Title: "Ode to a Vegetable."
Thread begins here: CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM GROUP ON FACEBOOK
Donkey Hayes' reply on Aug 10, 2008 at 4:02 PM
"I can see that we have already arrived at the place where you go no further. You refuse to allow that the Kingdom is the State. I don't often resort to mundane dictionaries. They are often exceedingly limiting. However, this instance lends itself to quoting the mundane dictionary, because perhaps you might budge from your stiff-necked position."
Why does the state exist? "To establish Justice and provide for the common Defense."
In the Kingdom of heaven there will not be sin, so no need for law enforcement, a judicial or penal system, nor will we be subject to invasion. The Kingdom of God is just that the Kingdom of God. It is not a state. As any other state is.
I'm not splitting any hairs with you brother. In fact I'm trying to reply only to what is relevant to our discussion. mainly is socialism biblical? And is capitalism evil.
"Surely from the time my mother conceived me was I sinful"
Point taken... Mises was in rebellion against God... I agree. What I am saying though is that while his heart was in rebellion there is nothing inconsistent with scripture and Austrian economics.. its simply a science. would you claim a scientist's works null and void simply on the grounds he was "against God" ?
Yeah.. Um.. Sure... the only problem is is that all men are greedy... keeping things in the common doesn't change that... or did you not notice that all the buffalo were killed off about 100 years ago. If the government had allowed the domesticize of the bison there would be far larger heards than there are today... and if anyone is really interested in saving the whales, I suggest allowing people to homestead them.. Tag them.. Whatever...
the point is that it is inherent in men to be greedy. Capitalism or not. Capitalism just allows that a man can only fulfill his needs/wants/desires by fulfilling the needs/wants/desires of others through trade. As for the sun being blocked out... I think that would be a violation of property rights... its certainly an interesting case...
Please understand I do not think a person has to earn their way into heaven. As for winning souls for Christ, that rests entirely on the Spirit of God. And he is no respecter of persons. Electing men upon no condition of their race, breeding occupation or so on...
Understand that Economics only deals with this world. Mises explains himself in "The Anti Capitalist Mentality" that He is "only concerned with the well-being of this world and that for issues concerning the life after one should look elsewhere"
Like I've said before. We shouldn't reject air planes, or the study of aeronautics simply on the fact that the Wright Brothers were not Christian... what kind of sense does that make?
Well, I see no point in continuing here beyond the following:
In the Kingdom of heaven there will not be sin, so no need for law enforcement, a judicial or penal system, nor will we be subject to invasion. The Kingdom of God is just that the Kingdom of God. It is not a state. As any other state is."
The fact that God's state is not like any other does not mean that his state isn't a state and to be the state in your heart if you are a Christian. We are to bring forth here and now. You stand in the way of that. You're wrong to do so.
You have cited the mundane to say I am wrong about the divine that is to come to this Earth. Justice and "the common defense" as used by the founders of the United States are not as used in anyway consistent with what Jesus teaches us to do (if we are open to learning).
"Surely from the time my mother conceived me was I sinful." Is that what you think about yourself? Where did Jesus say it? That's Psalm 51:5 for anyone who may stumble upon this page. Put it in context. David was begging God to forgive him for murder and adultery. Did you do those things? David was being as contrite as possible in his own eyes and rightly so. How could I have done such terrible wickedness unless I was evil to the core right from the start? That's the frame of mind. Do you think it proper to translate it onto all human kind as you have?
Jesus said no one is good but God. I agree. That doesn't mean everyone is conceived in sin. The flesh is less perfect, but things less than God don't all offend God. God is rather pleased when any of us make progress towards perfection. Jesus did say to the woman to go and sin no more. He wasn't telling her to go and never have sex again. He was referring exactly to her adultery. She was to keep to her lawful husband to avoid the sin of which Jesus spoke. If she were incapable of it (going and sinning no more), why would he say such misleading words? You're aiming too low. You're falling short by doing so.
I'm not saying here that being chaste is not preferable. I'm speaking here only about what Jesus labels sin, per se. The bonded, faithful, monogamous, heterosexually married are not inherently sinning by having sex. It depends upon what is in their hearts toward each other and all others. If they are unselfish, they aren't sinning.
This is a fallen condition, but when they asked him who sinned, the mother or father that the child was not whole, he said neither had sinned but that things were as they were so that God could show through him. Sinning and being fallen are not always the same. Jesus was here in this fallen place and he was one-hundred percent human being. That's not to say what else he was and is at the same time.
I've seen the argument about science before. I've seen nothing new here in this discussion. It's all old to me. You missed the point. I said very clearly that Jesus had already given us the perfect political-economy. Don't you believe it? He didn't make a mundane airplane. Your analogies leave much to be desired. They are not apt.
What good comes out from that which is anti-God? Your position states that the good, as Jesus means it when he says no one is good but God the Father in Heaven, comes out from those who are without God. I tell you that you aren't looking far enough. Jesus came out from God. We are to come out from God also. Blessed is he who comes in the name of God. Who then is a real blessing who doesn't (emphasis on "real")?
You say all men are greedy. Speak for yourself. I am not interested in excess at all. The buffalo were not nearly all killed off by the Indians who had been here for thousands of years. Are you saying they weren't or aren't men? They were and are human.
"the point is that it is inherent in men to be greedy. Capitalism or not." It is not inherent. It is learned. The tempters hand it down from the tempted and those who fall to it never to see their way clear to overcome. You are regurgitating false propaganda fed you by those who refused to overcome. They failed. It doesn't make it inherent in all people.
"Capitalism just allows that a man can only fulfill his needs/wants/desires by fulfilling the needs/wants/desires of others through trade." Who needs it within the family between members? Who is not to be treated as family under the teachings of Jesus? Does your father charge you to eat at his table? Do you charge your brother?
"As for the sun being blocked out... I think that would be a violation of property rights... its certainly an interesting case..." Since when have "property rights" mattered? They stole the Commons didn't they?
Economics is as I have stated it. I don't follow Mises. He didn't establish the meaning of the term. It was there long before he arrived on the scene. He didn't get it right. He was wrong. That's why he wasn't a Christian. He didn't understand how properly to run the house. You want to act as if you haven't learned here how Mises missed the boat. You're still trying to hold him up as some sort of light. He was not. He was in the dark. You said so yourself above. The well being of this world lies in following the prescriptions of Jesus, not Mises. You can't follow both. They go in different directions; yet, you cling to Mises coattails. You keep rationalizing (self-satisfying but incorrect). You're in denial, as they say.
"Like I've said before. We shouldn't reject air planes, or the study of aeronautics simply on the fact that the Wright Brothers were not Christian..." I dealt with this above.
I've heard it before. In addition, so far, the invention hasn't proved to be the right direction. Don't place your faith in human technology or money. So far, airplanes have added to noise and air and other pollution and facilitated much death and destruction. On balance, I wouldn't conclude that it has been a good or necessary move. That's not to say that there are not ways to fly in the air without doing those evils. That's the point. The spirit that brought forth the common airplane was not the unselfish but the selfish spirit. Just because libertarians have said it or written it doesn't make it Gospel. Just because the Wright-Brothers point has been trotted out repeatedly by libertarians doesn't make it good or valid.
Capitalism is based upon selfish competition. Jesus' doesn't teach that does he? Capitalism has proven a net loss. There is no gain with capitalism. The externalities of that system have been worse than the supposed benefits have been good. Don't you see that? Step back and look at the whole course of history.
Well, Jesus is a communist for anyone interested in the truth.
May God eventually bless you with the truth.
I do not know if I'll be back here to this group since it didn't bear fruit. I didn't find the peace of the LORD here. I leave and take my peace with me through no fault of my own.
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)