CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM: PART 2


Title: "Ode to a Vegetable."
 
Thread begins here: CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM GROUP ON FACEBOOK
Sunday, July 20th, 2008

Donkey Hayes (Cameron) replied to Donkey's post
on Jul 21, 2008 at 2:54 PM
To your first paragraph there is nothing to debate... there is more that is in opposition to liberty and the order that Jesus would prescribe to us than just marxism... but I will note, that I am not an anti- anything... Ronald Reagan unillustrated the flaw in being anit... and the power of being pro... in the abortion debate... I'm not anti abortion, I'm Pro-Life, and I am not anti marxist, or anti communist, I am pro Liberty.

Now, am I consistent? yes. Ultimately my view is that the state should be done away with in favor of a club for protection... that is that. secession should be extended even to the individual. so that the state is not a state, it is not coercive, but it is a club where dues are only mandatory for membership, but membership is not mandatory.

Jesus isn't the cleaner of the temple... he cleaned it... but, first and foremost he is the Owner! he does not share his owner ship with anyone... as a sub note... why do people go to hell? for selfishness? I suppose, but there is something more basic I think... blasphamy. I think this is the chief sin... showing itself in everything from theft to homosexuality.

I would like a link to this site you mention put up... I will google it in just a minute... Capitalism... as you define it... lets put it like this... if we don't have socialism, communism, facism, communism, mercantilism, feudalism, or dictatorialism, what are we left with? essentially, what I advocate and what I find to be the biblical model is the absence of coercion. that no man can own another man i.e. compel him to do anything by violence or the threat of violence. For this... Can we simply refer to the commandments? Thou Shalt not Kill.. Thou Shalt not Steal, and by extension, thou shalt not extort?

I Know that many of those in the Austrian School are not Christians, but some are. in either case, this has nothing to do with truth. All men are consumers, and many are producers... and being such we should seek the most effecient and cost effective methods of those ends... It is analogous to Peter being a fisherman denying the superior fishing methods of another on the basis that he is a pagan...also keep in mind that if we are more efficient, there is more of the said crop, product, to give to and share with others.

The point of Liberty is not to extinguish Christianity... It is just to allow men to be free, and chose for themselves... But... regardless... the purpose of Christianity is to glorify God and lead others to Christ, not to make men slaves!

"Within the real body of Christ, there is no sole ownership. God is one. If you don't understand the terms, you should enquire about them before attempting debate."

there is no sole ownership, in that God owns everything and we are only stewards, if this is what you mean I will agree to that. But I love the Law and delight in the concept and demonstration of Grace. If, in the body of believers no man is the sole owner of anything, and every other believer is entitled to it, there is no grace, but entitlement. (I despise unwarranted claims of entitlement.) If I have outstanding skills and am able to produce things or buy things through my wages, It is a glory an honor to God and an act of love for me to give some (or all) of my things away. If however I have no proper title over them, but you and others just come and take what you need, where is the Glory for God?

I am no more a disciple of Mises and Rothbard because I am willing to learn from them concerning economics and ethics, than I am a disciple of Pythagoras by learning geometry! The questions of how to make wealth and what we should do with it once it is made are two wholly seperate questions. Mises and the Austrian School are only concerned with the first... as a Christian I am also concerned with the latter.
I question my salvation daily and each day am reassured by His Spirit showing Himself in my life. Tom. I do not question your heart, only your means.

Donkey Hayes (Cameron) replied to Donkey's post
on Jul 21, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I don't know where to start in regards to capitalism in scripture... but after a thought, I'll say... anywhere where you can find, give... you are advocating private property rights, because a person can not give what he does not own.

So for example. When Jesus talks to the rich man, and tells him to give all he owns to the poor, He recognizes the legitimate ownership of what the rich man has, and commands him to give it away as a sign of the man's Love for Christ.

My reply

Hello Cameron,

You aren't anti anything? Well, I am. I'm for things and against things. You aren't anti Satan? You aren't against evil? Word games....

What's "liberty"? If you are a Christian, are you at liberty to violate the commandment of Jesus to be one with Christians? Are you at liberty to treat others as you ought to not to want to be treated? Do you want to be shot? Should you want to be shot or should you want not to be evil?

You want to do away with something you haven't defined. What is the state? Is the kingdom of heaven a state? If it is a state, how can you want something else? Do you think your "club for protection" is heaven? What will your club force on others? Will you roam the world killing off non-capitalists? If you don't kill them, they'll take over peacefully.

"Jesus isn't the cleaner of the temple... he cleaned it... but, first and foremost he is the Owner!" The owner to you means Jesus isn't the cleaner? Why? Why in your mind can't Jesus both own and clean? He did it, but he isn't what he did, is that what you're saying? Check your logic. Jesus is his results. You know him by his fruit. He's the temple cleaner.

"...he does not share his owner ship with anyone..." Says who? Where does Jesus say this? He shares all with me if I'm worthy to be consistent with him and with the others with whom he's being consistent. Why doesn't he share any ownership with you?

"why do people go to hell? for selfishness? I suppose, but there is something more basic I think... blasphamy. I think this is the chief sin... showing itself in everything from theft to homosexuality." Theft and homosexuality are selfish. Blasphemy is also selfish.

I would like a link to this site you mention put up...
http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/

Real communism is not violently coerced. The New Heaven is pure communism (the state of being that Marx never got around to defining, because he couldn't.) There is no violent coercion in that New Heaven. There is no said club for protection. There are no dues or taxes in the sense Mises or Rothbard conceived.

"I Know that many of those in the Austrian School are not Christians, but some are." No. No one in the Austrian School is Christian. You are not defining Christianity properly. You are using a distorted, incorrect definition.

"All men are consumers, and many are producers... and being such we should seek the most effecient and cost effective methods of those ends... It is analogous to Peter being a fisherman denying the superior fishing methods of another on the basis that he is a pagan...also keep in mind that if we are more efficient, there is more of the said crop, product, to give to and share with others." You are failing to understand that Jesus was a fisher of fish and men both. You are looking to Mises and Rothbard for instruction on political economy rather than looking to your Lord and Savior whose political economy is already all perfectly spelled out.

"The point of Liberty is not to extinguish Christianity... It is just to allow men to be free, and chose for themselves... But... regardless... the purpose of Christianity is to glorify God and lead others to Christ, not to make men slaves!" Christianity does not do what your club for protection does. Your club uses coercive violence. Jesus doesn't do it. Even when he cleaned the temple, he drew no blood; otherwise, he would have been tried for it. He was not. If anyone had refused to leave, he would not have beaten the person into submission. All we need do is look to how he refused to cast a stone. They ran from the temple because of the spirit. Yes, they feared him. They didn't understand. You though are supposed to understand what they did not. You have the opportunity to use historical hindsight.

"But I love the Law and delight in the concept and demonstration of Grace." I'm not Pauline. I'm also not a Calvinist. I'm not a disciple of Paul or Calvin. I'm a disciple of Jesus.

"If, in the body of believers no man is the sole owner of anything, and every other believer is entitled to it, there is no grace, but entitlement. (I despise unwarranted claims of entitlement.)" What's unwarranted? Who took away the Commons? Who was entitled to take away the Commons that God gave to everyone together? Despise the right thing. By the way, you're anti something here.

"If I have outstanding skills and am able to produce things or buy things through my wages, It is a glory an honor to God and an act of love for me to give some (or all) of my things away. If however I have no proper title over them, but you and others just come and take what you need, where is the Glory for God?" The glory to God is in your being Christian from the start in all work you do. Being a Christian is a full-time occupation. Jesus said the chiefest will be he who serves. The least servant is the lowliest slave who owns no material possessions. There's your role model for the perfect Christian. Don't forget that he said be perfect. Understand that if everyone takes the attitude Jesus says to take, none will be without. In fact, the bounty will overflow as never before, or do you doubt it? Do you really believe that bounty comes out from the way of Mises versus the way of Jesus?

Don't forget that Jesus own not even a foxhole. He had the clothes on his back. Who had title to the fish that filled the nets before they cast the net on the other side? Your capitalists are clamoring to own the oceans by titles and deeds to the whole thing. If you think it isn't their plan, you don't know them.

"I am no more a disciple of Mises and Rothbard because I am willing to learn from them concerning economics and ethics, than I am a disciple of Pythagoras by learning geometry!" These are not analogous. If Jesus taught geometry (in the sense you mean) directly, I guarantee it would surpass Pythagoras. He did teach economics and ethics directly, and Mises and Rothbard aren't fit to tie his sandals on the subjects. Give John the Baptist credit for saying it about himself. Mises and Rothbard mislead you away from the Kingdom.

Economics is the art of running the estate. God's house has many mansions. What laws of economics written down by Mises or Rothbard will feed the five thousand as Jesus did?

You are crediting the system of mammon with creating real wealth while it does nothing but bring forth what is ultimately negative. Mammon is antichrist. Jesus was anti-mammon. If mammon were good, Jesus would serve it. He does not. The only thing to do with mammon is convert it (translate it) and keep it converted. It's binding up the Commons.

You took offense. You didn't see. I won't continue this conversation if you show that you aren't seeing anything.

"I don't know where to start in regards to capitalism in scripture... but after a thought, I'll say... anywhere where you can find, give... you are advocating private property rights, because a person can not give what he does not own." Do you own the sunlight? Are you able to get out of someone's way when you are blocking the sunlight? Do you realize that the capitalist will commodify and privatize all the sunlight once they're done with fresh water? They won't stop at anything. They hated the Commons. I loved it. Jesus loved the Commons too, and now he's where it is. It's coming back. Whose side are you on?

"When Jesus talks to the rich man, and tells him to give all he owns to the poor, He recognizes the legitimate ownership of what the rich man has, and commands him to give it away as a sign of the man's Love for Christ." You assume too much. Possession and rightful ownership are not always the same thing.

Jesus came as the rightful heir. The capitalists of the day murdered him rather than handing over what is Jesus's by rights from the beginning. They possessed what is his and mine and yours if you will. They didn't ever own it under the divine law. They made up their own mundane law full of hypocrisy.

I want what is best for you. I'm not about coercing. Don't let your ego get in your way. It's okay to have once believed in Mises and Rothbard. God will forgive you. It isn't okay to rationalize away Jesus in order to cling to the errors of Mises and Rothbard once you've been shown and you have now been shown.

I don't know what they're paying you, but it isn't worth it.

God bless you with the real truth,

Tom Usher

Thread continues here: CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM: PART 3

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.