In a few brief articles, I have attempted to lay out a handful of reasons that socialism conflicts with Christianity in a philosophical and practical sense. Though not exhaustive, I hope these reasons are sufficient to help the reader realize the problems inherent in the collective worldview. The "collective soul" should never replace the God-designed individual soul, or other God ordained ideas such as: the role of the family, the role of the church, and the role of private property. At the epistomological level, socialism's most subtle and powerful claim may be about the nature of the world. This claim is that the world and humans are primarily physical in nature. In this final section I want to show how Christianity conflicts with the materialistic outlook of the socialist.
First, we know that mankind was created in the image of God (who is spirit) and that God breathed life into him (which differentiated him from the animals). When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they began the process of physical death, but (more importantly) they were for the first time separated from God. From this came guilt, shame, evil thoughts, etc. Man had become dead spiritually, which was to God the main problem. Man was then tried by God to see what was in his heart. Job lost all he owned when going through testing and said "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised." (Job 1:21) Job was commended for this because he realized that his worth and faith were not based on possessions.
Second, Jesus stated that the poor will always be with us (Matthew 26:11). This is not for one nanosecond to imply that Jesus was uncompassionate or unconcerned for the poor. The Scriptures are filled with commands to care for the poor and oppressed through individual compassion. Christians are command to share with other Christians and other people as a way to demonstrate our transformed lives(Ephesians 4:28). Certainly, many unbelievers are generous, but apart from Christ we tend to be more greedy and physically focused. However, we are told to fix our eyes on that which is eternal and not that which is temporal (2 Corinthians 4:18). In addition James wrote "let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away." (1:9-10) Whether rich or poor we are to have an eternal perspective. Jesus was saying that the poor are important, but we must keep first things first. There will always be more productive people or more priviledged people (rich) so there will always be less productive or less priviledged people (poor). It is impossible to control that unless all humans are changed to robots. Here is the point: the spiritual and the physical do intersect, but the spiritual is what endures.
Socialists, like Karl Marx, tend to see the world and humans as only physical. Inequality of physical possessions is seen and class conflict is preached. In this temporal scenario, governments are necessary in order to take control and right these "wrongs" as soon as possible. Government needs to change ownership of property through redistribution and government needs to handle "important" decisions. Through force a better world will be created at the hands of the elite (or the decision makers). All this is often being done with no regard the spiritual nature of man or the cost of making him a puppet of the state. God is looking for changed hearts to move with compassion to help the needy, while the socialists are looking to big programs at taxpayer expense to help. Christianity claims this is an eternal struggle for the spiritual and physical redemption of mankind and the world. Socialism claims this is an earthly struggle to fix the physical mess we find ourselves in. One path falls short of the total truth and that makes all the difference.
Showing posts with label 5 Reasons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 5 Reasons. Show all posts
Monday, June 30, 2008
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Five Reasons Christianity Conflicts With Socialism (#4)
Christians, as I have attempted to show in past posts, should have many reasons for opposing socialism and socialistic policies. It retards individual productivity and neglects and destroys God's plan for the family and human government. Perhaps even more odious though is socialism's removal of the idea of private property. Whereas the Bible affirms the Lord's ownership of the world "and all it contains" (Psalm 24:1) and God's delegation of stewardship to humans (Gen 1:28), socialism affirms the totalitarian rule of the government (even when it is democratically elected).
It is clear in the early parts of the scriptures that God has not only created human life, but will not allow anyone to unjustly take life, such as in the case of Cain and Abel. A person's life is in effect owned by God and God has in effect given each man stewardship over his own life. His own decisions may lead to health, prosperity and good relationships, or his decisions may lead to pain, and physical and spiritual problems. A life can produce all sorts of things such as food, clothing, and materials. So life is the foundation of private property, which is essentially the ability to keep the fruit of one's labors and pass it on freely. This is affirmed in Exodus 20:13-17, which states that you should not murder, commit adultery, steal or "covet your neighbor's house...or anything that belongs to your neighbor". Can we take the things our neighbor has produced with his own labors? No, they are his, even though we may think our lot in life was unjust.
Socialistic policies often take the very fruits of human labors and they often tax the owners of property so citizens become serfs to their own government, which in turn acts as the "noble" lord in this modern day example of feudalism. Even if we say pure socialism does not take private property because their is no private property in pure socialism we run in to a biblical problem. If all property is public then the state owns that which God designed individual humans to tend and enjoy. How can a person show compassion and give to the needy if he has no property to give? If God expects you to "divide your bread with the hungry" (Isaiah 58:7), then you can not carry out His command. Jesus affirmed private property when he commended those who gave what was "theirs" to others.
One reason that socialists get nervous about allowing people to freely handle their own money is that they know some people will respond like the rich young ruler. Probably he was given his wealth through an inheritance (hence his wealth and position in youth). When Jesus asked him to "sell his possessions and give to the poor", he "went away grieved" and decided to keep his possessions (Matthew 19:21-22). The socialists fear that wealth will simply be collected by the rich to get richer. However, the socialists deny two important things: the power of God and the principles of economics. First, God has the power to change even the most selfish life and use it for good (such as with Zaccheus in Luke 19). Second, people need to fulfill the desire of another person to gain economically from them. If I want food, I am willing to pay for it and the farmer gains money. The fact that this rich man was a ruler probably indicates that he got money through taxation or domination over others (not by providing a true economic service), which ironically is the very thing the socialists are willing to accept by the government. The very oppression they hope to stop becomes universal under socialism. That is what led Winston Churchill to state (at least as my memory recalls it) that " the vice of capitalism is the inequality of its riches, while the virtue of socialism is the equality of it misery".
(My next post will develop further this ideal of material equality and what it means for a Christian.)
It is clear in the early parts of the scriptures that God has not only created human life, but will not allow anyone to unjustly take life, such as in the case of Cain and Abel. A person's life is in effect owned by God and God has in effect given each man stewardship over his own life. His own decisions may lead to health, prosperity and good relationships, or his decisions may lead to pain, and physical and spiritual problems. A life can produce all sorts of things such as food, clothing, and materials. So life is the foundation of private property, which is essentially the ability to keep the fruit of one's labors and pass it on freely. This is affirmed in Exodus 20:13-17, which states that you should not murder, commit adultery, steal or "covet your neighbor's house...or anything that belongs to your neighbor". Can we take the things our neighbor has produced with his own labors? No, they are his, even though we may think our lot in life was unjust.
Socialistic policies often take the very fruits of human labors and they often tax the owners of property so citizens become serfs to their own government, which in turn acts as the "noble" lord in this modern day example of feudalism. Even if we say pure socialism does not take private property because their is no private property in pure socialism we run in to a biblical problem. If all property is public then the state owns that which God designed individual humans to tend and enjoy. How can a person show compassion and give to the needy if he has no property to give? If God expects you to "divide your bread with the hungry" (Isaiah 58:7), then you can not carry out His command. Jesus affirmed private property when he commended those who gave what was "theirs" to others.
One reason that socialists get nervous about allowing people to freely handle their own money is that they know some people will respond like the rich young ruler. Probably he was given his wealth through an inheritance (hence his wealth and position in youth). When Jesus asked him to "sell his possessions and give to the poor", he "went away grieved" and decided to keep his possessions (Matthew 19:21-22). The socialists fear that wealth will simply be collected by the rich to get richer. However, the socialists deny two important things: the power of God and the principles of economics. First, God has the power to change even the most selfish life and use it for good (such as with Zaccheus in Luke 19). Second, people need to fulfill the desire of another person to gain economically from them. If I want food, I am willing to pay for it and the farmer gains money. The fact that this rich man was a ruler probably indicates that he got money through taxation or domination over others (not by providing a true economic service), which ironically is the very thing the socialists are willing to accept by the government. The very oppression they hope to stop becomes universal under socialism. That is what led Winston Churchill to state (at least as my memory recalls it) that " the vice of capitalism is the inequality of its riches, while the virtue of socialism is the equality of it misery".
(My next post will develop further this ideal of material equality and what it means for a Christian.)
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Five Reasons Christianity Conflicts with Socialim (#3)
In previous posts I have written that Christianity conflicts with socialism regarding the role of the family and individual initiative. In this post I will attempt to communicate how Christianity conflicts with socialism with regards to the proper role of the government. It is not that God is against government (a sort of anarchist), but that he has prescribed a limited function for the governments of the earth. He desires theocracy (in the heart of mankind and with the nation of Israel), but (as with Israel and our hearts) He will not rule this present earth without allowing free will. Therefore, with complete knowledge of the nature of man, He established certain guidelines for the government.
The first significant guideline that God set up was that man should punish violence done to another individual. God established capital punishment to protect human life (Gen. 9:6). God later gave the Law to the Israelites, which included the definition of right and wrong and some special customs the Israelites were to keep. God expected the Israelites to obey every part, but the Gentiles were expected to obey just the moral commandments that were written on their conscience (ie. not to keep circumcision, but to not steal) (Rom. 2:14-16). These moral commandments provide the basis for what God expects governments to punish and reward. Romans 13: 1-7 states that God wants to use government to punish evil (ie. murder and theft) and to praise good (ie. kindness). The Bible never indicates that God wants the government to be good, to be compassionate, or to be godly. No, the government is there to encourage good by punishing evil. Why did God not just have the government fulfill the command to "love your neighbor"? It is because the government is not an indiviual soul which can choose good or to be compassionate. It is an impersonal entity that must rely on force and not free will. Free will is for each individual. Socialism attempts to create a corporate conscience. It attempts to create a compassionate state through force. It attempts to yoke the righteous with the unrighteous (2 Cor. 6:14) in fulfilling "love your neighbor." But, this was not God's call to the state, but to the individual (Matt. 25:45-46, etc.)
So socialism attempts to provide for the general welfare through the labor of the productive. So the lazy (who we already stated in a previous post, God condemns) will perhaps recieve subsidaries for their lifstyle while the productive are taxed. This contradicts God's desire for freedom of choice and the coresponding consequences. It means that force takes the place of free will. It condones stealing, which is evil in God's eyes, and attempts to make the righteous and unrighteous "compassionate" through external means instead of changing the heart (which is God's will) (1 Sam. 16:7). God would rather that government promote the general welfare by giving people the freedom to provide for their own family and give discerningly. As stated in a previous post, people will then naturally do what is necessary to provide for those they care for, and will have the extra funds (that now weren't taken through welfare state taxation) to benefit those around them. This does not mean benefit others just through giving. It also means through investing in providing better services to those around them in exchange for the services other provide. So that when the craftsman provides a better product and the standard of living improves for all. Is it not true that the most free people have historically been the most prosperous? Following God's plan for the government frees people to do good, while punishing the obvious evils, and leaving everyone to choose for his or herself which path to take (Mt. 7:13-14).
The first significant guideline that God set up was that man should punish violence done to another individual. God established capital punishment to protect human life (Gen. 9:6). God later gave the Law to the Israelites, which included the definition of right and wrong and some special customs the Israelites were to keep. God expected the Israelites to obey every part, but the Gentiles were expected to obey just the moral commandments that were written on their conscience (ie. not to keep circumcision, but to not steal) (Rom. 2:14-16). These moral commandments provide the basis for what God expects governments to punish and reward. Romans 13: 1-7 states that God wants to use government to punish evil (ie. murder and theft) and to praise good (ie. kindness). The Bible never indicates that God wants the government to be good, to be compassionate, or to be godly. No, the government is there to encourage good by punishing evil. Why did God not just have the government fulfill the command to "love your neighbor"? It is because the government is not an indiviual soul which can choose good or to be compassionate. It is an impersonal entity that must rely on force and not free will. Free will is for each individual. Socialism attempts to create a corporate conscience. It attempts to create a compassionate state through force. It attempts to yoke the righteous with the unrighteous (2 Cor. 6:14) in fulfilling "love your neighbor." But, this was not God's call to the state, but to the individual (Matt. 25:45-46, etc.)
So socialism attempts to provide for the general welfare through the labor of the productive. So the lazy (who we already stated in a previous post, God condemns) will perhaps recieve subsidaries for their lifstyle while the productive are taxed. This contradicts God's desire for freedom of choice and the coresponding consequences. It means that force takes the place of free will. It condones stealing, which is evil in God's eyes, and attempts to make the righteous and unrighteous "compassionate" through external means instead of changing the heart (which is God's will) (1 Sam. 16:7). God would rather that government promote the general welfare by giving people the freedom to provide for their own family and give discerningly. As stated in a previous post, people will then naturally do what is necessary to provide for those they care for, and will have the extra funds (that now weren't taken through welfare state taxation) to benefit those around them. This does not mean benefit others just through giving. It also means through investing in providing better services to those around them in exchange for the services other provide. So that when the craftsman provides a better product and the standard of living improves for all. Is it not true that the most free people have historically been the most prosperous? Following God's plan for the government frees people to do good, while punishing the obvious evils, and leaving everyone to choose for his or herself which path to take (Mt. 7:13-14).
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
5 Reasons Christianity Conflicts with Socialism (#2)
Aside from taking the role that God designed for the individual, family and church, socialism retards personal initiative, creativity, productivity and prosperity for all classes.
Capitalism is often criticized for relying on individual desires to fuel the economy. The problem is that critics fail to distinguish between proper desires and improper desires. The Bible agrees with critics that greed (Luke 12:15) and the desire to get rich(1 Timothy 6:10), especially at the expense of the poor (Proverbs 22:22), are bad motivations for gaining money. However, the Bible affirms certain reasons to work for gain such as feeding one's self and family and being able to give to the poor in need (Ephesians 4:28).
The key verse in my mind is "The laborer's appetite works for him; his hunger drives him on." (Proverbs 16:26) God designed our desires to be used for good ends. Our desire for sexual intimacy is properly fulfilled in marriage, which brings us into a loving relationship and produces offspring to give God glory on the earth. Our desire for food and desire to care for our families is properly fulfilled through work, which allows us to provides for our needs. The Creator gave humankind free will (Genesis 2:17) to see what was in their hearts. Sin caused a break in man's relationship with God and passed on a sin nature to future generations (just like we have a physical nature passed on to us by our parents). However, man's original drives remain as neutral motivators that can be harnessed for good or evil purposes.
Unfortunately, socialism, while sincerely (I think) seeking to remedy the ills caused by evil, actually only superficially corrects them and ultimately ends up detroying the good foundations. Socialism's weakness is that it can not change the heart. Greed will still be present. Greed is greed whether it is in the upper or lower classes. It is easier to see in others' lives than our own. Capitalism can not change the heart either, but it allows humans to individually choose what their fate will be. Christ offers a person the freedom to leave greed behind and work for the right reasons (John 8:36). Even the unregenerate can work for the right reasons. The foundation that needs to be maintained is that people should have consequences to their actions. The proverbs say the lazy will go hungry (20:4) and God wants to use that catalyst to drive the lazy to work. Subsidizing the lazy only encourages more laziness. Unemployment payments only delay a person from feeling the need to find a new job. Public health care only discourages savings and encourages other spending. I believe it was Aristotle who said, "that which is public is least taken care of." Pooling the means and results of production only retards the individual will to work and thus retards the economy.
I am able to think of many examples in my own life of these principles. In addition, I have observed and heard of others who have experienced these truths.
For example, welfare programs are awarded based on income and savings, etc. When researching these programs it was apparent to me that they would fail to discern those really in need and thus hurt everyone by wasting public money. Someone may be making little but saving a lot by living frugally. This person may be denied assistance. Thus saving is discouraged.
I know a man who saved for retirement. That meant he recieved less social security money. Is it fair to penalize him for saving while others who may have had more money than him were less responsible with their own money? Is it right to tax a person extra to pay for the lazy or to subsidize the foolish and wasteful?
Another example is minimum wage. Minimum wage superfically raises the wages of the least desireable employees and thereby lowers the wages of better employees. Why should I work harder then my peer when we will be in the same collective barginning contract anyway? Why seek to excel when those not seeking to excel will still be rewarded?
The graduated income tax is a major component of the socialist system. Why work harder to earn more just to have a higher percentage of tax taken out? Why not just be a taker instead of a giver? If a politician takes from Peter and gives to Paul, Paul will always give the politician his vote. Thus corruption, inefficiency, and ultimately poverty for all classes will result from the socialist system.
Capitalism is often criticized for relying on individual desires to fuel the economy. The problem is that critics fail to distinguish between proper desires and improper desires. The Bible agrees with critics that greed (Luke 12:15) and the desire to get rich(1 Timothy 6:10), especially at the expense of the poor (Proverbs 22:22), are bad motivations for gaining money. However, the Bible affirms certain reasons to work for gain such as feeding one's self and family and being able to give to the poor in need (Ephesians 4:28).
The key verse in my mind is "The laborer's appetite works for him; his hunger drives him on." (Proverbs 16:26) God designed our desires to be used for good ends. Our desire for sexual intimacy is properly fulfilled in marriage, which brings us into a loving relationship and produces offspring to give God glory on the earth. Our desire for food and desire to care for our families is properly fulfilled through work, which allows us to provides for our needs. The Creator gave humankind free will (Genesis 2:17) to see what was in their hearts. Sin caused a break in man's relationship with God and passed on a sin nature to future generations (just like we have a physical nature passed on to us by our parents). However, man's original drives remain as neutral motivators that can be harnessed for good or evil purposes.
Unfortunately, socialism, while sincerely (I think) seeking to remedy the ills caused by evil, actually only superficially corrects them and ultimately ends up detroying the good foundations. Socialism's weakness is that it can not change the heart. Greed will still be present. Greed is greed whether it is in the upper or lower classes. It is easier to see in others' lives than our own. Capitalism can not change the heart either, but it allows humans to individually choose what their fate will be. Christ offers a person the freedom to leave greed behind and work for the right reasons (John 8:36). Even the unregenerate can work for the right reasons. The foundation that needs to be maintained is that people should have consequences to their actions. The proverbs say the lazy will go hungry (20:4) and God wants to use that catalyst to drive the lazy to work. Subsidizing the lazy only encourages more laziness. Unemployment payments only delay a person from feeling the need to find a new job. Public health care only discourages savings and encourages other spending. I believe it was Aristotle who said, "that which is public is least taken care of." Pooling the means and results of production only retards the individual will to work and thus retards the economy.
I am able to think of many examples in my own life of these principles. In addition, I have observed and heard of others who have experienced these truths.
For example, welfare programs are awarded based on income and savings, etc. When researching these programs it was apparent to me that they would fail to discern those really in need and thus hurt everyone by wasting public money. Someone may be making little but saving a lot by living frugally. This person may be denied assistance. Thus saving is discouraged.
I know a man who saved for retirement. That meant he recieved less social security money. Is it fair to penalize him for saving while others who may have had more money than him were less responsible with their own money? Is it right to tax a person extra to pay for the lazy or to subsidize the foolish and wasteful?
Another example is minimum wage. Minimum wage superfically raises the wages of the least desireable employees and thereby lowers the wages of better employees. Why should I work harder then my peer when we will be in the same collective barginning contract anyway? Why seek to excel when those not seeking to excel will still be rewarded?
The graduated income tax is a major component of the socialist system. Why work harder to earn more just to have a higher percentage of tax taken out? Why not just be a taker instead of a giver? If a politician takes from Peter and gives to Paul, Paul will always give the politician his vote. Thus corruption, inefficiency, and ultimately poverty for all classes will result from the socialist system.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
5 Reasons Christianity Conflicts with Socialism (#1)
As I mentioned in my first post, socialism violates various principles that can be gleaned from the Bible. Christians need to seriously evaluate the implications of any political program before they accept it. As I will attempt to display in my next five posts, Christianity naturally clashes with socialism on a fundamental level, before even getting to the debate over which system actually helps the poor. The following principles will form some of the reasons for Christians to reject socialism, aside from its practical failure.
The first reason is that socialism usurps the responsibilities of family and church. The general responsibility for raising up children in the Old and New Testaments is placed upon the family. God ordained marriage in Genesis 2:24 and emphasizes the family in the cases of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Israelites were then grouped by tribe and clan, but the lowest common denominator was the family. Deuteronomy 6:7-25 shows that God expected parents to educate their children. The ten commandments include honor for mother and father, but not for government or teacher. Family is the basic unit of society; this is shown throughout the OT and affirmed in Proverbs (17:6; 19:18; 23:25-26; etc.). The NT concurs with the OT as illustrated by Ephesians 6:1-4. In addition, God places the financial responsibility for a person in need directly on the extended family (1 Timothy 5:3-8). Only if there is no family available is the need to be transferred to the church (5:16). Jesus does assume Christians will give to the needy individually (Matthew 6:2). Jesus placed emphasis the family by having John look after his mother for him (John 19:26-27). Glaringly, Jesus never called on the government to take care of a person's health, education, or social concerns. In fact, that violates the role of government (that will be in a later post) and would naturally transgress the role of the family that God already set up.
All that being typed, some will protest that this arrangement, although ideal, is impractical and unreliable. In other words, "we can not trust that people will care for their families or that the church will provide for the poor." Of course, we can not trust people to do good, but we do know that people will often do good, whether motivated by conscience, necessity, or the love of Christ. The problem is that a government that usurps the family's role will encourage the family not to prepare to provide. Instead the tendency of people is to maximize their benefit from the government since that aid is "free" (not really) or since "I pay taxes too." Instead of encouraging responsibility, these government programs encourage irresponsibility and sin. Yes, it is a sin to not provide for one's family (1 Timothy 5:8). Do we want a government that encourages waste, laziness, and stealing or one that encourages responsibility, planning, and caring? If each family was "forced" (encouraged by not providing government welfare) to care for its own, many families would stop movie rentals and vacations and begin planning. Most families would be able to take care of the basics. Perfect equality is not a reasonable goal (as I will explain later). The few that are left behind could be cared for by the church or other charitable folks. This is the only solution that affirms the biblical role for the family, government, and church.
"Can we expect unbelievers to live in line with biblical principles though?" No, not in every way, certainly. Many do obey biblical principles though simply because those principles are universally right and wrong, and people can understand that with their consciences. This model does not force Christianity on these people, it merely affirms a Christian view of right and wrong. All laws are based upon higher principles, so Christians should naturally hope that the laws reflect the principles they believe to be right. If socialism, which the preceding attempts to demonstrate, does not promote good values, why accept it over another system that affirms them?
The first reason is that socialism usurps the responsibilities of family and church. The general responsibility for raising up children in the Old and New Testaments is placed upon the family. God ordained marriage in Genesis 2:24 and emphasizes the family in the cases of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Israelites were then grouped by tribe and clan, but the lowest common denominator was the family. Deuteronomy 6:7-25 shows that God expected parents to educate their children. The ten commandments include honor for mother and father, but not for government or teacher. Family is the basic unit of society; this is shown throughout the OT and affirmed in Proverbs (17:6; 19:18; 23:25-26; etc.). The NT concurs with the OT as illustrated by Ephesians 6:1-4. In addition, God places the financial responsibility for a person in need directly on the extended family (1 Timothy 5:3-8). Only if there is no family available is the need to be transferred to the church (5:16). Jesus does assume Christians will give to the needy individually (Matthew 6:2). Jesus placed emphasis the family by having John look after his mother for him (John 19:26-27). Glaringly, Jesus never called on the government to take care of a person's health, education, or social concerns. In fact, that violates the role of government (that will be in a later post) and would naturally transgress the role of the family that God already set up.
All that being typed, some will protest that this arrangement, although ideal, is impractical and unreliable. In other words, "we can not trust that people will care for their families or that the church will provide for the poor." Of course, we can not trust people to do good, but we do know that people will often do good, whether motivated by conscience, necessity, or the love of Christ. The problem is that a government that usurps the family's role will encourage the family not to prepare to provide. Instead the tendency of people is to maximize their benefit from the government since that aid is "free" (not really) or since "I pay taxes too." Instead of encouraging responsibility, these government programs encourage irresponsibility and sin. Yes, it is a sin to not provide for one's family (1 Timothy 5:8). Do we want a government that encourages waste, laziness, and stealing or one that encourages responsibility, planning, and caring? If each family was "forced" (encouraged by not providing government welfare) to care for its own, many families would stop movie rentals and vacations and begin planning. Most families would be able to take care of the basics. Perfect equality is not a reasonable goal (as I will explain later). The few that are left behind could be cared for by the church or other charitable folks. This is the only solution that affirms the biblical role for the family, government, and church.
"Can we expect unbelievers to live in line with biblical principles though?" No, not in every way, certainly. Many do obey biblical principles though simply because those principles are universally right and wrong, and people can understand that with their consciences. This model does not force Christianity on these people, it merely affirms a Christian view of right and wrong. All laws are based upon higher principles, so Christians should naturally hope that the laws reflect the principles they believe to be right. If socialism, which the preceding attempts to demonstrate, does not promote good values, why accept it over another system that affirms them?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)