Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: "The Violence Inherent in 'Christian Socialism'" by Dr. Joel McDurmon

  1. #1

    "The Violence Inherent in 'Christian Socialism'" by Dr. Joel McDurmon

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Gun-Barrel-340x230.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	25.0 KB 
ID:	4813

    If anyone thinks that Socialism is compatible with Christianity, then this article will make you rethink that idea. Nevertheless, I dedicate this column to jmdrake.

    Socialism means the denial of private property to a great or even total degree. It means the use of State power—violence inherent in the power of the sword and gun—to redistribute property according to the dictates of some officer or committee of officers. Violence is therefore inherent in Socialism. Why some Christians see this as a means of fulfilling God’s will defies both reason and revelation.

    The “Christian” Wedge

    The Social-Gospel historian C. H. Hopkins notes that Unitarians formed the seedbed of the Christian Socialist movements and planted some early seeds in it. To those familiar with the liberalism associated with Unitarianism, that socialistic activism grew out of it will come as no surprise. I would like to mention the links between socialism and violence in the context of allegedly Christian activism. In short, since violence is inherent in socialism, “Christian” socialism—whether its proponents call it by that name or not—will necessarily rely on violence as well. To the extent it relies on violence beyond the few instances God’s law allows the civil ruler to exact punishment, to that extent—which is nearly the whole of it—we must understand Christian socialism to be anti-Christian in essence.

    As early as 1826, although the idea of redistribution of property already abounded, few Christian or Unitarian representatives had begun calling for State coercion to effect it. Instead, Unitarian ministers (and others) organized private Christian social services, such as Joseph Zuckerman’s “ministry at large.” In fact, some Unitarians vehemently defended the sanctity of private property. Harvard Professor of Moral Philosophy Francis Bowen wrote in 1856, “No nation has ever been discovered on earth, so low and brutal in their inclination and habits, so destitute of any idea of right, that the institution of property, to a greater or lesser extent, does not exist among them.”

    The literary critic and radical abolitionist William Ellery Channing some twenty years earlier had argued from the principle of private property against socialist movements among workers in Boston. He urged them not to be “so insanely blind to their interests [or] so deaf to the claims of justice and religion,… as to be prepared to make a wreck of the social order, for the sake of dividing among themselves the spoils of the rich.” Channing, in fact, argued against the ownership of slaves by acknowledging private property as a sacred law, not merely a civil law. In this sense, some of the pro-slavery crowd subverted society by making property rights (and thus the right to own slaves) dependent upon civil legislation:

    Of all radicals, the most dangerous, perhaps, is he who makes property the creature of law; because what law creates it can destroy. If we of this Commonwealth have no right in our persons, houses, ships, farms, but what a vote of legislation or the majority confers, then the same masses may strip of them all.

    This devotion of the sanctity of individual property unfortunately did not stick. Channing’s nephew, William Henry Channing, who had moved into Transcendentalism while remaining a Unitarian minister, had a greater appetite for government force and even violence if necessary to bring in a socialistic society. In 1848 he published The Christian Church and Social Reform—his opinion that a collectivist society would be the literal fulfillment of Christ’s kingdom on earth. When pulpits and scholarship would not be enough to persuade, the radical nephew would set the tone for revolutionary activism: “The next thing is guerilla war … at every chance.”
    Continue reading here.
    "Diverse weights are an abomination unto the LORD, and a false balance is not good." - Proverbs 20:23

    "Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality... By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases." - Dr. Ron Paul



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Has anyone told the commie Jesuit last pope (#212, Petrus Romanus) yet?

    petrus romanus

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...38.NbOtfzLqkRM
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 02-22-2016 at 10:32 AM.

  4. #3
    I don't believe that Socialism practiced by Christian's voluntarily is wrong. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis states that a true Christian community might resemble something close to a socialist one.

    One must remember that voluntary part. You practice your socialism over there on your own plot.... and others can practice their private property rights on their plot...
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    I don't believe that Socialism practiced by Christian's voluntarily is wrong. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis states that a true Christian community might resemble something close to a socialist one.

    One must remember that voluntary part. You practice your socialism over there on your own plot.... and others can practice their private property rights on their plot...

    I wonder how they manage to get around that pesky, "Thou shalt not steal." commandment.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    I wonder how they manage to get around that pesky, "Thou shalt not steal." commandment.
    I think what he's saying is that if all people practice what they preach then they don't have to steal from each other. Just what I got out of reading that years back.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

  7. #6
    On principle, socialism is wrong.

    1. Forcing people who work to give to people who do not work is wrong. The Bible says if a man doesn't work, he should not eat.
    2. Coveting what other people have is wrong. Taking from the rich to give to the poor sounds good, and it might be good if the rich became rich unjustly. However, if someone has worked hard and has accumulated wealth honestly, then he should get to keep his money. He can choose to share with the poor. If he has faith in God and a heart of compassion, then he will share.
    3. Poor people should not be eternally dependent on someone else's income. They should be working to get out of poverty. We are not rich people, yet a lot of people depend on us to keep working and producing income that is then confiscated by the government.
    Do something Dodgers.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    I think what he's saying is that if all people practice what they preach then they don't have to steal from each other. Just what I got out of reading that years back.
    Then why call that socialism? My understanding is that socialism REQUIRES a state (to actually parcel out everything owned equally [so called]). (ruled and controlled by Satan, BTW)

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Then why call that socialism? My understanding is that socialism REQUIRES a state (to actually parcel out everything owned equally [so called]). (ruled and controlled by Satan, BTW)
    You are referring to marxism; that is a subset of socialism.

    collective ownership is socialism
    forced collective ownership is marxism


    10 neighbors get together and collectively buy a plow truck to keep their dirt road open in the winter? socialism

    9 neighbors decide they're going to buy a plow truck and force the tenth to buy in at the threat of violence? marxism


    Socialism is a range of social and economic systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9]


    []
    Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


    There is no arguemnt from a libertarian philosophy perspective which should be opposed to free market socialism.




    liberty is about free markets; not socialism or capitalism.


    socialism is a spectrum that ranges from anarcho-snydicalism to command-marxism (the people's state)

    likewise

    capitalism is a spectrum that ranges from anarcho-capitalism to command-fascism (the corporate state)

    The only thing different between anarcho capitalism and anarcho syndicalism; both in the purest, is whether there were one-of-us, or two-of-us there when the property was acquired. In the anarcho captialism scenario one man pulled the tool from nature and presented it to his friends; in the anarcho syndicalist scenario two men inherited the tool equally. That is, they mutually coexist.

    the people's command state and the corporate command state will always, on the other hand, be at states of war with one another.
    Last edited by presence; 02-22-2016 at 11:45 AM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    You are referring to marxism; that is a subset of socialism.

    collective ownership is socialism
    forced collective ownership is marxism


    10 neighbors get together and collectively buy a plow truck to keep their dirt road open in the winter? socialism

    9 neighbors decide they're going to buy a plow truck and force the tenth to buy in at the threat of violence? marxism
    It would seem that at least one of us doesn't understand what they are talking about.


    socialism

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...11.H6LVKT_7yF8

  12. #10
    Collective ownership of a piece of equipment is not socialism. It's a partnership.

    The wealthy willingly sharing with the poor is not socialism. It's generosity.

    Socialism is a construct imposed on people. It's a power structure.
    Do something Dodgers.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    Collective ownership of a piece of equipment is not socialism. It's a partnership.

    you're drawing a line between shades of gray




    A partnership is an arrangement where parties, known as partners, agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership

    A syndicate is a self-organizing group of individuals, companies, corporations or entities formed to transact some specific business, to pursue or promote a shared interest.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicate

    Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and use that control to influence broader society.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism


    if I had the initiative I'd update that wiki for anarcho-syndicalism to:Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in FREE MARKET to gain control of an economy and use that control to influence broader society.


    because that better reflects the underlying philosophy.
    Last edited by presence; 02-22-2016 at 12:02 PM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  14. #12
    So, what's your point? When people are motivated to share some resources to accomplish a task, and not all of them, it's a partnership, not socialism. Socialism is with they live in collective economics in all aspects, not just some.
    Do something Dodgers.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    So, what's your point? When people are motivated to share some resources to accomplish a task, and not all of them, it's a partnership, not socialism. Socialism is with they live in collective economics in all aspects, not just some.
    when we arrive at a state of liberty and free markets, half of everything will still be collectivist in nature.


    Our focus, at liberty forums, should not be on how people choose to organize; collectively (socialism) or hierarchically (capitalism), but whether those individuals or collectives seek to use the force of their organization to tax or intimidate other disinterested parties for their benefit?

    That is the liberty question.

    Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of anti-authoritarian[6] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy,[7] as well as the state itself.[8]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  16. #14
    If you want to look at it that way, nothing is more collectivist than insurance. In that case, you would say that almost everything is collectivist. Libertarians talk about insurance. They want to make laws about insurance. It's collectivist on its face. Everyone pays in, but nobody owns anything.
    Do something Dodgers.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Has anyone told the commie Jesuit last pope (#212, Petrus Romanus) yet?

    petrus romanus

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...38.NbOtfzLqkRM
    You should google his involvement in Argentina's dirty wars! Now there's an interesting search! LOL
    Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.
    ~ George Washington

  18. #16
    Theo, these people will never respect McDurmon because the only freedom they want is to sodomize each other. That said... excellent article.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Theo, these people will never respect McDurmon because the only freedom they want is to sodomize each other. That said... excellent article.
    I thought you were leaving, no? Maybe I misunderstood.
    Do something Dodgers.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    because the only freedom they want is to sodomize each other.
    That is so not on the top of my things that do list.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Miss Annie View Post
    You should google his involvement in Argentina's dirty wars! Now there's an interesting search! LOL
    Yeah, he's good at doing google searches.

  23. #20

    There's Something Wrong With #2

    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    On principle, socialism is wrong.

    1. Forcing people who work to give to people who do not work is wrong. The Bible says if a man doesn't work, he should not eat.
    2. Coveting what other people have is wrong. Taking from the rich to give to the poor sounds good, and it might be good if the rich became rich unjustly. However, if someone has worked hard and has accumulated wealth honestly, then he should get to keep his money. He can choose to share with the poor. If he has faith in God and a heart of compassion, then he will share.
    3. Poor people should not be eternally dependent on someone else's income. They should be working to get out of poverty. We are not rich people, yet a lot of people depend on us to keep working and producing income that is then confiscated by the government.
    This may be just a technicality, but it seems like you've contradicted yourself in the part that I underlined. The reason I say that is because the act of taking (stealing) from "the rich" to give to "the poor" is, itself, based on covetousness, which you've acknowledged is wrong. Therefore, "robbing from the rich to feed the poor" is never a good thing, even if "the rich" acquired their wealth unjustly (an act in which civil restitution would be required in a court of law).

    Having said that, I agree with the rest of your principles on socialism.
    "Diverse weights are an abomination unto the LORD, and a false balance is not good." - Proverbs 20:23

    "Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality... By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases." - Dr. Ron Paul

  24. #21
    It's not a contradiction at all. If there is injustice, the poor should be repaid. If there was no injustice, then it's not a crime to be rich.
    Do something Dodgers.

  25. #22

    Let the Rich Stay Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    It's not a contradiction at all. If there is injustice, the poor should be repaid. If there was no injustice, then it's not a crime to be rich.
    I agree, but taking from the rich to give to the poor does not sound good, in and of itself. That was my point.
    "Diverse weights are an abomination unto the LORD, and a false balance is not good." - Proverbs 20:23

    "Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality... By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases." - Dr. Ron Paul

  26. #23
    And that's what I said.
    Do something Dodgers.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Miss Annie View Post
    You should google his involvement in Argentina's dirty wars! Now there's an interesting search! LOL
    I think I will. Thanks!



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    The thing is, I think a lot of Christian socialists are anarchists. I don't really know what's typical.

  30. #26
    Voluntary "collective" ownership is still private property that the parties agree to all include each other on the official deed of ownership. That is NOT socialism. It is a partnership, but not socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    Collective ownership of a piece of equipment is not socialism. It's a partnership.

    The wealthy willingly sharing with the poor is not socialism. It's generosity.

    Socialism is a construct imposed on people. It's a power structure.
    "Like an army falling, one by one by one" - Linkin Park

  31. #27
    I reckon Marx, Hegel, and Mises would agree that Socialism is by nature involuntary and violent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    I thought you were leaving, no? Maybe I misunderstood.
    I'm sort of leaving. I'm going to be very selective about who I interact with and what about. Mostly just the Peace Through Religion subforum and not discussing theology with people who don't profess Christianity since on these boards there is no point.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    I'm sort of leaving. I'm going to be very selective about who I interact with and what about. Mostly just the Peace Through Religion subforum and not discussing theology with people who don't profess Christianity since on these boards there is no point.
    I'm not here all day every day, so it wasn't clear.

    I'm enjoying a day off and there are a lot of fun things to talk about today.
    Do something Dodgers.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Gun-Barrel-340x230.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	25.0 KB 
ID:	4813

    If anyone thinks that Socialism is compatible with Christianity, then this article will make you rethink that idea. Nevertheless, I dedicate this column to jmdrake.



    Continue reading here.
    Here is another thought. The stupidity inherent in any jackass dumb enough to think he can impose his view of Christianity on others. You know, people stupid enough to think that the death penalty for gays is somehow non violent?

    Your whole thesis is morally bankrupt from beginning to end Theocrat. For one thing your claim that socialism is based on "greed" is retarded. Capitalism is based on greed. And greed itself isn't evil. Ayn Rand makes this point quite eloquently with her atheist self. Socialism is based on altruism. That's why, outside of heaven itself, it doesn't work. But Moses implemented parts of elements of socialism in the Mosaic law. Joseph's "solution" to Egypt's upcoming famine was state socialism. And while it was ordained by God, it shows the problem of how socialism leads to enslavement. But at the same time that particular enslavement saved the nation and Joseph's family. And the new testament church was voluntary Christian socialism. Again you see why socialism doesn't work. Greed, which in this imperfect world is necessary for survival, crept in. The most obvious case of greed was Annanias and Safira and they were struck dead. But greed on a lesser extent was seen with how the Jewish widows were being given more than the Greek widows. And what was the answer? Why the very first recorded case of affirmative action. The deacon Phillip was likely chosen in part because of his Greek name. So by making sure some of the deacons were Greek the church dealt with the issue of the unfair distribution of wealth.

    Now you can prevaricate all you want about how the examples of socialism found in the Bible don't count because...well..."God said so." But you're only making yourself look very stupid by doing that. And you know what? Every time I think "Maybe I might vote for Ted Cruz or throw away my vote on Rand Paul" I think "I really should vote for Bernie just to spite that jackass Theocrat." Seriously. Your arguments are as retarded as the pope saying nobody can be a Christian if he wants to build walls instead of bridges. (I guess the pope never read Jeremiah just like you either didn't read or didn't understand the stories of Joseph, Moses and the early church in the Bible.)

    And yes, before someone else buts in and says "But the early Christian church was voluntary" I have three counter points.

    1) The law of Moses was not voluntary and it required the periodic redistribution of wealth through the year of Jubilee and the gleaning mandate.
    2) The edicts of Joseph were not voluntary.
    3) All of the law from the Old Testament is voluntary when it comes to civil enforcement under the New Covenant yet people like Theocrat want to stone gays.

    Good grief! Capitalism can stand on it's own merits as the best economic engine in the world without you ignorantly trying to turn it into some moral crusade! Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. That will be the ultimate redistribution of wealth. Quit trying to serve God and mammon Theocrat.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •