I couldn't agree less.

why?

--
Qvo Vadis Domine? Ego eo Romam atque in cruce mortus esse!!!

Commission me, I dare you!!!!!!!

Coat of arms [link]

You launch an attack on liberal government and social provision for the poorly off, ignoring the fact that it was right wing politics of de-regulation of which plunged your country into its present misfortune in the first place.(Your Republicans giving their speculative capitalist friends cart blanche). Also you say nothing about the scandalous policy of using tax-payers money to bail out the irresponsible bankers (many of whom are rich beyond the dreams of avarice) , yet begrudge similar funds going to support the ordinary people who have become victims of their economic bungling.

You raise the spectre of Socialism. Socialism is not an inherent evil, it is merely government 'by the people for the people', (which is hardly an un-American sentiment) . It is perfectly compatable with democracy and Christianity. It is not socialism that causes economic depressions, furthermore, not usually. Meanwhile a debased 'democracy' with only two parties (both sold-out to the interests of big business) is as likely to be a tyranny as any other form of government.

No, what caused this current crisis is Freddie and fannie Mac, in which they gave people home loans who were obviously not able to pay them back, sending the housing market into freefall. That was a Clinton program. The Bush Admin tried to reverse this, but those like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd(who by the way was the one who wrote the line in the recent bill that allowed AIG to give bonuses to those executives, and who got the sweet deal from Countrywide (an affiliation of Freddie and Fannie) when he helped them prop up their terms.) Im not saying Reps are innocent. I HATE the 2 party system, George Washington warned of the dangers of the 2 party system. And being rich and all that, may I quote the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The line about the pursuit of Happiness meant riches, the be happy and comfortable in life. All Im saying is that if we trim fat, lower taxes, across the board 13% flat no loopholes, that will be the best thing. Socialism is not American. Socialism is the thought that all should be poor. Again Pursuit of Happiness. Christ may have been anti rich, but he did not say that you did not have the right to pursuit such things. And money is not an evil, merely the worship of it is. Tyranny is at our foothold! Watch these links and you will understand[link] [link] Again I enjoy debating you, I am so happy that you will listen to me as I you with understanding and not hatred and in the end, we still are strong friends who agree not to agree

--
Qvo Vadis Domine? Ego eo Romam atque in cruce mortus esse!!!

Commission me, I dare you!!!!!!!

Coat of arms [link]

It is to your credit if you can tolerate a friend with such different views. It's very civil of you. I must say, though, that your materialism ill becomes someone whose artistic style is that of a medieval monk! Happiness does not mean obtaining more riches than you can spend, it means having enough to be free from hardship and worry.

Socialism is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone (entailing a controlled economy so that the whole society reeps the fruits of industry, with national assets in public ownership). Socialism isn't about making everyone poor, and I hope to enlighten you on that score at least. Rather, it is about equality, brotherhood and humanism. It's an ideal of progress that is not based on economic exploitation.

Jesus, meanwhile, made a spiritual virtue of poverty and condemning riches and avarice. If one is too hung up on worldly gain and status then one is quite clearly not bound for the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't think a Socialist would go that far, being more concerned with an earthly Utopia than religious apocalypticism. Socialism is about improving things for people in this world, yet there is common ground when it comes to the perils of material illusions and snares.

I agree with Carelus -- socialism is one step away from communism, and the ideals are the same. All it would cause would be to allow those in governmental power to more freely exercise their greed and control the currency more absolutely. It would strip more and more freedoms from the common man, and would begin a slide down a very slippery slope into a far more oppressive, far less God-pleasing government.

However, we are not called to start a revolution. This is the very thing that the Jews in the time of Christ were mistaken about -- Jesus did not come here to overthrow an oppressive government, but to save the souls of sinners. We are called to spread the Word of Truth to the nations, warn against false teachers, live according to the example of Christ and the Will of the Holy Spirit, and leave the rest in the hands of Almighty God.

Jesus warned against the pitfalls that wealth can lead to, but never taught that to be rich is to be evil, or that monetary poverty is a virtue. The closest teaching of His that I can recall is set forth in the Beatitudes: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven", and "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5: 3, 5). Sound hermeneutic study shows that both of these passages refer to a person's heart. It is made clear in many different places in the teachings of Jesus that the Lord judges the intentions of the heart.

Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't mean that he or she has fallen victim to greed or avarice. The Apostle Paul said that he had learned to be content in the Lord, both in times of abundance and in times of poverty. This is the attitude that we as children of God should take.

By the way, it is nice to see Christian brothers having a debate in love and concern for one another. God bless you both.

I didn't intend to get into an ancillary debate, but to say that socialism is one step away from Communism is like saying that Conservativism is one step from Fascism. Not that there's anything so evil about Communism, provided it's not usurped by totalitarian demagogues. At least Communism doesn't contain inbuilt chauvinism on class, national or racial grounds.

The mode of living for the earliest Christians resembled Communism in action, and quite clearly they scorned material wealth. (They called themselves the Poor). To quote Acts 2:44-46: 'All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to everyone as he had need.'

It's not quite that simple, granted, as elsewhere there are references to wealthy disciples like Lazarus of Bethany (only mentioned in John's gospel), whom medieval lore nonetheless managed to confuse with another Lazarus, the pauper of the parable (Luke 16:19). In the parable, it is explicit that an uncharitable rich man is destined for hell.

The phrase involving rich men and camels passing through the eyes of needles, appears in Matt 19, Mark 10 and Luke 18. Jesus gave the rich man the very earthly instruction that he should give his money away to the poor in order to become worthy. It was not merely about the intentions of the heart, but having the heart to sacrifice worldly comfort and status.