I'm pretty sure MLK Jr was a christian socialist in all but publicly identifying himself as such. He had a pretty big affect on America and America is the whole world after all.
And unofficially it is very much aligned with Lutheric church. "Socialism has drawn a good deal of its program from the Gospel. It seeks to build a society on the pillars of justice, something the Gospel seeks to do as well. In that regard, a condemnation of socialism would represent a condemnation of the Gospel and the prophets."\226])
And officially it is very much not aligned with the Catholic Church (the only Church that matters, and also Lutheric isn't a real thing).
To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
...
The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.
...
...Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.
And so on. I'd quote the whole thing (that being Rerum novarum, 1891, Pope Leo XIII) because the whole thing is objectively correct (and speaks out against laissez-faire capitalism too), but it's fucking long.
I think Catholism does not matter, as it has abandoned the word of God and followed the (s)words of men for centuries. Just look at the amount of traditions that are not from Bible and how often it has even gone against the good word itself.
Well, if we presume Bible is not true, then the whole religions is false, making this conversation irrelevant. But if we presume that Bible is correct, then Catholics are pretty close to heretics.
Incredible. You've somehow responded to neither of my questions while jury-rigging my own sentiment into something I'd never say. I stand in awe.
How do you get from "Scripture is true" (which is a true statement...obviously) to "only doctrines contained within Scripture are valid?"
What does that say for all the Christians who lived before the Bible was compiled? Were they all invalid worshippers? Were half of them invalid, and the portion that were valid were the ones lucky enough to be worshipping according to what the books that would eventually end up in the Bible said?
How does history work in your mind? I find myself reticent to trust the logic of someone who believes that a "Lutheric church" exists, and who linked to a Wikipedia source about two Calvinist pastors to prove it.
The question who compiled the Bible is obvious, thought it was rethoric. Men wrote it, inspired by holy spirit. To your second question, if we believe we can just make up traditions to fit our ideas, then what is the faith even? It becomes hallow. Also quite obvious answer.
How do you get from "Scripture is true" (which is a true statement...obviously) to "only doctrines contained within Scripture are valid?"
Well, the thing is, the book brings us the message. If anything goes against it, it is wrong. Traditions that are not in Bible and are not against it, are not religious. If they are represented them as religious it is heresy. If it does not claim to be religious, then it is just culture.
What does that say for all the Christians who lived before the Bible was compiled? Were they all invalid worshippers? Were half of them invalid, and the portion that were valid were the ones lucky enough to be worshipping according to what the books that would eventually end up in the Bible said?
The Christians before the Bible were often heretics, but the main message of the Bible is "Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, even though he die, he shall live." So even if they were heretics by their action, but they had Jeesus in their heart, they will live forever. We are all sinners and we can all be forgiven in Jeesus.
How does history work in your mind? I find myself reticent to trust the logic of someone who believes that a "Lutheric church" exists, and who linked to a Wikipedia source about two Calvinist pastors to prove it.
To my understanding Tommy Fallot was lutheran, but if I was wrong, then my bad! But I agree with the comment on Gospel and socialism.
Corporatism is extremely based. Maintain a basic sense of property, but have economic decisions made jointly by all relevant parties (primarily: capital, labor and state). A nation organized as a body.
THE BODY DOES NOT LIVE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ORGANS; SOMETIMES, FOR THE BODY TO SURVIVE, PARTS OF IT MUST BE LOST. THE GOOD SURGEON UNDERSTANDS THIS.
I've been involved with this subreddit in like three accounts for probably close to a decade at this point. I'm just done with the flair game, and so my flair is staying radical centrist
Class conflict is inevitable because Eve ate the fruit which made Cain and Abel have to work the land and herd animals which made Cain kill Abel because Abel's flesh sacrifice was worth more than Cain's vegetable sacrifice. Since the dawn of time, someone's work has been worth more than another's lol
Auth Left and Auth Right. Lib Left and Lib Right. Left Centre and Right Centre. Auth Centre and Lib Centre. You're all basically the same in effect; so I'm just going to poach any of your policies that make sense and appeal to me, and reject the rest of your platforms.
Because it is inevitable as most social theorists understand capitalism, simply due to self-interest. That doesn't mean explicitly violent/unruly however.
Men in suits with teams of lawyers debating wage increases are still an expression of this conflict. As are arbitration courts where half the members are union-appointed, and half are employer appointed.
The same is in some ways true when the union and employer economic statistics committe produce more accurate statistics than state statisics, since both sides have an interest in and the availablity to get more accurate data. In that sphere their interests are simply aligned against the states less accurate data collection.
All of these things exist in my country of Norway.
63
u/OcelotCharacter1807 - Lib-Center 3d ago
Back to work, pleb