Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[knapplc]

As usual the point was severely missed. I don't think Jesus or Christians invented these ideas and I sure don't think they are exclusive to any group of people. Anybody that got that as the take away from what I said either doesn't want to have an honest discussion or is too mired in preconceived notions about others.

I'll try to be more clear. My point was more of a question, why are you amazed that some Christians struggle with some concepts of socialism? Do you actually believe or think it is healthy for each and every member of any particular group (Christians, atheists, Democrats....whatever) to subscribe fully to each and every platform bullet point of said group?

Yes I am a Christian and yes I struggle with accepting many issues of socialism. I know what Jesus had to say on these matters. I know I am running afoul of the party line on some of them. But as much as it pains me to admit it, it is pretty darned easy to promote some of these things when you have the ability to say feed thousands with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread or to raise people from the dead. It's a lot more difficult when you've seen hundreds of examples of people not willing to help themselves or others and a whole world history of socialistic policies not culminating in the Utopia so many claim they will deliver. Frankly I don't find it amazing in the least when some people, Christians or otherwise, struggle with these things. In a perfect world pure socialism would be awesome. In our f'd up broken world, ehhh not so much.

I always appreciate it when my neighbor points out the speck in my eye. 

why are you amazed that some Christians struggle with some concepts of socialism?

Because Christ's teachings are heavily socialist. He decries avarice, he preaches tolerance, he exhorts his followers to give up worldly things, to help the poor, the sick, the less fortunate.  Selfless giving, loving and understanding... these are the very basics of Christianity.  Why wouldn't I be amazed that people who claim to be Christian struggle with these things?

This is like saying I shouldn't be amazed at someone who avers that they love hamburgers above all other foods, but who wants their hamburger on a long bun split down the middle, with the meat in tube form and tasting vaguely of bologna, covered in relish & mustard. That's not a hamburger, that's a hot dog. Wouldn't you kinda be amazed that someone claims to love only hamburgers in that circumstance?

Do you actually believe or think it is healthy for each and every member of any particular group (Christians, atheists, Democrats....whatever) to subscribe fully to each and every platform bullet point of said group?

I don't think it's too high of a hurdle to expect self-declared Christians to follow the teachings of Christ. Do you?

 

[TGHusker]

Here is where I think some of the 'rub' is that Comfortably Numb may be trying to say (I don't pretend to speak for him - just trying to read between the lines -- so he can correct me as needed). 

Christian compassion and giving is to be internally motivated out of a love of God and a love for our neighbor.  It is not an external compulsion that motivates our giving and care.  Knapp accurately and thoughtfully captured the essence of Christian giving and what is to be our heart.  (Knapp - one day I hope you return to your faith roots - you have a good heart. But with that I affirm that one can have a good heart wtout a particular faith)

The rub is this:

Socialism is an external "mechanism' which exerts pressure via taxes forcing others to be "compassionate' in the way and to the recipients of the govt choosing.  In that way, it is not different than any other govt - democratic or otherwise - it may exert more pressure than let's say a very conservative or libertarian democratic govt and it may exert less pressure than a full bore communist govt - looking at the extremes.  Govts should be all about providing a safety net for its citizens - the debate is where to balance it out - how much 'giving' comes from private sector and how much from the public sector.   If govts take so much through very high taxes it will leave little funds for individuals (Christian or non-Christian, religious or non-religious) to give freely as their conscience dictates to the individuals or organizations they wish to personally assist.  I will say that the USA as the world's richest nation could have a greater and more encompassing safety net than what it does have.  If our priorities were right we would be spending less money in some areas so that we could provide better health care and other assistance to the needy.  However, the USA has also taken on the burden of caring for the world in so many other areas. Without our military, much of the world may be under dictatorships now.  We are usually the first nation to help in a disaster - providing food, medical supplies, etc for people around the world.  So we cannot flippantly say - just cut the military or cut foreign aid.  We could however make better choices - like not fighting 2 wars in the MidEast at the same time.  That could have funded a lot of safety net things here. 

This isn't a matter of being compassionate or not - it is a matter of how or the method by which compassion is to be administered in a free society.  Too much 'govt sponsored' compassion leaves less funds available for private donors (unless you are the very wealthy) to contribute freely as they desire.

So I think in an ideal world - socialism would work and we should and could all endorse it.  But we aren't in an ideal world - there is too much selfishness at every level (sin) to make it not work.  As a Christian we believe the ideal is yet to come.  In the mean time we are called to render to Cesar that which is Cesar's and render to God that which belongs to God(our lives).  And if we live in a society where Cesar is unusually large, we are to trust God for grace to give sacrificially both to Cesar and directly to our neighbor as our conscience dictates.  If we live in a society where Cesar is small, then as Christians we aren't to let the god of materialism to take over our hearts and the best way to do that is to give generously and freely to those who are in need out of a hear of obedience to God and love for our neighbor.  

Let me add: it isn't just in socialism that the sin of selfishness can ruin the utopia we try to build.  Capitalism, at its core, has a lot of 'self interest'.  So while the left leaning person may try to build a utopia through govt largeness, and while the right leaning may try to build a utopia via capitalism both utopias will ultimately fail because each are vulnerable to the seed of destruction - our internal selfishness or self interest.  

 

[BigRedBuster]

Edit: Wrong Thread.

 

[Landlord]

Here is where I think some of the 'rub' is that Comfortably Numb may be trying to say (I don't pretend to speak for him - just trying to read between the lines -- so he can correct me as needed). 

Christian compassion and giving is to be internally motivated out of a love of God and a love for our neighbor.  It is not an external compulsion that motivates our giving and care.  Knapp accurately and thoughtfully captured the essence of Christian giving and what is to be our heart.  (Knapp - one day I hope you return to your faith roots - you have a good heart. But with that I affirm that one can have a good heart wtout a particular faith)

The rub is this:

Socialism is an external "mechanism' which exerts pressure via taxes forcing others to be "compassionate' in the way and to the recipients of the govt choosing.  In that way, it is not different than any other govt - democratic or otherwise - it may exert more pressure than let's say a very conservative or libertarian democratic govt and it may exert less pressure than a full bore communist govt - looking at the extremes.  Govts should be all about providing a safety net for its citizens - the debate is where to balance it out - how much 'giving' comes from private sector and how much from the public sector.   If govts take so much through very high taxes it will leave little funds for individuals (Christian or non-Christian, religious or non-religious) to give freely as their conscience dictates to the individuals or organizations they wish to personally assist.  I will say that the USA as the world's richest nation could have a greater and more encompassing safety net than what it does have.  If our priorities were right we would be spending less money in some areas so that we could provide better health care and other assistance to the needy.  However, the USA has also taken on the burden of caring for the world in so many other areas. Without our military, much of the world may be under dictatorships now.  We are usually the first nation to help in a disaster - providing food, medical supplies, etc for people around the world.  So we cannot flippantly say - just cut the military or cut foreign aid.  We could however make better choices - like not fighting 2 wars in the MidEast at the same time.  That could have funded a lot of safety net things here. 

This isn't a matter of being compassionate or not - it is a matter of how or the method by which compassion is to be administered in a free society.  Too much 'govt sponsored' compassion leaves less funds available for private donors (unless you are the very wealthy) to contribute freely as they desire.

So I think in an ideal world - socialism would work and we should and could all endorse it.  But we aren't in an ideal world - there is too much selfishness at every level (sin) to make it not work.  As a Christian we believe the ideal is yet to come.  In the mean time we are called to render to Cesar that which is Cesar's and render to God that which belongs to God(our lives).  And if we live in a society where Cesar is unusually large, we are to trust God for grace to give sacrificially both to Cesar and directly to our neighbor as our conscience dictates.  If we live in a society where Cesar is small, then as Christians we aren't to let the god of materialism to take over our hearts and the best way to do that is to give generously and freely to those who are in need out of a hear of obedience to God and love for our neighbor.  

Would we also say it's true that the just punishment of not having that internal love of God/people that motivates you to pool your resources is to be instantly killed on the spot, ala Ananias and Sapphira?

 

[TGHusker]

Would we also say it's true that the just punishment of not having that internal love of God/people that motivates you to pool your resources is to be instantly killed on the spot, ala Ananias and Sapphira?

Well I'm thankful that was a very unusual situation and that God's grace allows us the ability to overcome & mature out of those less than pure motives we often have in the way we serve.  If we look deeper we see that 2 deep character flaws came to the forefront: (1) Remember they did give and were generous - they gave money from the sale of the land.  However, they did not give out of that love of God/people as you noted - they gave out of a desire to be 'well thought of'.  They wanted others to 'see their generosity' whereby they would be the object of praise and not God who supplied for the needy through them.  This is partly how we 'steal the glory of God' when we take credit and not reflecting gratefulness back to God (we can think of Romans 1:18-22 - applying the 'not being thankful' portion to any of us .)  The other aspect of this is that it builds the illusion that the needy or the church in this case is dependent on certain wealthy donors and not on God.  Thus faith is deflected from its rightful object to an inferior object.  (2) More seriously - they lied to the Holy Spirit as the biblical account notes.  They said they gave all of the money from the sale of the land but in reality they only gave a portion. Pride was at the center of their giving and at the center of their deceit. They wanted to be well though of but they were also consumed by greed (they wanted to have their cake and eat it too)  This was a seed (pride) that had to be squashed at the beginning of the church age less it spoil the whole group.  Pride is the 'parent seed' of all sin. It is the core or center of sin.  The result was that a healthy 'fear of the Lord' was in the church to do right and to live purely.  I'm thankful that this type of 'strong mercy' isn't administered by the Holy Spirit outside of that one case. 

 

[Landlord]

TG, it was said in jest man, come on, aint nobody reading that response!

 

[TGHusker]

TG, it was said in jest man, come on, aint nobody reading that response!

oh I know - you caught me   on an 'intense mode' there   - got in deep thought and spilled my brain out. 

 

[JJ Husker]

You throw your share of darts. Don't play the victim.

Not playing the victim at all and never said I wasn't willing to trade barbs. However,  I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong or misworded something. I'm also willing to acknowledge I'm not perfect and that I don't have all the answers. But I do get pretty annoyed when someone, you in this case, acts like to be a Christian means that person has to be perfectly Christian in all their beliefs and actions and, if they aren't, then somehow that makes them a hypocrite. If you don't realize what a steaming pile of dogsh!t that approach is I'm sure I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

As TG stated so we'll, there is God and then there is Ceasar. I know what my religion and Jesus has to say about these things. Unfortunately I also know how and what our government does to try to address these things. I have no problem separating the two, religion and government, and in some cases opposing some policies that seemingly run counter to what Jesus said. So the other thing that annoys me is when people, you in this case again, want to act like this is some amazing unacceptable thing. The problem is too often you approach these discussions as Christians are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You would have a problem if I strictly followed the religion line in political matters, claiming separation of church and state is required but apparently you also have a problem when people do separate church from state. So it leaves me quite bewildered as to which way you really want it. And that is what precipitates accusations of not wanting to have an honest discussion or being mired in preconceived notions. As far as comments about missing the point, that's about the nicest way I can put it when someone takes something I've said and twists it to serve their purpose. But yeah, comments like "it's a real headscratcher" or "thanks for replying as expected" is just me taking a cheapshot and throwing my own darts. I'm a big boy and I won't be made a victim.

 

[knapplc]

But I do get pretty annoyed when someone, you in this case, acts like to be a Christian means that person has to be perfectly Christian in all their beliefs and actions and, if they aren't, then somehow that makes them a hypocrite.

I didn't say this, it's a strawman, and yes, it's a "steaming pile of dogs#!t" as you so eloquently put it. 

You would have a problem if I strictly followed the religion line in political matters, claiming separation of church and state is required but apparently you also have a problem when people do separate church from state. So it leaves me quite bewildered as to which way you really want it.

You don't know that. And frankly, it's another strawman.  And it's not honest discussion.

 

[Big Red 40]

Here is where I think some of the 'rub' is that Comfortably Numb may be trying to say (I don't pretend to speak for him - just trying to read between the lines -- so he can correct me as needed). 

Christian compassion and giving is to be internally motivated out of a love of God and a love for our neighbor.  It is not an external compulsion that motivates our giving and care.  Knapp accurately and thoughtfully captured the essence of Christian giving and what is to be our heart.  (Knapp - one day I hope you return to your faith roots - you have a good heart. But with that I affirm that one can have a good heart wtout a particular faith)

The rub is this:

Socialism is an external "mechanism' which exerts pressure via taxes forcing others to be "compassionate' in the way and to the recipients of the govt choosing.  In that way, it is not different than any other govt - democratic or otherwise - it may exert more pressure than let's say a very conservative or libertarian democratic govt and it may exert less pressure than a full bore communist govt - looking at the extremes.  Govts should be all about providing a safety net for its citizens - the debate is where to balance it out - how much 'giving' comes from private sector and how much from the public sector.   If govts take so much through very high taxes it will leave little funds for individuals (Christian or non-Christian, religious or non-religious) to give freely as their conscience dictates to the individuals or organizations they wish to personally assist.  I will say that the USA as the world's richest nation could have a greater and more encompassing safety net than what it does have.  If our priorities were right we would be spending less money in some areas so that we could provide better health care and other assistance to the needy.  However, the USA has also taken on the burden of caring for the world in so many other areas. Without our military, much of the world may be under dictatorships now.  We are usually the first nation to help in a disaster - providing food, medical supplies, etc for people around the world.  So we cannot flippantly say - just cut the military or cut foreign aid.  We could however make better choices - like not fighting 2 wars in the MidEast at the same time.  That could have funded a lot of safety net things here. 

This isn't a matter of being compassionate or not - it is a matter of how or the method by which compassion is to be administered in a free society.  Too much 'govt sponsored' compassion leaves less funds available for private donors (unless you are the very wealthy) to contribute freely as they desire.

So I think in an ideal world - socialism would work and we should and could all endorse it.  But we aren't in an ideal world - there is too much selfishness at every level (sin) to make it not work.  As a Christian we believe the ideal is yet to come.  In the mean time we are called to render to Cesar that which is Cesar's and render to God that which belongs to God(our lives).  And if we live in a society where Cesar is unusually large, we are to trust God for grace to give sacrificially both to Cesar and directly to our neighbor as our conscience dictates.  If we live in a society where Cesar is small, then as Christians we aren't to let the god of materialism to take over our hearts and the best way to do that is to give generously and freely to those who are in need out of a hear of obedience to God and love for our neighbor.  

Let me add: it isn't just in socialism that the sin of selfishness can ruin the utopia we try to build.  Capitalism, at its core, has a lot of 'self interest'.  So while the left leaning person may try to build a utopia through govt largeness, and while the right leaning may try to build a utopia via capitalism both utopias will ultimately fail because each are vulnerable to the seed of destruction - our internal selfishness or self interest.  

Very good points . I think any pure form of “ism” is flawed and will eventually have unintended bad results .

My beef with unregulated, unadulterated capitalism is the fact that it’s totally based on money . There isn’t much if any motivation in that system,  for the haves to help the have nots , or to worry about humanitarian issues at all . That’s where you need the government to “make” the haves contribute to the greater good  . Imo 

Pure socialism puts too much power in the governments hands though,  and since everyone gets the same,  it can kill motivation , and incentive . Government corruption would also have even a bigger impact in that system than it does now. 

I think a blend of those two systems (like we already have) is the best option, though i do agree we could do much better on social issues .

As far as God is concerned , Christians are supposed to emulate God and his teachings . Be humble, kind, loving, and compassionate etc  . Socialism in my mind does a much better job with that than capitalism . 

 

[knapplc]

If Jesus had to choose between Capitalism and Socialism, which do you think he'd choose?

 

[Landlord]

If Jesus had to choose between Capitalism and Socialism, which do you think he'd choose?

He'd probably dismantle your restrictive hypothetical with some transcendent third-way nonviolent protest of whichever was the form of power and oppression.

 

[alwayshusking]

It's always amazing to me when self-declared Christians speak out against Socialism.

Socialism looks good on paper, but it doesn't work and is against human nature imo. Not sure what religion has to do with an economic system. Seems like an emotional plea. I'm non-religious fwiw. 

In Socialism, the people in government end up getting wealthy and and everyone else gets the scraps. At least with capitalism the big earners get a lot but the standard of living increases for everyone. Assuming the economy is good of course.

I'm not overly impressed in Cortez's brilliance at this point either. Her answers on Firing Line were not impressive to say the least. Looked like the left's answer to Sarah Palin.

 

[Mierin]

In Socialism, the people in government end up getting wealthy and and everyone else gets the scraps. At least with capitalism the big earners get a lot but the standard of living increases for everyone.

I'm not quite sure this is true. The bottom half is, although I believe the US is going to reach a breaking point where things are too top heavy.

Socialist countries tend to have less economic disparity. The wealthy aren't as much richer than the poor as they are in capitalist socities. But overall they have less wealth.

I think there is a happy medium to be found that we haven't found yet. Certainly health care should be free and we can afford it if we're willing to not have tax policy that allows the rich to get richer, which they are already doing by buying politicians and policies. If we're going to let them have all the advantages in politics that allow them to screw people over if they desire, we shouldn't also let them have low taxes.

They have spent a lot of money to convince people to hate big government and be perfectly fine with corporations screwing them over and sometimes even poisoning and killing them.

 

[Mierin]

Not playing the victim at all and never said I wasn't willing to trade barbs. However,  I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong or misworded something. I'm also willing to acknowledge I'm not perfect and that I don't have all the answers. But I do get pretty annoyed when someone, you in this case, acts like to be a Christian means that person has to be perfectly Christian in all their beliefs and actions and, if they aren't, then somehow that makes them a hypocrite. If you don't realize what a steaming pile of dogsh!t that approach is I'm sure I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

As TG stated so we'll, there is God and then there is Ceasar. I know what my religion and Jesus has to say about these things. Unfortunately I also know how and what our government does to try to address these things. I have no problem separating the two, religion and government, and in some cases opposing some policies that seemingly run counter to what Jesus said. So the other thing that annoys me is when people, you in this case again, want to act like this is some amazing unacceptable thing. The problem is too often you approach these discussions as Christians are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You would have a problem if I strictly followed the religion line in political matters, claiming separation of church and state is required but apparently you also have a problem when people do separate church from state. So it leaves me quite bewildered as to which way you really want it. And that is what precipitates accusations of not wanting to have an honest discussion or being mired in preconceived notions. As far as comments about missing the point, that's about the nicest way I can put it when someone takes something I've said and twists it to serve their purpose. But yeah, comments like "it's a real headscratcher" or "thanks for replying as expected" is just me taking a cheapshot and throwing my own darts. I'm a big boy and I won't be made a victim.

Hypocrite isn't the right word here. It just makes no sense. One of the two most essential figures in the whole religion seems to believe in socialism and Christians tend to conveniently completely ignore it or rail against it. It's just plain confusing.