Regarding socialism, I don’t think there’s a way to find any common ground on this. I see the sharing of all things equally, the having all things in common, the living under a centralized Idea (or rather, the person of Christ) as very socialist in nature.

Yep, I think common ground is out. I see all the positives you admire as being more possible under capitalism, but never happening under socialism because of the coercion and concentrated power it requires. Socialism has never worked in any culture at any time in history. The only long-term communities I know that work, like JPUSA, are voluntary rather than coerced.

You haven’t given me one example of an ideal that doesn’t work better under capitalism than socialism in reality. Sharing? Can’t really do it if you don’t own anything. Generosity is out the window, along with the incentive to work hard.

I’m one who believes Capitalism, at it’s heart, is more evil than socialism could ever be

Amy, I know you know your history better than that. Capitalism at its heart is about private property and individual freedom. Socialism is about power-tripping despots who often end up slaughtering the masses a la Stalin’s millions. Remember National Socialism? It was big in Germany a few decades ago. The Jews still remember. Socialism and its offspring communism have murdered more people than any other system in the history of mankind, so I’m not sure how you judge evil. If you mean the United States, which has given more money to charity, foreign missions and foreign aid than any other country in history despite the ever-increasing gov’t interfence, well, we have very different ideas of evil.

it praises the love of and quest for money…and, as a by-product, power.

Sinful people can distort it, yes, but those problems are not inherent to the capitalist system. Freedom is the key, not greed.

And, as it plays out in humanity (as we see in our country), it’s decidedly ANTI-christian because it serves those with the most and empowers them to get more, while ignoring those without.

Again, sin is a problem, but let’s not forget the millions Americans give every year to disaster relief, missions, etc. Is it better for everyone to be in poverty except for the elite like the USSR experienced for so long?

The capitalist says it’s okay for someone to have $10 while someone else has $5, but the socialist would rather see everyone have $2. A capitalist says a rising tide floats all boats. A socialist would rather sink everyone’s boat just to keep it “fair.”

no one – NO ONE – here is justifying killing babies

It’s hard to tip-toe between that and saying it’s okay for someone else to decide to kill their baby, and to think tax dollars should support killing babies, like Obama’s view.

you can’t mandate values), no matter how much you try.

That I agree with. But of course we mandate morality in cases like spousal and child abuse, etc, all the time.

Second, I “deal” with Genesis 9:6 by looking at the rest of Scripture, and most specifically the New Testament, in which Christ taught us a new, VERY different way, in which Christians live under and are the carriers of mercy as a means of justice. I “deal” with it by seeing it in its own context and deciphering whether or not it can be applied in the context of the life Christ taught us to live, under the new Covenant. I’d think you of all people would know the significance of context, Law, etc…unless you are among those who insist Tattoos are sinful, etc.

I think context is vital, and the fact that Genesis 9:6 predates the Mosaic Law is significant. It’s tied to the Noahic rainbow covenant, and we’re still seeing rainbows.

No, Genesis 9:6 is not part of the Mosaic Law, but neither is it part of Christ’s new Covenant and Way, in which we’re taught to turn the other cheek, to love mercy, to seek and support reconciliation and redemption at all costs, to the end. Not end life, for any reason.

I think personal behavior and gov’t responsibility are separate.

I think it’s significant that the only justified execution we see in the New Testament is that of Jesus Himself.

Good point. I like it.

Furthermore, from what I can tell, the only way Capital Punishment is consistent with Romans 13 is if the government you’re living under supports Capital Punishment. Maybe I’m daft, but I don’t get how that applies universally.

Except that gov’t who don’t have capital punishment seem to be reneging on their Biblical responsibility to bear the sword and punish evildoers.

I could give you example after example of Church’s who have…taught their youth to plant pipe bombs

Must be a Southern thing. Not much of that up here.

But we differ in that I see LIFE as valuable across the board.

I do, too. That’s why I agree with Genesis 9:6. All life is valuable, but when you murder someone’s precious life, you forfeit yours.

I agree that mercy is huge, but a society that protects murderers and murders babies usually slides downhill rapidly.

And because I’m fairly passionate about that one, I need to duck out now.

At least I know you’re no threat to kill me!

Regarding socialism, I don’t think there’s a way to find any common ground on this. I see the sharing of all things equally, the having all things in common, the living under a centralized Idea (or rather, the person of Christ) as very socialist in nature. And I can’t go any further on it, because I’m one who believes Capitalism, at it’s heart, is more evil than socialism could ever be, simply because it praises the love of and quest for money…and, as a by-product, power. And, as it plays out in humanity (as we see in our country), it’s decidedly ANTI-christian because it serves those with the most and empowers them to get more, while ignoring those without.

Regarding abortion, pro-life, etc: First, no one – NO ONE – here is justifying killing babies. And I think I’ve made plenty clear that I don’t buy the “you can’t mandate morality” argument with abortion. I just see how – and why – it’s made in a democratic society in which not everyone is Christian and thus opinions differ on the value and sanctity of life. And you can’t mandate THAT kind of morality (or rather, you can’t mandate values), no matter how much you try. In our culture, it’s the public who decides whether we value a woman’s right to her own body more or less than an unborn baby. I’m on the latter end of that; but I can’t force everyone to be. And there are simply too many variables to mandate it my way. When you’re dealing with rape, it’s a lot more “obvious” because there’s no discussion of who’s alive and who’s not. It’s lame, and it sucks. But that’s how it is. And until we solve ALL the problems surrounding abortion, we can’t just outlaw it.

Second, I “deal” with Genesis 9:6 by looking at the rest of Scripture, and most specifically the New Testament, in which Christ taught us a new, VERY different way, in which Christians live under and are the carriers of mercy as a means of justice. I “deal” with it by seeing it in its own context and deciphering whether or not it can be applied in the context of the life Christ taught us to live, under the new Covenant. I’d think you of all people would know the significance of context, Law, etc…unless you are among those who insist Tattoos are sinful, etc.

I think anyone who takes the Bible at face value has to be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. Genesis 9:6 is not part of the Mosaic law, and it’s consistent with Romans 13.

We disagree here. No, Genesis 9:6 is not part of the Mosaic Law, but neither is it part of Christ’s new Covenant and Way, in which we’re taught to turn the other cheek, to love mercy, to seek and support reconciliation and redemption at all costs, to the end. Not end life, for any reason. I think it’s significant that the only justified execution we see in the New Testament is that of Jesus Himself.

Furthermore, from what I can tell, the only way Capital Punishment is consistent with Romans 13 is if the government you’re living under supports Capital Punishment. Maybe I’m daft, but I don’t get how that applies universally.

Bottom line: we disagree, except for on your thrid-to-last paragraph (though I could give you example after example of Church’s who have LOUDLY supported these wars and others, and have actively condemned women for abortions, and taught their youth to plant pipe bombs, etc. At least we can agree that abortion as birth control is indeed evil.)

But we differ in that I see LIFE as valuable across the board. I see ONE judge – and no more – capable of making the ultimate decision about someone else’s value to humanity, and of deciding whether or not someone ought to live. I see, throughout Scripture, justice being enacted with mercy in hand. I see it especially in the New Testament and in the Way of Christ.

And because I’m fairly passionate about that one, I need to duck out now.

Not all forms of gov’t are as evil as socialism, but I can’t say the early church was socialist because they respected private property and there wasn’t coercive central control. Their sharing fit compassionate capitalism much better than socialism. What do you think was socialist about the early Christians, other than the famine in Jerusalem?

Why do we defend state sanctioned execution of criminals (and trust the human ability to supposedly judge rightly when life is on the line) if we call ourselves “Pro-Life”?

Very simply–because recognizing the imago dei, the image of God in mankind as taught in the Bible, demands a right to life for babies and the death penalty for convicted murderers. God sets the rules, not us, and He said that murderers were to be executed precisely because they do not respect human life.

Genesis 9:6 6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”

NO human, no matter how righteous or unrighteous, innocent or guilty, ought to be at the mercy of another (sinful) human being’s ultimate judgement.

So how do you deal with Genesis 9:6?

So why are we so quick to defend a nation’s choice to go to war (when it “benefits” national security…) or capital punishment (”for the sake of justice”), but actively condemn a woman who chooses to abort one pregnancy to save her own life

Who does that? My church hasn’t rushed to support war (although I certainly believe much good has been accomplished in Iraq along with the problems) and no one I know condemns a woman for abortion (I’ve had friends who had them), especially if it’s in self-defense, rare as that is. I abhor it as birth control, because you’re killing one human to convenience another. That’s terrible.

My point is simple: the inconsistency is blatant on both sides of the argument.

I think anyone who takes the Bible at face value has to be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. Genesis 9:6 is not part of the Mosaic law, and it’s consistent with Romans 13.

The bottom line on abortion is simple–how does one justify killing a baby? That’s what abortion is. If the mother’s life is at risk, you can justify it, but you’re still killing a baby for the greater good. When a mom decides she doesn’t want a baby, is that reason enough to kill her child? And as I said earlier, the logic of allowing people to make choices can’t exclude rape or murder of others, so better defenses need to be attempted.

Now, regarding abortion: Yes, let’s be consistent. Why do we defend state sanctioned execution of criminals (and trust the human ability to supposedly judge rightly when life is on the line) if we call ourselves “Pro-Life”? I had no intention of going there in this blog, but there it is. I’ve personally adopted a total pro-life stance which acknowledges that NO human, no matter how righteous or unrighteous, innocent or guilty, ought to be at the mercy of another (sinful) human being’s ultimate judgement. So why are we so quick to defend a nation’s choice to go to war (when it “benefits” national security…) or capital punishment (“for the sake of justice”), but actively condemn a woman who chooses to abort one pregnancy to save her own life and protect her other born children who depend on her? When we boil it down, outlawing abortion would do just that: put a woman who must choose between the life of her unborn child and her own health (and the lives of any children she already has) out of the running altogether.

My point is simple: the inconsistency is blatant on both sides of the argument.

Socialism is coercive and denies private property. I’d say “redeemed free enterprise” would be far superior and result in less poverty and injustice. The early church was not socialist or communist.

I think it’s important to distinguish between defending “slaughter of the innocent” and defending the individual’s right to make – and be held accountable – for their own moral decisions. While I’m most certainly not pro-choice, I think I get that, for so many, it’s a matter of mandating morality.

Every law mandates morality. Should rapists have the right to choose? After all, they should have the right to make – and be held accountable for – their own moral decisions. Right? Let’s be consistent. Of course, an even better parallel is this: do we defend the right of men to kill their wives and be held accountable for their own moral decisions?

until the scientific community catches up and is finally able to prove it, the debate about “when life starts” and thus “whose life matters more” will continue.

So even if we make it a beating heart (week 5) or brain waves, Obama still supports abortion at nine months, and most pro-choicers don’t draw the line at the first trimester. Science long ago proved that life begins before a baby takes a breath of air. Just check out the in utero photos and ultrasounds that are possible nowadays.

Princeton ethicist Peter Singer says personhood begins with “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness” and therefore “killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.” Yes, that’s post-birth, and that’s where the slippery slope ends up, just as Francis Schaeffer predicted three decades ago.

it’s interesting to note that this argument of supposed “innocence” is faulty, unless you’re willing to admit – along with so many pro-choicers – that “human” life doesn’t start until a baby draws it’s first breath…or, even, until that baby commits it’s first sin. If life indeed starts at conception, and Scripture is true that all are sinners, then the baby’s not innocent. Indeed, the most *vulnerable* and innocent of harming others deliberately…but not innocent

You know that I believe no human other than Jesus is innocent in the sense of being free of sin, but surely we can agree that “innocence” can also refer to someone who is not aware of their sin, whether unborn, too young, or mentally handicapped. No one advocates abortion to punish babies for their inate sinfulness so a soteriological lack of innocence is no justification for killing the kid. Besides, we’re speaking in terms of execution. A murderer is guilty and therefore subject to capital punishment. A baby is innocent of capital crimes and therefore should not be subject to execution.

Regarding Micah’s (and many other Christians’) defense of the right to choose, I think it’s important to distinguish between defending “slaughter of the innocent” and defending the individual’s right to make – and be held accountable – for their own moral decisions. While I’m most certainly not pro-choice, I think I get that, for so many, it’s a matter of mandating morality. And while, to us who believe beyond doubt according to Scripture life starts at conception, until the scientific community catches up and is finally able to prove it, the debate about “when life starts” and thus “whose life matters more” will continue.

I also think, for the sake of argument (and splitting hairs), it’s interesting to note that this argument of supposed “innocence” is faulty, unless you’re willing to admit – along with so many pro-choicers – that “human” life doesn’t start until a baby draws it’s first breath…or, even, until that baby commits it’s first sin. If life indeed starts at conception, and Scripture is true that all are sinners, then the baby’s not innocent. Indeed, the most *vulnerable* and innocent of harming others deliberately…but not innocent.

Micah,

I was singing your praises on the first point about communism not working, but then you wrote:

Socialist and Communist IDEALS most certainly DO work (as evidenced by Canada, which is sort of a hybrid of democracy and socialism and yes, does function properly, but not perfectly as no government really does)

I’m from Canada,and it’s a mess in many ways, especially where it’s most socialistic. Canadian doctors take their families to the U.S. because socialized medicine is such a disaster. My cousin with cancer had to wait MONTHS for surgery and almost died. Most of my Canadian friends and relatives look longingly over the border to the USA while lamenting the socialism of their country. That’s one reason I’ve never moved back.

Jesus was no socialist by any stretch of the imagination, and socialistic countries consistently repress Christianity. The Bible defends private property which people can then willingly give to others as we see modeled in Scripture. Free markets reduce poverty–central planning destroys wealth and trickles poverty down on everyone.

I’m saddened that you support the right to choose. I wouldn’t call you less of a Christian because I’m not into name-calling, but I don’t think you’re thinking through the issue carefully. I assume you draw the line somewhere before the mother takes her baby home from the hospital, but at some point a baby is murdered. There’s no way around that, since that’s the whole point of abortion. I don’t see how a Christian can defend slaughter of the innocent, but I’d be curious to see how you work through that.

http://robingallup.com/2008/11/07/socialism/