Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[Ernie]

And I remain puzzled by the term Judeo-christian.

The term didn't exist until the 19th Century and wasn't popularized until the 1930s as part of trying to draw a distinction between the US and Britain with fascist, anti-Semitic Germany. Ironically, it was a term popularized by liberals, like George Orwell.

It's a rather loaded, problematic term that has had a mixed response from the Jewish community. On the one hand, the term did help American Jews move closer to the mainstream. On the other hand, it does co-op Jews into a Christian view of the world that they don't necessarily believe they are a part of. Jews don't necessarily see themselves as part of a continuous stream with Christians. We're the heretics to them.

If the Mormons invented a term like Christian-Mormon worldview, I don't think it would affect me much at all. I know where they get off track and so be it.

[Szdfan]

And I remain puzzled by the term Judeo-christian.

The term didn't exist until the 19th Century and wasn't popularized until the 1930s as part of trying to draw a distinction between the US and Britain with fascist, anti-Semitic Germany. Ironically, it was a term popularized by liberals, like George Orwell.

It's a rather loaded, problematic term that has had a mixed response from the Jewish community. On the one hand, the term did help American Jews move closer to the mainstream. On the other hand, it does co-op Jews into a Christian view of the world that they don't necessarily believe they are a part of. Jews don't necessarily see themselves as part of a continuous stream with Christians. We're the heretics to them.

If the Mormons invented a term like Christian-Mormon worldview, I don't think it would affect me much at all. I know where they get off track and so be it.

The difference is that Mormons outside of Utah and parts of the Western US are not the dominant group. You don't live in a Mormon world. Jews live in a Christian one.

[Ernie]

I helped a church get started in Utah so I think I understand the analogy. My friends in Utah don't like that Mormons call themselves Christian, and that is why they planted a church there. Yes, they don't like the term, but they are there to help people drop the Mormon part and keep the Christian part.

[Robert]

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

I disagree. Much of our Judicial process comes from a Biblical worldview. Common law, where the commoners got rights are because of a foundational understanding that we are all equal in our Creator's eyes.

Madison wrote about much of his input and process was from his interpretation of Scripture.

I am not saying they used Scripture to create. I am saying their world view was so infused with Biblical principles that it came out in what they created.

One foundational principle that comes from scripture is "Might does not make right."

Also, I see a lot of democratic aligned principles in the book of Judges. The New Testament teaches servant leadership. The leaders are there to serve the people, not dictate and have power over the people.

[Robert]

Democracy and representational government are not Christian principles. At least, I can't find any place in scripture that supports them. The concepts of "Democracy" and "Republic" never show up in the Bible. They are both Greek and Roman concepts.

There's a reason why the government buildings in Washington, DC are based on neoclassical Greek influences and not the gothic cathedrals of medieval Europe.

Yes, they pulled from Greco-Roman, and even some native Indian sources.

[Ken]

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

I disagree. Much of our Judicial process comes from a Biblical worldview. Common law, where the commoners got rights are because of a foundational understanding that we are all equal in our Creator's eyes.

Madison wrote about much of his input and process was from his interpretation of Scripture.

I am not saying they used Scripture to create. I am saying their world view was so infused with Biblical principles that it came out in what they created.

One foundational principle that comes from scripture is "Might does not make right."

Also, I see a lot of democratic aligned principles in the book of Judges. The New Testament teaches servant leadership. The leaders are there to serve the people, not dictate and have power over the people.

That was not me you are quoting. That is Thomas Jefferson. Here is the full quote: https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/jeffe ... 1_head_028

“For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons, on their settlement in England, and altered, from time to time, by proper legislative authority, from that, to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or lex scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century; but Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian King of the Heptarchy, having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever, therefore, was adopted into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period, we have a tolerable collection, by Lambard and Wilkins; probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it; but none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons, to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians; and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption; we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.

[HondurasKeiser]

In the US constitution, it does. It is founded on Judeo-Christian culture and philosophy.

I don't want to rehash what JBG and Ken already wrote and I am largely in agreement with them. Your above statement is false on its face. The Constitution is founded on a Liberal (Enlightenment philosophy). Theologians as far ranging as J. Gresham Machen and Pius XI have noted that Liberalism is a parasitic form of Christianity - and the two are ultimately incompatible. It strikes me that we're seeing the proof of the incompatibility being worked out today in our rapidly de-Christianizing/re-paganizing culture. Likewise the Federalist Papers make no mention of Jesus or 'Judeo-Christian philosophy'. The Declaration of Independence has that famous line about the "Creator" - but this seems to be more a product of Jefferson's Deism than the orthodox Christian beliefs of the other signers.

That said, I think you're right that the majority of the founders' "...world view was so infused with Biblical principles...". I disagree though that what they created was thusly in some secondary way "Judeo-Christian", rather their Biblical principles and those of the general populace helped sustain the system for a time. Because though, the Liberal system and Christianity are ultimately at odds with one another and in direct competition; as Liberalism has expanded, the faith and principles of the majority of the people, ironically the very thing that sustained the system, have been hollowed out and largely discarded. Thus the erosion of those principles over the past 200 years has led to to the increasing breakdown of the system.

The government cannot coerce us to follow Jesus. That, as we agree is an individual choice. It can restrain us though from doing evil.

It can not restrain us, but punish us if we do something against the law. Not all things lawful are good. Not all things that there are no laws about bad. Law is an attempt to bring order. It is not always right, as in slavery, abortion, and a few other things that were evil, but legal.

It absolutely can restrain. If abortion is illegal, one is thusly restrained and, depending on the person, probably deterred from seeking to abort their child and thus commit evil. This doesn't make the person good but it does keep them from engaging in an evil, implicating others in that evil act and impoverishing their community. Restraint as well as order is one of the functions of law. To give another easy example. We restrict the consumption of alcohol to adults over 21 years of age - this doesn't keep everyone under 21 from consumption but it does keep some (people like me and my siblings) that might otherwise consume, from doing so until the legal age has been obtained.

Political freedom though, does not follow from this freedom to choose Jesus.

Where do you see me saying that it does?

I am stating that individualism is required for a person to choose. It is needed in faith. It is available in western society. Western society is based off of Judeo-Christian principles.

You literally just restated it above - you suggest that:
1. Individualism is the same as the ability to choose Jesus
2. That said Individualism is infused in Western Society because: "Judeo-Christian principles"
and
3. Individualism is a preferrable political philosophy to collectivism.

Socialism is just another form of top down dictatorial order. That has been in existence in every era that Scripture has been written. It is not new. Individualism is quite new. Starting strong at 30 AD and growing from there.

A government based on individualism started in 1790.

Do you see how you're equating the choice to follow Jesus with political freedom expressed in Liberalism? You just stated one flows from the other beginning in 1790.

This is patently false. The individualism of Enlightenment Liberalism (the animating philosophy of the Constitution and Declaration) is contraposed to Christianity. Socialism is an attempt to destroy top-down, dictatorial order (unsuccessfully) and is a direct response to the growing Individualism that comes out of the Enlightenment.

[Robert]

Do you see how you're equating the choice to follow Jesus with political freedom expressed in Liberalism?

Nope.

You just stated one flows from the other beginning in 1790.

I did not say that.

The individualism of Enlightenment Liberalism (the animating philosophy of the Constitution and Declaration) is contraposed to Christianity.

I disagree.

Socialism is an attempt to destroy top-down, dictatorial order (unsuccessfully) and is a direct response to the growing Individualism that comes out of the Enlightenment.

The concept, maybe, but as soon as humans put it into practice, it becomes a top down authoritarian system. Someone has to decide for others. This moves us away from freedom of choice, of which is the foundational principle of faith in Jesus.

[HondurasKeiser]

Do you see how you're equating the choice to follow Jesus with political freedom expressed in Liberalism?

Nope....The concept, maybe, but as soon as humans put it into practice, it becomes a top down authoritarian system. Someone has to decide for others. This moves us away from freedom of choice, of which is the foundational principle of faith in Jesus.

You just did it again. The freedom to choose Jesus and the freedom to have an abortion or own a gun or spend all of my money on clothing, are not the same thing.

[HondurasKeiser]

The individualism of Enlightenment Liberalism (the animating philosophy of the Constitution and Declaration) is contraposed to Christianity.

I disagree.

With which part, that Liberalism/Individualism is contraposed to Christianity or that Liberalism is the animating philosophy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?