One reason to vote for Bernie Sanders....

[Theocrat]

Oh seriously go reproduce with yourself Theocrat. The basic tenant of socialism is "To each according to his need." You know where that comes from? The freaking Bible! Get off your hobby horse and go back and read it. Socialism is not based on covetousness. It's based on false idealism. The idealism is that those who have should help those who have not. And even in the Old Testament you see elements of redistribution of wealth from the year of Jubilee where debts were wiped out or the gleaning system where wealthy farmers were required not to harvest every bit of grain possible so that the poor could pick up food for free. When Jesus' disciples walked through a field that someone else owned and picked an ate grain, that was a form of socialism. Socialism ultimately doesn't work as a basis for an economy. But to put religious significance on it as you are is borderline blasphemous.

I do not agree with socialism because it is a failed economic policy. But the early Christian church was pure voluntary socialism. The idea behind socialism, everyman according to his need, comes straight from the book of Acts. When the disciples picked and ate grain in a field that was owned by someone else that was a form of socialism straight from the law of Moses. The year of Jubilee, where debts were wiped out, was a form of redistribution of wealth. Socialism is not based on greed. Socialism is based on idealism. Moses telling wealthy planters "Don't reap all your grain but leave some for the poor" was not based on greed.

Leviticus 23:22 "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.'"

Acts 4:32-35 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Deuteronomy 15:1 "At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.

The basic tenet of Socialism is the abolition of private property, that is, property should be owned by the social community (through the mediation of a civil body) and under the democratic control of people. If you don't understand that fundamental principle of Socialism, then you're going to get everything else wrong, which in this particular case, is your desperate attempt to suggest that Scripture promotes Socialism.

For starters, each of the passages that you cited illustrate that it was the responsibility of property owners (not kings or judges) to take care of the poor. The gleaning laws, for example, presided with each member of the covenant community, to allow the poor and needy to store food and eat. Thus, it was not the duty of the king to force those land owners to allow the poor to glean from their fields; the land owners understood that it was God Who commanded them to have mercy upon the poor with their property. Thus, there was no redistribution of wealth from a "top-down" approach (as you have in Socialism)--it was "bottom-up."

Concerning Acts 4:32-35, once again, we find that there was no civic, magisterial authority nor any electoral system derived from that magisterial authority imposing on the apostles to share their possessions. It was an ecclesiastical imperative with a temporal, specific purpose to take care of the needy for the sake of the Gospel (which ultimately lead to the need for deacons). Once again, that is not Socialism.

So, if anything is "borderline blasphemous," it's people like yourself who want to use eisegetical, if not anachronistic, approaches to justify Socialism by suggesting that God's Word supports such a system (as Socialism is classically understood). It does not. God is the Creator, and that means the world belongs to Him. Therefore, no civil body nor civic administrator has the authority to take property from one person's hard labor and give it to another person who does not want to work with his hands to bear fruit in this world. Or have you forgotten what God mandated in 2 Thessalonians 3:10:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Gleaning was never a permanent status for the one who gleaned; it was there to teach the one gleaning that he ought to work with his hands so that he could one day be fruitful and give to the poor and needy of his own wealth, without the imposition of a king or a judge. That is not Socialism; that is charity, my friend.

[jmdrake]

The basic tenet of Socialism is the abolition of private property, that is, property should be owned by the social community (through the mediation of a civil body) and under the democratic control of people.

Bollocks. There is private property in communist China. There is private property in socialist France, Greece and Canada. And under the law of Moses there were limits on private property rights. You didn't want the riff raft coming on your land to pick grain? Tough titty! They could come on. You bought land from someone else because they squandered their wealth? At some point you have to give it back to the original family.

Oh...and let's look at the first socialist government ever. It was in Egypt and instituted by Joseph! Go back and read your Bible. Before the famine Joseph forced all of Egypt to pay a 20% tax on their produce. Then during the famine he "sold" them back the grain he took through government force. We they ran out of gold he took their cattle. When they ran out of cattle he took their land and at the end of it they were basically serfs and the government owned all of the land. What a terrible sinner that Joseph was. Your entire argument is based on ignorance of the Bible and economics.

[Theocrat]

Bollocks. There is private property in communist China. There is private property in socialist France, Greece and Canada. And under the law of Moses there were limits on private property rights. You didn't want the riff raft coming on your land to pick grain? Tough titty! They could come on. You bought land from someone else because they squandered their wealth? At some point you have to give it back to the original family.

Oh...and let's look at the first socialist government ever. It was in Egypt and instituted by Joseph! Go back and read your Bible. Before the famine Joseph forced all of Egypt to pay a 20% tax on their produce. Then during the famine he "sold" them back the grain he took through government force. We they ran out of gold he took their cattle. When they ran out of cattle he took their land and at the end of it they were basically serfs and the government owned all of the land. What a terrible sinner that Joseph was. Your entire argument is based on ignorance of the Bible and economics.

Jmdrake, I'm not arguing that there is no private property under Socialist regimes. I'm simply correcting you about Socialism in that it seeks to get rid of, stifle, or discourage individuals from owning property by its implementation through public policies (and indoctrination) to keep control of property under civil authority. Yes, the ultimate goal of Socialism is Communism, which seeks the abolition of private property. But Socialism, with all of its regulatory instruments and monetary controls, is a step towards the total eradication of private ownership.

The account of Joseph in Egypt has many themes in it, all of which illustrate God's sovereignty over pagan nations and the vindication of His promise to bless His seed. All of Egypt was, essentially, being judged by God (spoiled in the same way that Egypt was first spoiled when Israel left her under bondage), and the end result, in Joseph's case, was that God blessed him with the spoils of that kingdom so that God's people would be blessed during the famine. The policies that Joseph enacted were for a particular time, within a people who were not God's covenant people. Therefore, what Joseph did was not the model for the kings of Israel in the future (just study the campaigns of David and Solomon, for instance).

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, I'm not arguing that there is no private property under Socialist regimes. I'm simply correcting you about Socialism in that it seeks to get rid of, stifle, or discourage individuals from owning property by its implementation through public policies (and indoctrination) to keep control of property under civil authority. Yes, the ultimate goal of Socialism is Communism, which seeks the abolition of private property. But Socialism, with all of its regulatory instruments and monetary controls, is a step towards the total eradication of private ownership.

The account of Joseph in Egypt has many themes in it, all of which illustrate God's sovereignty over pagan nations and the vindication of His promise to bless His seed. All of Egypt was, essentially, being judged by God (spoiled in the same way that Egypt was first spoiled when Israel left her under bondage), and the end result, in Joseph's case, was that God blessed him with the spoils of that kingdom so that God's people would be blessed during the famine. The policies that Joseph enacted were for a particular time, within a people who were not God's covenant people. Therefore, what Joseph did was not the model for the kings of Israel in the future (just study the campaigns of David and Solomon, for instance).

Theo, stop ignoring the socialism in the Bible and pretending it's not there based on some flimsy "God was teaching some greater point" argument! Socialism isn't a sin. If it was a sin then Joseph was sinning when he implemented it in Egypt. When Joseph was faced with Potipher's wife he didn't say "Well I guess I'll sleep with her because it will teach some greater lesson."

Again, your initial argument that socialism is sinful because it is somehow based on "greed" has been proven false. You can continue to believe the falsehood but you aren't fooling anyone but yourself. Socialism is a bad idea because it doesn't work because human beings are corrupt. Capitalism works because capitalism is actually based on greed which is intrinsic to human nature.

Why do you think Ayn Rand said "Greed is good?" She was being honest about the nature of capitalism. It works because when I'm trying to sell you my chicken and you are trying to sell me your goat we are both trying to get the most for our product so most of the time it works out the best. If I start thinking "Well Theocrat's kids don't have as nice clothes as my kids so I'll give him more" that screws everything up. I can do that I suppose, but them I'm short changing my own kids. Worse, what happens when Sola_Fide wants to make a trade and I charge him more because he's richer but he finds out I've given you a break? Sure...I'm free to do that. But in the long run it's not very efficient.

[devil21]

I had some young guy tell me tonight that San Bern wanted to audit the fed. His brain locked up when I told him that San Bern is who killed Audit the Fed in 2010 (along with Mel Watt).

[Anti Federalist]

Both Trump and Sanders are inconsistent, at best, on my "core" issues.

I'll write in Ron Paul, again.

[EBounding]

I'd straight up vote for Berndog if I knew he would pardon Snowden.

[Working Poor]

If it comes down to Trump/Clinton I will vote for Trump because I would love to see the liberal heads explode. If it comes to Trump/Bernie I will vote for Bernie because I think he would be on the side I am on in the drug war it is the only opportunity I see for a little more freedom.

[LittleLightShining]

I would say that every other candidate in the field is advocating either socialism or fascism. In that respect, I do agree with you that none of them are labeling their positions openly as such (with the obvious exception of Bernie Sanders). And, yes, I realize that we no longer function as a truly capitalist society because most of our policies fit into one of those two categories.

But that's the problem. We don't need further pushes into socialism nor fascism because both ideas are bankrupting our country, whether it's ethically or fiscally. History has proven over and over again that socialism and fascism do not work. They both lead to suffering, misery, despair, and a host of other social ills when they are imposed and integrated within a society.

So, why would you dare support individuals whose philosophies and policies will lead to that inevitable conclusion? Do you really want yourself and your children to grow up in a society where none of you can make a living for yourselves because of the decisions from oppressive and arbitrary politicians who lack a moral compass? If not, then why in the hell would you ever want to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, who wants to punish the prosperous, reward the lazy, and ultimately, empower himself to control both (because, of course, he thinks he knows how to spend our money better than we do ourselves)?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it the same way at all. jmdrake had solid points in post #87
Is it covetous for senior citizens who worked their whole lives to put food on the table, dress the kids, keep the lights on and the house warm, pay their taxes, insurances, medical bills, etc-- do you think it's covetous of those people to expect an adequate social security check? I don't. Would I like to opt out? Yes, definitely. Can I? Not really. Socialist, you see?