lends more support to Socialism than Capitalism on a number of issues including: poverty, material wealth, charity, and profit/personal gain.
That assumes that socialism is the best way of achieving the implicit aim of charity and sharing wealth which is reducing human suffering. It seems to me that socialism merely ensures that everyone is poor, except perhaps those in the inevitably emergent ruling class.
Both the left and the right advocate the force of law to codify their pet agendas, rendering useless/hypocritical any argument from the right that charity should not be forced.
I would say that while "the right" overlaps with Christianity, they are still separate groupings. In fact, the whole "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is suggestive of a separation of church and state.
Isn't Christianity too individualist to be socialist?
I don’t believe so, no. There are aspects of Christianity that recognizes the individual, but often to illustrate the sins thereof. In addition to forgiveness for individual sin, Christianity offers all kinds of principles of good works, most often focused around altruistic concerns or acts.
Private property rights is an individualist concept, after all.
Private property was a concept before Christianity. With your private property you are directed to give a percentage to the church, give a poor man your coat, relinquish part of your crop, and be careful not to acquire too much lest it be too difficult to get into heaven. I’m sure there’s more, but this small list came directly to mind.
Many scholars have made the case that individualism's roots ultimately stem from the Christian idea that there is incalculable intrinsic value to every human.
That may be the case, but it’s not clear that this was intended in any way. Most often it appears that the Bible is trying to illustrate the importance of other individuals, such as the poor and downtrodden. The statement “love thy neighbor as thy self” is an effort to place importance in others, with the assumption that you already place importance in yourself.
This is supported by the fact that the most individualistic cultures have Christian roots.
Jews have long been known for their commercial aptitude. I believe it is commerce which drew Christians and Jews more toward the individualist aspect of their religions, though there is more stated emphasis on community in the texts.
That assumes that socialism is the best way of achieving the implicit aim of charity and sharing wealth which is reducing human suffering. It seems to me that socialism merely ensures that everyone is poor, except perhaps those in the inevitably emergent ruling class.
Socialism ensures sharing and giving for the good of the whole. This is in line with biblical concerns for the poor, charity, and suspicions of wealth profit. While these ideas are not the best way of achieving supposed goals, they are perfectly in line with both Christianity and with Socialism.
I would say that while "the right" overlaps with Christianity, they are still separate groupings.
That’s true. I conflated a bit there.
In fact, the whole "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is suggestive of a separation of church and state.
Caesar wasn’t a Christian. Rome was “other” than the Christian community, as illustrated in revelations. But when the state actually is the church, and there is no powerful “other” who requires his dues rendered, then we can all render unto god (god’s church) that which is god’s. Which is everything, including your soul. If you remove god from the church, but keep the altruistic dictates, then the “church” can begin to direct your resources toward the good of the whole, outlined in 5 year plans.
I agree that there is much to be found in the Bible that lends itself toward individualism. But I also believe there is more in there for the opposite.
Christianity offers all kinds of principles of good works, most often focused around altruistic concerns or acts... With your private property you are directed to give a percentage to the church, give a poor man your coat, relinquish part of your crop, and be careful not to acquire too much lest it be too difficult to get into heaven.
I don't see being voluntarily benevolent as collectivist.
Private property was a concept before Christianity.
My point was that the concept of private property is both capitalist and individualist.
Most often it appears that the Bible is trying to illustrate the importance of other individuals, such as the poor and downtrodden...
Recognizing the importance of other individuals isn't collectivist, it's empathetic.
I believe it is commerce which drew Christians and Jews more toward the individualist aspect of their religions, though there is more stated emphasis on community in the texts.
I can't say if this is true either way, but it stands aside from the point that Christian cultures created the western individualistic cultures we have today.
Socialism ensures sharing and giving for the good of the whole. This is in line with biblical concerns for the poor, charity, and suspicions of wealth profit. While these ideas are not the best way of achieving supposed goals, they are perfectly in line with both Christianity and with Socialism.
While Christianity says to "give the poor man your coat" as you gave as an example earlier, it does not say to steal the rich man's coat and give it to the poor man.
Caesar wasn’t a Christian. Rome was “other” than the Christian community, as illustrated in revelations. But when the state actually is the church, and there is no powerful “other” who requires his dues rendered, then we can all render unto god (god’s church) that which is god’s.
This quote was regarding a question of rebelling against the Roman state by not paying taxes. Jesus asked his followers to cooperate with the state rather than overthrow it, peacefully or otherwise. So why is it that Jesus didn't try to stir up a revolution against the Roman state and impose a theocracy? Moreover, the full quote is "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." This implies that taxes don't belong to God. There is no qualifier "but if we get rid of Caesar then we can give God everything".
If you remove god from the church, but keep the altruistic dictates, then the “church” can begin to direct your resources toward the good of the whole, outlined in 5 year plans.
I don't see any suggestion that this should be done, even if it's theoretically possible. Further, The Christian conception of life is that it is a test of the individual's character. This is why we have free will and why evil exists. As such, if the state were to get rid of all opportunity for charity, there is less opportunity for individuals to do good deeds to prove their character.
I agree that there is much to be found in the Bible that lends itself toward individualism. But I also believe there is more in there for the opposite.
Do you draw any distinction between altruism and collectivism?
I don't see being voluntarily benevolent as collectivist.
If it’s a dictate from god, it’s not voluntary, especially not if god’s dictates are encoded in the laws of the state.
Recognizing the importance of other individuals isn't collectivist, it's empathetic.
Recognizing the importance of others, while reiterating the sinful nature of you, is not empathetic. It’s destructive of the individual.
Christian cultures created the western individualistic cultures we have today.
Christian cultures that rediscovered, and incorporated pre-Christian philosophies. The Bible isn’t written for any kind of republic, nor any sense of democracy. The Bible is written for monarchy.
While Christianity says to "give the poor man your coat" as you gave as an example earlier, it does not say to steal the rich man's coat and give it to the poor man.
If you know that your god commanded that rich man to give that poor man his coat, will you be the apathetic bystander who allows evil to persist?
This quote was regarding a question of rebelling against the Roman state by not paying taxes. Jesus asked his followers to cooperate with the state rather than overthrow it, peacefully or otherwise.
So why is it that Jesus didn't try to stir up a revolution against the Roman state and impose a theocracy?
Any attempt on the part of Jesus to rebel against Rome would have been a tactical error, he would have lost and we wouldn’t have the story today.
Start at Matthew 22:15. The question of taxation was meant as s trap to get Jesus in trouble with Roman authorities. Jesus saw that it was a trap and asked to see a coin. He asked whose face was on it, and was told it was Caesars. That makes it Caesar’s. Give to Caesar what is his and to god what is god’s.
Is it not socialist to say that your money is not yours?
I don't see any suggestion that this should be done, even if it's theoretically possible.
For about 1200 years there was only one Christian church and it somewhat disagreed with you.
Do you draw any distinction between altruism and collectivism?
If altruism is “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others”, then no. Selflessness is collectivism.
If it’s a dictate from god, it’s not voluntary, especially not if god’s dictates are encoded in the laws of the state.
God's dictates are voluntary, otherwise we wouldn't have free will. Unlike Islam, for example, there is no suggestion that the church should be the state, in fact there are suggestions to the opposite, such as the taxes line we discussed.
Recognizing the importance of others, while reiterating the sinful nature of you, is not empathetic. It’s destructive of the individual.
Wouldn't that be the sinful nature of everyone? I don't understand how acceptance of the flaws inherent to one's being is destructive of the individual. Also, recognizing the importance of others is something we all do.
Christian cultures that rediscovered, and incorporated pre-Christian philosophies.
Oh I certainly wouldn't dismiss such influences, particularly from ancient Greece.
The Bible isn’t written for any kind of republic, nor any sense of democracy. The Bible is written for monarchy.
On what do you base this?
If you know that your god commanded that rich man to give that poor man his coat, will you be the apathetic bystander who allows evil to persist?
The Bible also says "thou shalt not steal".
Any attempt on the part of Jesus to rebel against Rome would have been a tactical error, he would have lost and we wouldn’t have the story today.
Probably true, though not necessarily. Yet if Jesus' aim was to establish a theocracy I don't see any indications that this was the case, unlike in Islam, for example.
The question of taxation was meant as s trap to get Jesus in trouble with Roman authorities. Jesus saw that it was a trap and asked to see a coin.
Given that Jesus is arrested in Matthew 26 it didn't buy him much time. I don't see him compromising his principles for a short respite, given that he planned to die for his beliefs. I could be wrong though and he lied to save his skin for some purpose (perhaps it was deeply important that the last supper occurred, for instance).
Is it not socialist to say that your money is not yours?
Do you believe that this was the intent of what he was saying? The whole "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's oxen" implies ownership, for example.
For about 1200 years there was only one Christian church and it somewhat disagreed with you.
That's the nature of power, it corrupts. Being so powerful it's no surprise the Church became deeply corrupt. It also completely ignored the whole poverty prescript among other things. The Roman Catholic Church also had many inventions; there's nothing in the bible about priestly celibacy, sabbath is Saturday etc.
If altruism is “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others”, then no. Selflessness is collectivism.
Does this apply for small selfless acts like giving to charity? Do you always weigh up whether a good deed will benefit you before choosing to do it or not?
God's dictates are voluntary, otherwise we wouldn't have free will.
A dictate from God would be like gravity. It isn’t a choice, nor does it interfere with Free Will.
in fact there are suggestions to the opposite, such as the taxes line we discussed.
Did you read the chapter of the Bible I recommended related to that quote?
Wouldn't that be the sinful nature of everyone? I don't understand how acceptance of the flaws inherent to one's being is destructive of the individual.
Sure it would be the sinful nature of everyone. But you are told to love everyone, and also to repent. You are told to judge not, to remove your individual faculty of judgment. You are told to give your coat to whom asks, forsaking individual property rights. You are told follow the example of a man who literally offered himself up as a human sacrifice to benefit lesser men, that they would be raised up to live in his realm, which they did not and cannot earn.
On what do you base this?
I base the idea that the bible was written for monarchy because terminology of monarchy is what is used in the bible. Jesus is referred to as king.
The Bible also says "thou shalt not steal".
Can you call it stealing if the property is not kept for oneself? If a man asks for your coat, and I force you to give it to him per gods will, have I stolen the coat?
Given that Jesus is arrested in Matthew 26 it didn't buy him much time. I don't see him compromising his principles for a short respite, given that he planned to die for his beliefs.
Sure he planned it, but not before the appointed time. I gave you the Chapter. It is pretty plainly written.
I could be wrong though and he lied to save his skin for some purpose
I didn’t think I presented his position as him lying.
Do you believe that this was the intent of what he was saying? The whole "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's oxen" implies ownership, for example.
“Thou shalt not covet” is a matter of personal emotional attachment, not a matter of property. It sounds more like Stoic philosophy than like political economy.
I’ll quote from the NIV because it is plain language:
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Does this apply for small selfless acts like giving to charity?
If there is some incentive for your charity, ie some value you are pursuing, then charity is not selfless. Only be deriving no sense of satisfaction on any level can an act be said to be selfless. Paul attempted to claim this selflessness in Corinthians. As an Apostle, Paul would have the Right to his bare sustenance. He says to god “But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 16For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.” Paul goes on “Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible (for god)”.
Pretty altruistic if you ask me.
Do you always weigh up whether a good deed will benefit you before choosing to do it or not?
No. That’s not how values work. We don’t articulate every value we have. But you know ones values by their actions. You know your own by the same. People act in this world because of the values they wish to bring into the reality of this world or, alternatively they act to keep a realized value a reality in this world.
Even Kendrick Castillo, who died stopping a school shooter was acting on his own, selfish values. Acting on his desire to live in a world where school shooters are stopped. Because in the moments before he acted, he was stuck in a world where his school shooters are not stopped. His personal values, for which he gave his life, were virtuous, which is why we admire him and call him a hero.
Altruism, on the other hand, requires that we sacrifice ourselves and the things we value, to things we value less, or not at all. Altruism is Jesus, the best who ever was, dying for the sake of his own vicious torturers because “they know not what they do”. That’s the kind of sacrifice collectivism thrives on.
A dictate from God would be like gravity. It isn’t a choice, nor does it interfere with Free Will.
We don't have the free will to ignore gravity.
But you are told to love everyone, and also to repent.
I personally think that everyone with empathy loves everyone else on some level. As for repentance, I see not why acknowledging one's faults and wrongdoing is bad.
You are told to judge not, to remove your individual faculty of judgment.
I always interpreted that as not believing people are good or bad based on what you have seen because you are unaware of their other circumstances and why they have done that they have done.
You are told to give your coat to whom asks, forsaking individual property rights. You are told follow the example of a man who literally offered himself up as a human sacrifice to benefit lesser men, that they would be raised up to live in his realm, which they did not and cannot earn.
In our past debate you were very much touting self-sacrifice as evolutionarily advantageous due to how your family would be treated.
I base the idea that the bible was written for monarchy because terminology of monarchy is what is used in the bible. Jesus is referred to as king.
That's a weak argument, he's also called the "good shepherd", does that imply we should raise sheep? It's simply a way, in the lexicon of the time, of expressing that he has authority.
Can you call it stealing if the property is not kept for oneself? If a man asks for your coat, and I force you to give it to him per gods will, have I stolen the coat?
Yes, you have 1) stolen it and then 2) given it away. If the bible had some clause about stealing for the purposes of re-appropriation then I could agree.
Sure he planned it, but not before the appointed time. I gave you the Chapter. It is pretty plainly written.
I appreciate the argument you are making but noting that someone is trying to trap you does not mean that your response is untrue. Jesus submits to the state taxes in this chapter and encourages others to do the same.
I didn’t think I presented his position as him lying.
What, in your estimation, is his position then?
“Thou shalt not covet” is a matter of personal emotional attachment, not a matter of property. It sounds more like Stoic philosophy than like political economy.
For you to be able to covet thy neighbour's oxen your neighbour must own the oxen. Something that is owned is private property.
Only be deriving no sense of satisfaction on any level can an act be said to be selfless.
I don't think this is possible; on some level good deeds will always be satisfying.
Altruism is Jesus, the best who ever was, dying for the sake of his own vicious torturers because “they know not what they do”.
In a past debate we spoke of how dying well is sometimes better than living miserably. Why is he not acting on a desire to create a world where people care more for each other and treat each other better?
Though you cannot choose to ignore gravity, you can still make choices. The law of gravity doesn’t remove the existence of choice. That’s a bit off topic though. There is never a dictate from god, such as “give a man your coat”, where ignoring it is religiously defensible. Even if go said “I recommend giving a man your coat”, ignoring him would be ignoring the recommendations of god himself. Which is unacceptable. And he didn’t say “I recommend”
Your response to the next few quotes were along the lines of I personally think and My interpretation is. I believe this is an example of changing your interpretation to fit your worldview, rather than letting the words form your worldview. If you allow it to, the Bible fully supports socialism. Of course you can choose to interpret it differently, as so many Greek-inspired Christians did.
In our past debate you were very much touting self-sacrifice as evolutionarily advantageous due to how your family would be treated.
I would need a link to see the context. My description of Jesus’s sacrifice is of the greatest man dying for the sake of lesser people, so that they can live in his elevated world which they cannot earn.
If in the past I have discussed a person giving their own life, I never meant to imply people should destroy higher values for lesser values, especially not in order that people may have what they do not deserve. If I were to put my life in harms way to protect someone from catastrophe, it is because I seek to live in a world where people avoid catastrophe (my death would not be an accepted goal. If I were to willingly die (as an accepted goal) for my child, it’s because I value a world where my child exists greater than my life in a world where they don’t. This is not sacrifice in the sense that Jesus was sacrificed. I would never recommend that anyone promote his example. But his example is exploitable by socialism.
Yes, you have 1) stolen it and then 2) given it away.
It would no more be theft than than when a repo man takes your car to put it in the proper hands.
I appreciate the argument you are making but noting that someone is trying to trap you does not mean that your response is untrue. Jesus submits to the state taxes in this chapter and encourages others to do the same.
I’m not saying his position is a lie. I’m saying that Jesus said your money is the states. That was the justification for taxes. A re-interpretation makes it an argument for the separation of church and state.
For you to be able to covet thy neighbour's oxen your neighbour must own the oxen. Something that is owned is private property.
No, coveted property merely needs to not be your property. Your neighbors wife is t his property. Your neighbors money is Caesar’s.
I don't think this is possible; on some level good deeds will always be satisfying.
Good deeds done willingly, sure. But what about good deeds you never wanted to undertake, have no business in, and have no choice on the matter? Hey, I’m going to take your things to give them to someone more in need. If you don’t like it, consider the sacrificial example of Jesus and count yourself lucky.
There are all manner of deeds one can be made to do out of a sense of sacrificial duty.
In a past debate we spoke of how dying well is sometimes better than living miserably. Why is he not acting on a desire to create a world where people care more for each other and treat each other better?
Maybe he was. But the myth we are told is that Jesus forgives our sins that we may go to heaven. Why? Because we are all sinners and heaven cannot be earned by a sinner. One would have to be perfect. Perfect as Jesus. But that is impossible because his perfection is literally divine. So, low life sinners who don’t deserve to be in heaven, and could never be good enough to earn it, get a free ticket on the blood of the only perfect person to ever exist. A literal human sacrifice.
Here’s my point, there’s much about the Christian ethics derived from specific biblical interpretations that I very much appreciate. But the Bible itself is perfectly amenable to socialism. While some of the most capitalist countries were some of the most Christian, it is also the case that heavily Christian countries (such as in South America and the eastern block) have been highly socialistic, and the Bible can support that too.
Though you cannot choose to ignore gravity, you can still make choices. The law of gravity doesn’t remove the existence of choice.
Exactly, so ignoring the dictates of God is a choice, it's not like gravity. A dictate from God doesn't remove the existence of choice.
Your response to the next few quotes were along the lines of I personally think and My interpretation is. I believe this is an example of changing your interpretation to fit your worldview, rather than letting the words form your worldview.
Firstly, I'm not a Christian. Secondly, all one can do with a text is interpret and give the logical reasons for their interpretation.
I would need a link to see the context.
It's in the very long debate linked at the bottom. If I recall correctly, you were justifying acts of self-sacrifice as evolutionarily advantageous and thus in line with your conception of morality.
My description of Jesus’s sacrifice is of the greatest man dying for the sake of lesser people, so that they can live in his elevated world which they cannot earn.
One could argue the same for the sacrifices made by any great man.
If I were to willingly die (as an accepted goal) for my child, it’s because I value a world where my child exists greater than my life in a world where they don’t.
Sure, and perhaps Jesus valued a world where people by default love and respect one another.
This is not sacrifice in the sense that Jesus was sacrificed.
How so?
It would no more be theft than than when a repo man takes your car to put it in the proper hands.
That's not something you believe. Unless you want to completely do away with the idea of repaying debt? Not once in the Bible does it say the poor man owns your coat.
I’m saying that Jesus said your money is the states.
Technically true. However, do you believe the intent of this was to tell people to pay the demanded tax or to tell people to give all their money to the state?
No, coveted property merely needs to not be your property. Your neighbors wife is t his property.
If my neighbour can own an oxen why can't I?
But what about good deeds you never wanted to undertake, have no business in, and have no choice on the matter? Hey, I’m going to take your things to give them to someone more in need. If you don’t like it, consider the sacrificial example of Jesus and count yourself lucky.
That's not me doing a good deed, that's you stealing and reappropriating.
There are all manner of deeds one can be made to do out of a sense of sacrificial duty.
If you do it out of a sense of duty, rather than a mandate, it's voluntary, not forced.
But the myth we are told is that Jesus forgives our sins that we may go to heaven.
What if his example was what was necessary to save us?
...But the Bible itself is perfectly amenable to socialism...
I don't think the Bible is amenable to any ruler. If you cannot kill or steal the state can't function, socialist or otherwise.
Exactly, so ignoring the dictates of God is a choice, it's not like gravity.
I don’t attribute to God the dictate of giving away my coat, but faiths of that persuasion would. It would not be unreasonable for a person to feel justified in enforcing the all the perceived dictates of god, just as surely as we enforce the commandment not to murder.
all one can do with a text is interpret and give the logical reasons for their interpretation.
When god says that the states money belongs to the head of the state, it takes some work to interpret it another way. The only reason to expend the re-interpretive effort is for ones own bias. Which is fine by the way. I think the biases arising in the enlightenment of western civilization is are the reason for moderating re-interpretations, which I often support. But I still hold them to be re-interpretations.
If I recall correctly, you were justifying acts of self-sacrifice as evolutionarily advantageous and thus in line with your conception of morality.
I combed through it and I think I found the part. I argued that our evolved morality involved both individual and social concerns. I said that I would judge harshly a person who fails to act to on behalf of an imperiled family member out of fear of hazard. Falling victim to said hazard is not typically the goal, thus self-sacrifice is not the goal. In situations where it is the goal (accepting death to save ones child), it is reasonable only insofar as one would rather not live in a world where such a high value is destroyed, but can die happy knowing they leave behind a world where their value is maintained (such as knowing the child lives). But generally, hero’s don’t face hazard with the intention of self-sacrifice. Rationally, we celebrate them not for their sacrifice (we celebrate living hero’s as well, but everyone dies), but for their courage. Specifically the courageous commitment to Just values.
Sure, and perhaps Jesus valued a world where people by default love and respect one another.
It is not love and respect that commands I give my coat to the beggar, nor give to the State that which I’ve earned. It’s not love or respect that illustrates an impossible situation (camel through a needle) as an analogy for a rich man getting into heaven (as if all means of wealth are equal). What love is it that drives a man to willingly be tortured by corrupt local politicians, when he can literally heal the sick, raise the dead, and turn wicked hearts to righteousness?
There is little good to be derived from the story of Jesus as is. There is much good to be derived from what people have chosen to take from that story. The good take-away isn’t the result of a direct interpretation, but rather a reason tempered re-interpretation.
How so?
This question is a response to my example of dying that my child may live. I said this is not a sacrifice in the sense that Jesus was sacrificed. The reason it is not the same is because I could theoretically actually die to save the life of my child. Jesus actually died to save no one. No one lived on because he was on that cross. His death is what was sought, and his death is what he gave. The notion that he washed away my sin with his blood derives from ancient traditions of ritualistic human, and then animal sacrifice which was meant to buy the favor of god/s.
If a tribe of cannibals wanted to throw virgin you into a volcano to appease the mountain god, the Jesus thing to do would be to accept it, for the good of the cannibals. The courageous and moral thing to do would be to kill as many of this vicious enemy as needed (maybe more) to escape back to loved ones.
That's not something you believe. Unless you want to completely do away with the idea of repaying debt? Not once in the Bible does it say the poor man owns your coat.
It is something I believe. We repay debts because the property rightfully belongs in other hands, so we give what is owed. When god says the right hands for your coat are the poor mans, that coat is owed as surely as a debt. The repo man isn’t committing theft by putting property in the right hands. Neither would be the person who places said coat in the right hands, with the man who asked for it.
Technically true. However, do you believe the intent of this was to tell people to pay the demanded tax or to tell people to give all their money to the state?
I think his intent was pretty clear when he said “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?”. It was to avoid a trap. Nonetheless what he said to avoid a trap, which you agree is technically true, is that money belongs to the state.
If my neighbour can own an oxen why can't I?
You can. If you need one, just ask him for it. But then, if someone else has greater need of it, then they need merely ask and the faithful state will ensure you give it to him. It’s the coat principle, to each according to his needs.
If you do it out of a sense of duty, rather than a mandate, it's voluntary, not forced.
There’s a great sense of duty in North Korea.
What if his example was what was necessary to save us?
I don’t find his example to be a particularly good one.
It would not be unreasonable for a person to feel justified in enforcing the all the perceived dictates of god, just as surely as we enforce the commandment not to murder.
There are people like that for every religion. As for enforcing the commandment to not murder this is to protect the human's right to life. We thankfully don't live in theocracies.
In situations where it is the goal (accepting death to save ones child), it is reasonable only insofar as one would rather not live in a world where such a high value is destroyed
Can this not apply to Jesus?
But generally, hero’s don’t face hazard with the intention of self-sacrifice.
I recall giving an example of tyrants that were opposed by people who knew that they would be killed but who felt it worth the sacrifice. An example I greatly admire of this is Jing Ke who attempted a suicide mission for his people, to assassinate the king of Qin. Furthermore, in war soldiers are routinely called upon to take such missions; it's absolutely necessary for war. Guarding the retreat, for example, is sometimes known to be a death sentence.
It is not love and respect that commands I give my coat to the beggar
If you are capable of shouldering someone else's burden, you will find that doing so brings your life great meaning. Of course, you must be capable of shouldering your own burden first. Of course, you shouldn't help anyone too much so that they become dependent on you.
It’s not love or respect that illustrates an impossible situation (camel through a needle) as an analogy for a rich man getting into heaven (as if all means of wealth are equal).
As far as I know, back then not only was it harder to get rich, but also the rich weren't very philanthropic. So it might have been a good idea to make the rich people of the time doubt their righteousness.
What love is it that drives a man to willingly be tortured by corrupt local politicians, when he can literally heal the sick, raise the dead, and turn wicked hearts to righteousness?
Well assuming it's all true, it certainly seems to have had a net positive effect. Liberalism has deep Christian philosophical roots, for example. If you were Jesus, with these powers, what would you have done to achieve a better result and how do you know those actions would have achieved a better result?
There is little good to be derived from the story of Jesus as is.
In my estimation he forwarded positive, egalitarian, pro-social messages. The concept of unconditionally loving everyone is a good example of this, and was rather novel at the time. The same goes for the idea of equality under God.
Jesus actually died to save no one. No one lived on because he was on that cross.
How do you know that his intention wasn't to make the world a better place by promoting his ideas? We both agree, after all, that Christianity has had a net positive effect on western philosophy, do we not?
If a tribe of cannibals wanted to throw virgin you into a volcano to appease the mountain god, the Jesus thing to do would be to accept it, for the good of the cannibals.
If it were me in that situation I would ask "Why don't you do it instead?" I can't really take such a hypothetical seriously because the sacrifice is so obviously being abused. I also see a difference in a group pressuring someone to do something and someone choosing on their own to voluntarily sacrifice their time, money or even life.
The courageous and moral thing to do would be to kill as many of this vicious enemy as needed (maybe more) to escape back to loved ones.
All that requires is for the person being sacrificed to not be an idiot that believes everything they are told.
When god says the right hands for your coat are the poor mans, that coat is owed as surely as a debt.
Saying "You should give money to X charity" is not the same as "X charity owns your money".
I think his intent was pretty clear when he said “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?”. It was to avoid a trap.
So then you agree that the intent isn't to advise people that all their money belongs to the state.
Nonetheless what he said to avoid a trap, which you agree is technically true, is that money belongs to the state.
I'm saying technically you're right that he said this.
You can. If you need one, just ask him for it. But then, if someone else has greater need of it, then they need merely ask and the faithful state will ensure you give it to him. It’s the coat principle, to each according to his needs.
That makes no sense, you're describing a state where nobody but the state has any property. The bible specifically says people own property and that you shouldn't steal it.
There’s a great sense of duty in North Korea.
Everyone that doesn't obey is imprisoned or worse; it's not voluntary.
I don’t find his example to be a particularly good one.
When I compare cultures with Christian influence to those without it there is a pretty strong trend. You have a good point on the "Give unto Caesar" quote (though I don't believe that to be it's intent) but otherwise it just seems to be an altruist/egoist divide. I certainly can agree altruism can often be pathological and needlessly self-sacrificing. However, I also hold the view that one should expand their spheres of influence progressively as their ability to do more good increases. To begin, one should look after themselves. As they become competent at that they should extend this care to their family, then their community and so on. Some people can only look after themselves and this is perfectly fine, in fact, if they tried to help others they would do more harm than good.
Not really. First because he didn’t save anyone by his death. Second because the supposed saving that occurred was specifically of strangers of an unknown degree of sinfulness.
Your next post is various examples of heroic “suicide missions” to counter my position that heroes generally are not trying to die in their efforts to save. I maintain that position. Heroic, and even death defying acts are relatively common. Suicide missions are exceedingly rare and always avoided when possible. When it’s not possible, people are in impossible situations where choosing to die well, ie salvage a value, is the best option.
Life in opposition to tyranny is an impossible situation, even so, being rid of the tyrant while avoiding death would always be preferable, thus suicide missions would remain the least common act of heroism. But again, the existence of rare circumstances of suicide missions does not undercut my point that hero’s generally do not act with death as the intention.
If you are capable of shouldering someone else's burden, you will find that doing so brings your life great meaning.
That’s no reason to give my coat to a stranger, all context removed. The command isn’t even good advice for helping people.
As far as I know, back then not only was it harder to get rich, but also the rich weren't very philanthropic. So it might have been a good idea to make the rich people of the time doubt their righteousness.
Sure, maybe. But then you have the guy who is supposed to get everyone into heaven, pointing not to villainous murderers, rapists, pillagers, and thieves, but rather pointing to the rich. You can interpret that however you want, but the language on its face supports socialism.
Well assuming it's all true, it certainly seems to have had a net positive effect. Liberalism has deep Christian philosophical roots, for example.
Roots that had to be ignored or reinterpreted in light of the reason of Ancient Greek philosophy held by the same Christian cultures.
If you were Jesus, with these powers, what would you have done to achieve a better result and how do you know those actions would have achieved a better result?
I wouldn’t have promoted state ownership of wealth. I wouldn’t have told people to give their belongings to whomever asks on the assumption they need. I wouldn’t have denigrated the wealthy on no other grounds but their wealth. I would have avoided such notions because the same is promoted by some of the worst socio-political movements in history. Rather I would have promoted those philosophical values that Christian cultures internalized from Greeks and Romans which stifled the development of Christianity’s more socialistic teachings.
In my estimation he forwarded positive, egalitarian, pro-social messages. The concept of unconditionally loving everyone is a good example of this, and was rather novel at the time.
If you hold the villain equal to the hero, who benefits? If you love without condition both the beautiful and the contemptible, who do you profit?
I find notions of unconditional love and egalitarianism serve to perpetuate the lowest of human conditions at the expense of the greatest.
If you’ve got a child drowning next to a child torturer, and you’re able to save one, it should not be a difficult choice. Not if your love has conditions and your values have destinations.
How do you know that his intention wasn't to make the world a better place by promoting his ideas? We both agree, after all, that Christianity has had a net positive effect on western philosophy, do we not?
I don’t know that we do. There are very good values held by many Christians. Then again there are awful values held by Christians. I’m not sure that we couldn’t have arrived at western civilization without Jesus. I find his example quite disagreeable.
If it were me in that situation I would ask "Why don't you do it instead?" I can't really take such a hypothetical seriously because the sacrifice is so obviously being abused. I also see a difference in a group pressuring someone to do something and someone choosing on their own to voluntarily sacrifice their time, money or even life.
I don’t see my hypothetical as significantly different. Jesus is supposed to have chosen his fate, but none of his persecutors seemed to think so. Indeed, the crucifixion wouldn’t have happened without them. If you take time to reason with such mystical, violent barbarism, you will meet your fate to no one’s benefit, least of all yourself.
All that requires is for the person being sacrificed to not be an idiot that believes everything they are told.
Physically saving oneself from a bloodthirsty mob requires a bit more.
Saying "You should give money to X charity" is not the same as "X charity owns your money".
We come back to this disagreement. The word of god is hardly advice from a kindly stranger, to be accepted or rejected with equal import. When god says that if a man sues for your shirt, give him that, as well as your cloak, he doesn’t say you should. He just says to do it.
So then you agree that the intent isn't to advise people that all their money belongs to the state.
Only if he was lying to get out of a trap, in which case he is not advocating a separation of church and state. If he is not lying, then he is advising people that all their money belongs to the state, which is re-interpreted as a separation of church and state.
That makes no sense, you're describing a state where nobody but the state has any property.
I haven’t described that.
The bible specifically says people own property and that you shouldn't steal it.
Jesus says you should give to all who ask of you, and that you should not seek the recovery of property stolen from you. He says that trading value for value, in love, deed, and property, particularly good because even sinners do that. So you should give love, deed, and property to those who hate and take and you should expect nothing in return.
When I compare cultures with Christian influence to those without it there is a pretty strong trend. You have a good point on the "Give unto Caesar" quote (though I don't believe that to be it's intent) but otherwise it just seems to be an altruist/egoist divide. I certainly can agree altruism can often be pathological and needlessly self-sacrificing. However, I also hold the view that one should expand their spheres of influence progressively as their ability to do more good increases. To begin, one should look after themselves. As they become competent at that they should extend this care to their family, then their community and so on. Some people can only look after themselves and this is perfectly fine, in fact, if they tried to help others they would do more harm than good.
I agree that expanding ones sphere of influence to do good is advisable. I find that a person will derive a greater sense of personal significance, satisfaction, and meaning by extending good will and even property to strangers without expectation of repayment. One cannot do this happily without recognizing the value inherent in the person of the stranger, at least insofar as a recognition of and respect for the value they place on themselves. But I would advise no one to do this if they have reservations. No one should do this if it does not provide those personal benefits I mentioned. The courageous person who risks harm to save strangers is admirable, but the person who keeps their safe distance is not to be damned for it.
The views that I hold on this are not out of step with most Christian cultures (or western cultures). But this view is very out of step with much of what is promoted in the New Testament. Read Luke Chapter 6 Verses 20 through 35. These are part of the Sermon on the Mount. I find that Christian cultures advanced by largely ignoring these or re-interpreting such verses. I’ll link to the NIV text below:
thus suicide missions would remain the least common act of heroism.
Yet you seem to accept it is an act of heroism, regardless.
That’s no reason to give my coat to a stranger
What if the reason that western civilizations are so charitable is because of that idea underpinning our philosophy? Now, I can completely accept that one can be too charitable, however perhaps back then we were not generous enough.
But then you have the guy who is supposed to get everyone into heaven, pointing not to villainous murderers, rapists, pillagers, and thieves, but rather pointing to the rich.
I'm pretty sure he pointed to them too.
I wouldn’t have promoted state ownership of wealth.
I don't believe that was his intent in that passage.
I would have promoted those philosophical values that Christian cultures internalized from Greeks and Romans which stifled the development of Christianity’s more socialistic teachings.
We have no idea what that would look like so I wouldn't be so quick to declare that if you were in Jesus' shoes things would be better 2000 years later. If we were to assume that Jesus was in fact God, perhaps he was utilizing the Hegelian dialectic (thesis and antithesis create a synthesis) and knew that this would be the result.
If you hold the villain equal to the hero, who benefits? If you love without condition both the beautiful and the contemptible, who do you profit?
You're misinterpreting what unconditional love means. Loving everyone unconditionally does not mean that you do not also have conditional love on top of that. Perhaps a good example would be how you unconditionally love your family despite at times hating them, or merely not liking them. This is arguably where our idea of valuing all human life (a novel idea at the time) comes from.
There are very good values held by many Christians. Then again there are awful values held by Christians.
I'd say that the Christian ideas, rather than the Christians themselves, is what was important.
I’m not sure that we couldn’t have arrived at western civilization without Jesus. I find his example quite disagreeable.
Perhaps we would have, but nowhere else did, which is interesting.
Jesus is supposed to have chosen his fate, but none of his persecutors seemed to think so.
An individual spreading controversial ideas at the time was bound to be killed if such ideas were perceived to be a threat to the state. The story of the revolutionary thinker drawing the state's wrath is far older than Jesus, take Socrates for instance.
Physically saving oneself from a bloodthirsty mob requires a bit more.
The example you gave was of them being persuaded to be sacrificed willingly. If they are forcing you to be sacrificed then you don't have a choice so it's not relevant.
The word of god is hardly advice from a kindly stranger, to be accepted or rejected with equal import.
Yes but nonetheless you have the free will to take that advice. Furthermore, it never says that to not do so is a sin.
Only if he was lying to get out of a trap, in which case he is not advocating a separation of church and state.
Saying "pay your taxes to the secular state" seems to suggest a separation.
I haven’t described that.
You were talking about the state forcing people to give their property away.
Jesus says you should give to all who ask of you...So you should give love, deed, and property to those who hate and take and you should expect nothing in return.
I certainly agree that such ideas can be taken too far and can be pathological. I would also argue, however, that we are so charitable and generous because of the influence of such doctrines on western philosophy.
I agree that expanding ones sphere of influence to do good is advisable. I find that a person will derive a greater sense of personal significance, satisfaction, and meaning by extending good will and even property to strangers without expectation of repayment.
Does this blur the altruist/egoist line? It seems to me that altruism, if one is capable of it, greatly serves the self.
The courageous person who risks harm to save strangers is admirable, but the person who keeps their safe distance is not to be damned for it.
It depends on what you mean by damned. In my estimation stepping up to the challenge is the right thing to do, assuming capability.
Read Luke Chapter 6 Verses 20 through 35. These are part of the Sermon on the Mount.
I agree that these verses are too radical, nonetheless they helped set the philosophical stage for a more benevolent zeitgeist.
Yet you seem to accept it is an act of heroism, regardless.
Accepting one’s own death to engage in a heroic act does occur, but it is the least common. I have articulated some examples where it is rational to do this, but not all such acts are equally rational. And not all values are equal. For example, I do not find it heroic to knowingly drink the cyanide punch given by a cult leader. Nor do I find it heroic to forego avoiding one’s own murder for the supposed sake of the murderers.
What if the reason that western civilizations are so charitable is because of that idea underpinning our philosophy?
Western civilizations couldn’t be so charitable if we didn’t ignore key teachings which, if accepted, would suppress the kind of wealth creation needed to be both charitable and rational. A poverty stricken Western Civ would be less charitable, even if more in Christian-like.
I'm pretty sure he pointed to them too.
He did point to the poor, hungry, sad, hated, and those rejected as evil. He said they were blessed because of Jesus. Luke 6:20 through 22.
I don't believe that was his intent in that passage.
Most people don’t. But it is a more literal interpretation than a separation of church and state.
We have no idea what that would look like so I wouldn't be so quick to declare that if you were in Jesus' shoes things would be better 2000 years later.
Yes we do, because that’s what we did. That’s been my point.
If we were to assume that Jesus was in fact God, perhaps he was utilizing the Hegelian dialectic (thesis and antithesis create a synthesis) and knew that this would be the result.
If I were to assume that Jesus is god, then I would be a Christian, and not arguing against him. But I don’t assume that, thus I can see what is wrong with much of what he said. Fortunately, many Christians have seen what was wrong and have been forced by reason to re-interpret what he said. That’s not a feature of Christianity, it’s a work-around for the bugs.
You're misinterpreting what unconditional love means. Loving everyone unconditionally does not mean that you do not also have conditional love on top of that.
If the conditional love overrides the unconditional love, as I believe it should, then what you have is not unconditional love.
Perhaps a good example would be how you unconditionally love your family despite at times hating them, or merely not liking them.
I don’t unconditionally love my family. If my brother turned into a Mao, I would not love him.
This is arguably where our idea of valuing all human life (a novel idea at the time) comes from.
I don’t believe the notion of inherent human value comes from the unconditional love of Jesus. I believe it comes from a logical empathetic extension of one’s self-evaluation recognized in the person of another. This is a product of human reason that has examples in multiple religions ranging from Judaism, to Christianity, to Buddhism, to Shinto Confucianism. It is our other less rational tendencies that often supersede our valuation of human life, and those are in no short supply.
I'd say that the Christian ideas, rather than the Christians themselves, is what was important.
Many Christian ideas are cultural products, rather than religious ones. For example, Stoicism lived on in Christianity through Christian teachings, but is not itself Christian. At the same time, many ideas that logically derive from biblical texts, have not become established Christian ideas, such as we have been discussing.
Perhaps we would have, but nowhere else did, which is interesting.
Nowhere else had Aristotle, Plato, Lucretius (The Swerve is a good read), etc. The Arab world did, but they abandon reason for faith beginning around 900. By 1300 the Middle East was retreating from the scientific world they once ruled. European Christians picked up what the Muslims had preserved of Aristotle etc and embarked on what we now call the Renaissance. If Arab cultures hadn’t decided to place faith above reason, you and I may be discussing whether Western Civ would have made it without Muhammad, rather than Jesus.
The example you gave was of them being persuaded to be sacrificed willingly
The example was a person courageously fighting their way out of a cannibalistic tribe bent on volcano human sacrifice, rather than doing the Jesus-like thing and accepting it for the good of the cannibals.
Furthermore, it never says that to not do so is a sin.
Yes it does. The bible absolutely says that it is a sin to ignore the word of god. It is filled with examples of god’s punishment for the sin of ignoring his words. It is even filled with examples of god punishing whole communities for the sinfulness of it’s inhabitants. Thus, a faithful state is completely justified in compelling citizens to adhere to the word of god.
Saying "pay your taxes to the secular state" seems to suggest a separation.
Not when the reasoning is “because your money belongs to the state”.
You were talking about the state forcing people to give their property away.
A description of the state determining what you are to do with your property, as it often does, is not the same as a description wherein the state owns all property.
Does this blur the altruist/egoist line? It seems to me that altruism, if one is capable of it, greatly serves the self.
You can’t reasonably value the giving for its own sake, but that doesn’t mean you can’t value giving at all. The person who truly acts for others seeking neither profit nor reward of any kind, is an insane person, equally likely to kill for no reason as to share for no reason.
It depends on what you mean by damned. In my estimation stepping up to the challenge is the right thing to do, assuming capability.
It may often be. But it is hard to assume capability, or for that matter, gauge the risk. It is often remarkable and admirable when a person steps up. But that doesn’t mean it is necessarily contemptable when someone, gauging the risk too high or their capability to low, declines to step up. Lack of heroism is not necessarily cowardice.
I agree that these verses are too radical
It’s Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Mount. It’s foundational.
A poverty stricken Western Civ would be less charitable, even if more in Christian-like.
All I'm saying here is that we needed such altruistic ideas to be injected into our market of ideas.
But it is a more literal interpretation
Are the literal words more important than their intent? The intent was to tell his followers to pay taxes to the secular state.
Yes we do, because that’s what we did. That’s been my point.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
If the conditional love overrides the unconditional love, as I believe it should, then what you have is not unconditional love... I don’t unconditionally love my family. If my brother turned into a Mao, I would not love him.
I'm amazed that you don't possess such a concept. How about the fact that we hold humans in regard because they are human? Could that not be described as a sort of unconditional love? Once again, in my mind conditional love is separate; on top of unconditional love.
(regarding inherent human value) I believe it comes from a logical empathetic extension of one’s self-evaluation recognized in the person of another.
There is truth to what you're saying. However, just because something appears self evident post-facto doesn't mean it was self-evident before. I recall as a child doing nasty things to other children without thinking and having to be reminded to empathize with them: "You wouldn't like it if they did it to you".
Nowhere else had Aristotle, Plato, Lucretius (The Swerve is a good read), etc.
True, the argument cuts both ways. I'm actually currently reading Lucretius' "the way things are".
If Arab cultures hadn’t decided to place faith above reason, you and I may be discussing whether Western Civ would have made it without Muhammad, rather than Jesus.
To be fair though, Islam is far more totalitarian than Christianity, not to mention inherently political. As such, I'd argue that what Arab cultures did was completely to be expected.
It is even filled with examples of god punishing whole communities for the sinfulness of it’s inhabitants. Thus, a faithful state is completely justified in compelling citizens to adhere to the word of god.
The Old Testament applies to Jews, and does indeed suggest a theocratic state. There's nothing in there that suggests Gentiles need to follow the Old Testament.
But that doesn’t mean it is necessarily contemptable when someone, gauging the risk too high or their capability to low, declines to step up.
I can agree with that. Of course some people will wrongly make such judgements though, or selfishly refuse to help others at very little or no cost to themselves.
Are the literal words more important than their intent?
The literal is explicit, the intent is inferred and subject to interpretation. If it were the word of God, the literal words would be more important. As it is, we’ve done better with interpretation of intent.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
You asked what I would have done differently in Jesus’s shoes. I’m saying that I would have not said those things which are properly ignored and I would have added those things we have injected into interpretation, such as reason.
I'm amazed that you don't possess such a concept. How about the fact that we hold humans in regard because they are human? Could that not be described as a sort of unconditional love?
Our elevated regard for humans depends on them being human. That’s not unconditional. My regard for humans, and any other living thing is derived from empathy and reason. But there are conditions where reason requires a disregard for the value and even the empathy for a life, in favor of preserving other more important values.
I define values as those things for which you would take action to gain, keep, or preserve/maintain. If sanitize your counter, you value your health such that you remove positive valuation for specific germs. If you believe it is right for a person to shoot an active shooter, it is because you value the lives of potential victims such that you remove your positive valuation for the shooter. As awful as it is to consider the ending of a human life, someone needs disregard such empathy and do just that, in order to preserve human life. I don’t believe this position is consistent with unconditional love.
To be fair though, Islam is far more totalitarian than Christianity, not to mention inherently political. As such, I'd argue that what Arab cultures did was completely to be expected.
There are various views within Islam and not all inconsistency with western civ values.
The Old Testament applies to Jews, and does indeed suggest a theocratic state. There's nothing in there that suggests Gentiles need to follow the Old Testament.
In Matthew 5:17 through 20, Jesus maintains the validity of the Old Testament, and stated that it is Law until the end. Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.
Of course some people will wrongly make such judgements though, or selfishly refuse to help others at very little or no cost to themselves.
True. If someone fails to act for a value when they should, we call them a coward. If they have no desire to act, regardless of ease or cost, because they do not value what we believe they should, we consider them with contempt.
You asked what I would have done differently in Jesus’s shoes. I’m saying that I would have not said those things which are properly ignored and I would have added those things we have injected into interpretation, such as reason.
I was making the argument that since complex systems are so difficult to understand, while you may think your intervention would be better you have no way to know if it actually would have been.
Our elevated regard for humans depends on them being human. That’s not unconditional.
Jesus was only referring to humans though. So it's unconditional love for humans.
As awful as it is to consider the ending of a human life, someone needs disregard such empathy and do just that, in order to preserve human life. I don’t believe this position is consistent with unconditional love.
You can kill someone despite loving them on some level.
There are various views within Islam and not all inconsistency with western civ values.
Not sure exactly what you're saying here but I'm referring to the fact that Islam is so totalitarian (e.g. pray 5 times a day) and the fact that it calls for theocracy. This means anything similar to western civilization that might spring out of an area with such an ideology would be despite it, not because of it.
In Matthew 5:17 through 20, Jesus maintains the validity of the Old Testament, and stated that it is Law until the end. Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.
He said he didn't "come to abolish the Law or the Prophets". Nonetheless, Christianity was not just for the Jewish state of Israel (see below). Linking back to the idea that God punished whole cities, since he didn't destroy every single city that wasn't Jewish it still doesn't follow that everywhere should be compelled to follow OT law. Further, these cities were either Jewish (under his theocratic rule) or completely debauched (e.g. Sodom). Note also that in Sodom God even said he would spare it if Abraham could find even 10 righteous people there.
Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.
No, Jesus did that. Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Interestingly, he didn't mention to teach gentiles the OT here, only his teachings.
Hold on a minute. That doesn't add up. God supposedly created all creatures, not just humans. If he only thinks humans are deserving of love that means he deliberately created animals to suffer. I think you invented your premise out of thin air.
I was making the argument that since complex systems are so difficult to understand, while you may think your intervention would be better you have no way to know if it actually would have been.
Of course no one can tell the future. But we are in the position of looking back. I am recommending only that, were it me, I would have included the things Time has shown to be beneficial, and I would omit things time has shown to be detrimental.
You can kill someone despite loving them on some level.
I don’t know how you regard love. I view it as the highest degree of valuation, where value is anything for which you would take action to gain or maintain. To kill someone is to value them less than the thing for which you killed them. This indicates something less than the highest degree of valuation. Thus, a person may feel a sense of love for someone that they kill, but this sense is an internal contradiction.
Not sure exactly what you're saying here but I'm referring to the fact that Islam is so totalitarian (e.g. pray 5 times a day) and the fact that it calls for theocracy. This means anything similar to western civilization that might spring out of an area with such an ideology would be despite it, not because of it.
My autocorrect didn’t assist me in conveying my message. There are a number of ways to view the teachings of Islam. Some of those perspectives are not particularly totalitarian. Some approaches are conducive to western civilization. If those approaches disregard some teaching in favor of some other, I don’t view them as any less Muslim.
He said he didn't "come to abolish the Law or the Prophets". Nonetheless, Christianity was not just for the Jewish state of Israel (see below). Linking back to the idea that God punished whole cities, since he didn't destroy every single city that wasn't Jewish it still doesn't follow that everywhere should be compelled to follow OT law. Further, these cities were either Jewish (under his theocratic rule) or completely debauched (e.g. Sodom). Note also that in Sodom God even said he would spare it if Abraham could find even 10 righteous people there.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this addresses what I said. Jesus maintained the validity of the OT.
Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Interestingly, he didn't mention to teach gentiles the OT here, only his teachings.
He mentioned “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you”. Maintaining the old law was among his teachings. Even so, I don’t see Christianity as less Socialistic than Judaism, but possibly more so. I don’t see it in conflict with Judaism as it pertains to general outlook.
Isn't Christianity too individualist to be socialist?
Love thy neighbour is "individualist" to you, is it?
Feeding the five thousand?
It is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven?
Even Jesus himself was surrounded by a cult following of disciples.
Come on, moron. Don't make me ban you. If you want to have an opinion then that's fine, but try to make sure it is grounded in some form of reality please. Don't just make random statements with no credible basis in fact.
Many scholars have made the case that individualism's roots ultimately stem from the Christian idea that there is incalculable intrinsic value to every human.
What a complete, unadulterated pile of nonsense. A total false dichotomy. One does not need to be an "individualist" to believe in separate and/or distinct human personalities and values. That's just utterly stupid.
Furthermore, if you are going to reference somebody else's argument then quote that argument directly so we can read it for ourselves. Otherwise, you are simply myth-building to lend credibility to a ridiculous argument.
It seems to me that socialism merely ensures that everyone is poor
Then obviously you don't fucking understand socialism, do you? Socialists don't reduce the wealth before they share it equally. The wealth remains constant under a transition to socialism. What changes is that it is no longer held by just one percent of the population while the rest of us struggle and starve.
Your pseudo-intellectual ramblings are getting on my nerves. I haven't even trawled my way through two paragraphs yet and I don't think I'm prepared to read anymore of your absurdity.
Love thy neighbour is "individualist" to you, is it? Feeding the five thousand?
Is altruism the same as collectivism?
It is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven?
That's a call to charity. It's probably also an indictment on how many people become rich through evil deeds.
Even Jesus himself was surrounded by a cult following of disciples.
So you can't be individualist if you're part of a group?
One does not need to be an "individualist" to believe in separate and/or distinct human personalities and values.
I never made that argument. The contrast between individualism and collectivism is whether more emphasis is placed on the group or on the individual as the component part of the group.
Furthermore, if you are going to reference somebody else's argument then quote that argument directly so we can read it for ourselves.
This book gives a good overview (1). It's a very commonly made argument, given that emphasis on the individual rather than the group is a phenomenon which first emerged in Christian cultures.
Then obviously you don't fucking understand socialism, do you? Socialists don't reduce the wealth before they share it equally.
I was talking in practice, not in theory. Ideas can work great in theory but not at all in reality.
Pastors have admitted to me when I press them hard - Jesus was more socialist than capitalist. Never had one shut me down on that when they go research it hard. I’m Pagan, and I think free market for some things is good. I wish everyone had at least catastrophic hospitalization. Shit, we waste so much of our tax on loser. Would feel better about hospitalization than wetbacks to have free shelter- they didn’t even contribute to our country yet!
You are not Jewish and your IQ is so low that you reject science in favour of the religious values of Jews (i.e. having a Jewish mother makes you Jewish, Jews are a distinct race etc...).
Frankly, you're a sad old man who -- either as a result of dementia or just plain old-fashioned learning difficulties -- has the personality of a ten year old child.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
Let us build up these towns," he said to Judah, "and put walls around them, with towers, gates and bars. The land is still ours, because we have sought the LORD our God; we sought him and he has given us rest on every side." So they built and prospered.
Socialism, under communism or any other authoritarian government, is against private property rights and many OTHER rights.
Socialism under democracy is prevented from taking away personal property rights or any other FREEDOM.
Socialism is an economic system with the flexibility to follow the political system it is used by. Capitalism is ALSO a economic system that works under a political system. It works for the Russians in a different way than it DID under our democracy. BOTH can work under a democracy where they can be controlled BY THE PEOPLE. When either is used by a government FOR control, NIETHER is good FOR THE PEOPLE.
BOTH are needed, BOTH must be regulated, BOTH must be OF, BY and FOR the people.
Yeah sure that’s if Hitler penned the Bible I think you’re getting confused with Mein Kampf Herr Nomsky ...........
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler
You have been banned for literally repeating the lies which Adolf Hitler told the German people in order to acquire total power in Germany. Get out, you boring Nazi.
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists."
