Socialism

[Paidion]

That everyone gets his own individual way at the expense of the multitude?

When everyone acts in his own self-interests, the many in any society suffers. That is not justice. People need to work together, to coöperate. When monopolies squeeze out small business, so that the latter must fold and their workers lose their jobs, that is concentrating money into the hands of a few and depriving the many of their money and jobs. If it's "every man for himself" then people as a whole suffer.

How can any township or municipality carry on to benefit all of its constituents, if its constituents do not coöperate, but instead each serves only himself?

Governments at every level must receive taxes from their citizens, and have enforced regulations in order to operate and serve the many. The alternative is anarchy.

I am surprised that such a champion of "free will" as yourself would betray the principle in your political theories.

I do not betray the principle. Freedom of the will is the ability to make choices; it is not the license to do whatever you want.

[steve]

People need to work together, to coöperate. When monopolies squeeze out small business, so that the latter must fold and their workers lose their jobs, that is concentrating money into the hands of a few and depriving the many of their money and jobs. If it's "every man for himself" then people as a whole suffer.

I answered this already, and will not ride the merry-go-round with you. However, I do wonder why you think it less just for people to go to work for the big corporation than for them to work at the local business it displaced? To the workers (most of the affected people) the pay and benefits are probably as good at the big corporate business as what they had at the local shop. The opportunity for advancement may even be better in the corporate store, as there are more management levels and opportunities—but, then, the desire for advancement (that is, to make more money than the entry-level employees) is just part of that evil capitalist impulse that you decry.

Of course, the ones most adversely affected by the change in local services are the owners (not the workers) of the local shops. But why should you pity them, since they were capitalists seeking more profit than that which they paid their workers? (By the way, I do feel sorry for local business owners driven out of business by the introduction of a Walmart or Costco store in their town. But then, I am not the one saying that business owners are the bad guys).

I do not betray the principle [of human right to act upon free will]. Freedom of the will is the ability to make choices; it is not the license to do whatever you want.

When people sin, others suffer. Yet, this has never translated, in your mind, into forcibly interfering with people's freedom to do so. In our earlier discussions, you have taken the position that even God cannot stop a monster from raping a young girl, because God is so opposed to interfering with the rapist's "free will." This is, indeed, placing a high value upon human free will—when even God cannot violate it. Why do you give the government the moral right to do what even God is not allowed to do—namely, impinge upon a selfish businessman's free choice to exploit others?

[Paidion]

(By the way, I do feel sorry for local business owners driven out of business by the introduction of a Walmart or Costco store in their town. But then, I am not the one saying that business owners are the bad guys).

Neither am I. You don't seem to understand me at all.

When people sin, others suffer. Yet, this has never translated, in your mind, into forcibly interfering with people's freedom to do so.

How do you know what has and has not translated in my mind?

In our earlier discussions, you have taken the position that even God cannot stop a monster from raping a young girl, because God is so opposed to interfering with the rapist's "free will."

I have never said that God CANNOT stop such a person, but that usually He DOES NOT stop him, because free will is one of the ways in which God has created man in His image. What is your explanation as to why God usually does not prevent such atrocities?

This is, indeed, placing a high value upon human free will—when even God cannot violate it.

Again you repeat this false statement of my position. God Himself places a high value on human free will. What else can explain that God seldom intervenes in the continuous rapes, tortures, senseless killings, and other atrocities? God is waiting for every individual, of his own free will to submit to His Lordship.

Why do you give the government the moral right to do what even God is not allowed to do—namely, impinge upon a selfish businessman's free choice to exploit others?

"even God is not allowed to do." Continually repeating this false representation of my position will never make it true. Government must sometimes override an individual's bad choices. That's why governments enforce laws against murder, rape, etc. and place offenders in prison—in attempt to control these atrocities. I presume you are in agreement with such governmental "force". So why are you so adamant that government should not intervene in the matter of the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few multi-billionaires while many in the world starve to death? Some, even in United States do not have enough to eat. Should welfare be eliminated because it is "forcing" the ultra-rich to give up part of their millions?

[steve]

I have never said that God CANNOT stop such a person, but that usually He DOES NOT stop him, because free will is one of the ways in which God has created man in His image. What is your explanation as to why God usually does not prevent such atrocities?

You must have forgotten that we have debated this on three or four (or more!) threads, ad nauseum. I have argued, consistently, that, when God allows atrocities to occur (that is, when He does not intervene to prevent them), it is because He desires to see some potential, higher good result from the situation. This seems to me to be the only way of harmonizing God's goodness and His omnicompetence—and it happens to be the solution that scripture provides (e.g., Genesis 50:20; Psalm 119:67, 71, 75; 1 Peter 1:7-8; etc. etc.).

You have consistently mocked this idea—though in your rejection of it you must affirm one of the following alternatives:

1) God does not intervene to rescue the victim, because it is not in His power to do so; or
2) God could, but does not intervene to rescue the victim. He has no good purpose in mind in His decision not to intervene

You jealously oppose the third alternative:

3) God could, but does not intervene because He has a higher purpose and a good reason in mind for withholding His hand.

Since you reject the third (initially, though you usually come around to admitting it), you usually alternate between the first and the second options. Of course, if the second option is true, then God is merely capricious and can hardly be said to be loving or compassionate. On the other hand, if the first proposition is true, then we must assume one of the following:

1) God cannot intervene because He lacks the power, or
2) God cannot intervene because He lacks the will

You seem, sometimes, to argue for the second, leaving two possibilities:

1) God does not want to intervene simply because He is cruel, or
2) God does not want to intervene because He has something more lofty (a higher purpose) in mind (the preservation of man's free will).

Of these two, of course, you always choose the second. Now, when we consider all the possibilities available to reasoning man, we must conclude either:

1) that God is too weak to intervene,
2) that God is too callous to intervene,
3) that God has no good reason for His non-intervention, or
4) that God has His reasons, and good ones, for intervention.

When pressed, after several pages of debate, you generally come around to #4, which is the very concept that begins the discussion with your mocking it.

Thus, we both believe God chooses non-intervention in deference to some higher purpose. You recognize only one possible higher purpose—His determination not to violate criminals' free will. I simply have a longer list of possible purposes that might be in His mind—like the potential eternal benefit of the sufferer or of others connected with the case.

Your position always boils down to this: God does not intervene to prevent a six-year-old from being raped (though He could do so), for no other reason than that the expression of the criminal's free will is more sacrosanct in God's eyes than is the little girl's safety. That this is God's priority, is the key argument advanced in a great number of your posts here over the years. Anyone who has read this forum for the past decade has seen your affirming of this point a dozen times or more. Is this a position you are now retracting?

So why should it seem strange to you that I find inconsistency between your belief that a) God should not violate the criminal's free will for the good of potential sufferers, and b) that the State has the very moral right and obligation to intervene in the violation of a selfish rich man's expression of free will? There is a disconnect in your thinking about these matters.

That's why governments enforce laws against murder, rape, etc. and place offenders in prison—in attempt to control these atrocities. I presume you are in agreement with such governmental "force". So why are you so adamant that government should not intervene in the matter of the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few multi-billionaires while many in the world starve to death? Some, even in United States do not have enough to eat. Should welfare be eliminated because it is "forcing" the ultra-rich to give up part of their millions?

So you think for a man to have a mansion, a yacht and a fat stock portfolio (which he earned by his own honest, hard work) makes him a criminal, on the level with murderers and rapists, and could justify his being jailed or forcibly impoverished by the government? You must think this, since you think that my acknowledging of one requires the acknowledging of both. Is there a scriptural basis for this position? How is it that, in Job's day, there could be such a disproportionate "concentration of wealth" (he was the wealthiest man "of the people of the East"), and yet God regarded him as "a blameless and upright man"? You are clearly creating your ethics out of thin air—or worse, borrowing them from the anti-Christian world system.

You have expressed concern for the undernourished. Please name three people in North America who have died of starvation for lack of State Welfare. Are there any, or is this an imaginary category you have created for rhetorical purposes?

I do not deny that some people in this country are malnourished. Many times, this is not because of the lack of welfare programs (we have them too). It may be because parents take the money given to them and spend it on alcohol, gambling, or drugs. No matter how much money is given to people who will not take care of themselves, they will still live in poverty. In many cases, it may be that money spent on food is not spent on nourishing food (maybe we should outlaw junk food, too, in order to force people to eat correctly?).

There is already welfare here—and it has not reduced poverty in this country significantly. Before government programs existed, there were other resources for the poor, e.g., "employment," "extended family," and "charity." It has not been demonstrated that these alternatives—which require no unjust confiscation of others' possessions—left anyone to starve, whom welfare programs would have saved.

But now you are talking about the many "in the world" who starve to death. In some cases, it is due to famine. But who is it that is helping the victims in these places? Is it not groups like Compassion International and World Vision? Help is not coming from their corrupt socialist governments.

Think about the countries where starvation still exists, despite the efforts of charitable organizations. Is this the result of capitalism, or of oppressive government overreach? The socialistic governments in many of these countries are not resolving (and are often causing) the problem. Are you thinking that socialistic policies in Canada and the USA are the solution for starvation in North Africa? How, exactly, do you envision this connection?

[Candlepower]

The primary subject of Jesus' teachings was God's Kingdom. He taught us to pray for its advancement. He told Pilot that His Kingdom is not of this world, meaning that its principles do not derive from man but from God. He taught us not to love the world, meaning the ways of man -- man's various philosophies, religions, and systems of laws and economics.

Jesus presented us with two worldviews: God's and man's. Seeking God's Kingdom describes one worldview. It means striving to advance His kingdom and to bring every aspect of our being under God's rule. Humanism accurately describes the other worldview, the man-centered one. It is man's declaration that the world belongs to him, and that he has the authority to determine right and wrong. In short, man is god, to the humanist. Philosophies hatched from the mind of man are humanistic philosophies. Governmental and economic systems concocted by man are humanistic. They lead away from God's Kingdom.

The humanistic economic system called Socialism is man-contrived and man-centered. The term Socialism is fairly modern, but it is nothing more than the economic system of tyrannies throughout the ages and around the world. It has existed under a variety of names: Nazism, Communism, Fascism, Pharaohism, Fabianism, Democratic Socialism, etc. Communism is socialism in its extreme, while "Democratic Socialism" is socialism in what appears to be its cute and cuddly infancy. But this baby is of this world, and not of God. Like cancer it must grow to destroy and devour, because it is of its father, the devil. Socialism in any form and at any stage of development is an enemy of God and man.

Near the beginning of this thread, dwight92070 correctly quoted the definition of Socialism as: "the ownership, management, and control of the means of production and distribution in the hands of the government." In response, Paidion said, "Untrue. By its very definition it provides equal opportunity for all." That is certainly not the definition of Socialism. I highly recommend he read The Law by Frederick Bastiat. It is perhaps the best primer ever written on Socialism. Please read it.

Those who defend democratic socialism (because they think it is a harmless and helpful economic system) are useful dupes to those who work patiently to enslave mankind gradually. Those dupes, guided by ignorance, envy and covetousness, labor willingly to fasten the slave-chains on themselves. Communists don't pretend that socialism is cute and cuddly. They know that its raw power sustains the oligarchy that runs it. The oppressed people living in North Korea understand socialism far better than do its naive (or worse) defenders in Canada and the US.

Because Socialism (of any degree or mutation) is of this world, it is contrary to Scripture and offensive to God. There is never a good defense for that which offends God. It saddens me that some Christians defend socialism, as if it is legitimate and harmless. They need to learn (and defend) biblical economics.

Again, there are two worldviews: God's and man's. Those who oppose socialism are simply choosing to trust God's economic system, as described in Scripture. Those who defend socialism are choosing to trust man's economic system. Those who think that socialism in some limited form is good and acceptable are fooling themselves. Whether big or little, whether imposed by Mao or voted in by a majority, Socialism is always evil because it is not God's economic system. It is of this world, and we are told not to love it.

Economics is not outside the range of God's authority or of Scripture. We deceive ourselves if we trust man's economics concoctions and believe they are good. In terms of economics (as in everything), we are to trust God, not man. In every way, man's systems (the world) bring curses, but God's ways yield blessings. Which reminds me of Jeremiah 17:5-8.

Thus says the Lord:
“Cursed is the man who trusts in man
and makes flesh his strength,
whose heart turns away from the Lord.
He is like a shrub in the desert,
and shall not see any good come.
He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness,
in an uninhabited salt land.
“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,
whose trust is the Lord.
He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit.”

The degree to which we trust man and his systems is the degree to which we are cursed.

[steve]

Just to head off the anticipated response to Candlepower's post from the defenders of socialism, who might say, "both socialism and capitalism are systems of the world," I would point out that capitalism is not a man-made system, but a default where there is no government interference in the free exercise of stewardship and conscience.

The Wikipedia definition of Capitalism is: "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."

Since the Bible clearly teaches private property and the unencumbered distribution of one's own assets (Matthew 20:15; Acts 5:4; 1 Cor.9:7-12), it thus presupposes what we call "capitalism" (a relatively new word in the English language) wherever there is no oppressive government to interfere. Capitalism is not an invented economic "system," per se, but is the default, God-ordained freedom resulting from the absence of illegitimate governmental interference.

[PR]

Interesting post on the topic...

Five Reasons Why Socialism is Not Christian

Posted in Capitalism by Julie Roys

http://julieroys.com/five-reasons-why-s ... christian/

Jesus confronted the money-changers and challenged believers to give to the needy. But, would he support socialism? Increasingly, Americans think he would. In fact, a recent Barna poll found that more Americans think Jesus would prefer socialism (24%) than those who believe he would prefer capitalism (14%). The other 62% responded neither or not sure, but the poll still reveals a disturbing trend.

Last Saturday, Micah Conkling, a Christian writer and podcaster, argued on my radio program that socialism is the political and economic system that best fulfills the Golden Rule. Not surprisingly, Conkling is a Millennial, the most pro-socialist generation America has ever known. According to a recent Reason-Rupe survey, 53% of Americans under 30 view socialism favorably, compared to less than a third of Americans over 30. Similarly, Gallup found that 69% of those under 30 said they would be willing to vote for a socialist presidential candidate.

I understand why Millennials are wary of the current system. They’ve witnessed a consistently declining economy; one of the most partisan eras in American history; the fall of the twin towers; and a war predicated on weapons of mass destruction that were never found. I agree with them that our political system desperately needs reform. But, socialism is not the answer. Though it may sound compassionate and Christian, it’s actually antithetical to everything Christianity teaches. Here’s why:

1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview

According to socialists like Bernie Sanders, the greatest problem in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth. His website declares: “The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time.” This betrays a fundamentally materialistic worldview, which is the basis of socialism.

Our quality of life is not determined by how much stuff we have, but by our relationship to Christ.
To socialists, all that really exists is the material world. In fact, Karl Marx, the father of socialism/communism, invented the notion of dialectical materialism – the belief that matter contains a creative power within itself. This enabled Marx to eliminate the need for a creator, essentially erasing the existence of anything non-material. To socialists, suffering is caused by the unequal distribution of stuff – and salvation is achieved by the re-distribution of stuff. There’s no acknowledgment of spiritual issues. There’s just an assumption that if everyone is given equal stuff, all the problems in society will somehow dissolve.

This worldview contradicts Christianity, which affirms the existence of both a material and a non-material world – and teaches that mankind’s greatest problems are spiritual. The Bible says the cause of suffering is sin and salvation is found in the cross of Christ, which liberates us from sin. Because of sin, though, there will always be inequalities in wealth. As the parable of the talents shows, those with good character tend to accumulate more; those with bad character may lose everything they have. Yet, even if we are unable to accumulate wealth, Christianity teaches that we can still have an abundant life. That’s because our quality of life is not determined by how much stuff we have, but by our relationship to Christ.

2. Socialism Punishes Virtue

Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue. As Karl Marx, famously said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” However, whenever any institution provides aid, it runs the risk of removing God-designed rewards and consequences. It can punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who are not. And, it can reward those who aren’t industrious by giving them the fruits of another man’s labor. This is precisely what socialism does. Interestingly, Marx mooched off others his whole life, and failed to provide for his wife and children. As Aristotle once noted, “Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.”

The Bible teaches that aid should be tied to responsibility. First, anyone who refuses to work should be refused aid. As 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Next, no one should be given aid whose family can provide for him. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that a man who fails to provide for his family is “worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim. 5:8) The church also required widows receiving aid to have “a reputation of good works.” (1 Tim. 5:10) So, even in dispensing aid, the church rewarded virtue and discouraged vice. Unfortunately, socialism does just the opposite.

3. Socialism Endorses Stealing

Barack Obama once defended his socialist policies to a little girl by saying, “We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?”

Both the Old Testament and New Testament unequivocally affirm private property.
That sounds pretty Christian, right? What Christian wouldn’t endorse sharing your abundance with someone who has nothing? However, Obama wasn’t endorsing people voluntarily sharing their wealth with others; he was endorsing the government forcibly taking a piece of the pie from one person and giving it to someone else. Put another way, that’s saying that if you have three cars and your neighbor has none, the government has a right to take your car and give it to your neighbor. That’s not Christian; that’s stealing!

But, socialists don’t believe in private property. And, some Christian socialists actually assert that the Bible doesn’t either. That’s preposterous. Both the Old Testament and New Testament unequivocally affirm private property. We can’t even obey the eighth commandment to not steal, unless we accept the notion of private ownership. Nor, can we steward our money as the Bible commands if the state owns our money, not us. So, for an economic and political system to be Christian, it must protect private ownership and allow individuals freedom to allocate their resources according to their conscience.

4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare

Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society’s problems on them. Bernie Sanders once posted to his Facebook Page: “Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America.” Here, Sanders is mimicking Karl Marx, who viewed history as a series of class struggles between the rich and the poor – and advocated overthrowing the ruling class.

Nowhere does Scripture support the have-nots demanding money from the haves.
Scripture strongly warns the rich and powerful not to oppress the poor. In fact, Proverbs 14:31 says, “Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for his maker . . .” But, Sanders – and other Leftists, including Hillary Clinton – go far beyond decrying specific acts of injustice. They basically condemn an entire class of people simply for possessing wealth. And, they encourage those who are poor to overthrow them. In fact, Clinton once said the U.S. economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1%.

The rich are not causing all the problems in American society. People like Bill Gates are not acquiring wealth by stealing from the masses. They’re creating great products, which produce wealth, and actually provide jobs for many people. But, even if they were exploiting the poor, nowhere does Scripture support the have-nots demanding money from the haves. Instead, it teaches that we should not covet (Exodus 20:17) and should be content in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13).

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family

A little known fact about socialism is that from the beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family. Grove City Professor Paul Kengor explains this in detail in his book, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family.” Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.

Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the Communist Manifesto, once wrote that the society he envisioned would be one where “the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair.” Similarly today, Bernie Sanders calls for a “revolution” in childcare and for the government to provide early childhood education beginning with children as young as six-weeks-old. And, he’s a proud supporter of gay marriage – what Kengor calls “communism’s Trojan Horse” to secure the final takedown of traditional marriage.

To socialists, what Bernie describes is a utopia. But, to Christians, it’s a dystopia. That’s because there’s nothing Christian about socialism – and there’s absolutely no way Jesus would ever support it.

[Candlepower]

...capitalism is not a man-made system, but a default where there is no government interference in the free exercise of stewardship and conscience.

That's right, and thank you for your input, Steve. And thank you for all of your excellent posts on this thread.

As has been pointed out in this discussion, the essence of Capitalism is the private (not public) ownership and control of property. Stewardship of property is an individual responsibility, not an oligarchical one. God's command, "Thou shall not steal," presupposes private property. Capitalism, therefore, accords with God's command. It is, as you have stated, the default system, because no other is condoned.

Theft is a violation of God's law. Theft by the civil government is especially egregious because the law enforcer becomes the law breaker. When the government passes laws legalizing its theft (Obamacare), its theft remains theft. God is not fooled. He makes the laws that count, and every individual and institution is accountable to Him. God does not recognize the legality of what Bastiat labeled Legalized Plunder, in his short treatise on Socialism, The Law.

Many people criticize Capitalism because they assume that Capitalism-mixed-with-Socialism is Capitalism. But it's not. It's actually an economic Frankenstein. It's unfair to criticize such a mischaracterization of Capitalism, as it would be to unfair to criticize an Olympic athlete's running ability if his arms and legs are shackled, and he's blindfolded, and he's been injected with a sedative.

History has hardly ever seen the existence of Capitalism unmixed with Socialism. But when it has existed, the result is widespread abundance. In an economy where Capitalism and Socialism are mixed (as in the US and Canada), parasitic Socialism gradually kills its productive host, Capitalism, resulting in widespread shortages. The solution is to return to God's command, "Don't steal!" -- legally or otherwise.

[Paidion]

I have never said that God CANNOT stop such a person, but that usually He DOES NOT stop him, because free will is one of the ways in which God has created man in His image. What is your explanation as to why God usually does not prevent such atrocities?

You must have forgotten that we have debated this on three or four (or more!) threads, ad nauseum.

I haven't forgotten the discussions.

I have argued, consistently, that, when God allows atrocities to occur (that is, when He does not intervene to prevent them), it is because He desires to see some potential, higher good result from the situation.

I am aware of your argument. Unfortunately, it is that very argument that turns people against God. “O God, why did you allow that truck to run over my little girl? What have I done to deserve this? What deeper purpose could you possibly have in mind? Whatever it is, couldn't you have carried it out without killing my little girl?”

This seems to me to be the only way of harmonizing God's goodness and His omnicompetence—and it happens to be the solution that scripture provides (e.g., Genesis 50:20; Psalm 119:67, 71, 75; 1 Peter 1:7-8; etc. etc.)

But you don't believe in God's pure goodness. You seem to dismiss me for believing that God is “one-dimensional” as the apostle John believed, having affirmed twice: “God IS love” (1 John 4:8,16). You seem to follow the line I've heard so often, “Yes, I agree that God is love, BUT God is also just” by which they usually mean that besides His love for the chosen ones, He must also execute justice on the others by punishing them for their sin by means of killing them, or causing disaster upon them. Many of them believe that in order to be just, He must torture them forever in hell (I know you don't believe that).

I readily understand Peter's statement that the genuineness of the faith of believers can be tested through trials, and that the believers may come out this trial with inexpressible joy. But I fail to see how that justifies your notion that God has purposes in bringing about ALL suffering in this world, including tortures, child abuse, murders and all other atrocities in order to fulfill some greater purpose. Could He not have fulfilled those greater purposes without those things happening? If not, how can you call this the “omnicompetence” of God?

You have consistently mocked this idea

Please back up this accusation with a quote.

—though in your rejection of it you must affirm one of the following alternatives:

1) God does not intervene to rescue the victim, because it is not in His power to do so; or
2) God could, but does not intervene to rescue the victim. He has no good purpose in mind in His decision not to intervene

You jealously oppose the third alternative:

3) God could, but does not intervene because He has a higher purpose and a good reason in mind for withholding His hand.

Since you reject the third (initially, though you usually come around to admitting it), you usually alternate between the first and the second options.

I am surprised that you would say this. NEVER have I said that God does not intervene because it is not in His power to do so. If you truly believe otherwise, please provide the proof. I have consistently said that God has created man in His own image, perhaps chiefly by giving him free will as He Himself possesses. God wants every person freely to come under His authority. He does not force anyone to do this. He is not interested in a race of robots. In order to bring about universal reconciliation, He does not override free will. You have claimed that this means that I do see God as having a higher purpose after all, and thus I “usually come around to admitting it.” But that is not what I meant by rejecting the higher-purpose theory. What I reject is that God has a higher purpose for “allowing” every individual atrocity committed by evil people. He never says, “Let's see. I have this beautiful act I wish to carry out. But the only way I can do it, is to have the evil man Joe Bloe, rape Jane Shane, that innocent little girl, and then afterwards kill her.” That's the kind of thinking that limits God's power in the minds of those who believe it. For supposedly, He cannot fulfill His purposes without "allowing" atrocities. It's also the kind of thinking that has turned countless people against God, blaming Him for the suffering they have had to endure—cancer, death of a child, loss of work, etc., etc., etc. So they say or think,“God must have a higher purpose in letting this happen in my life. But I hate Him. Why couldn't He let me have my health, my child, and my work?”

Thus, we both believe God chooses non-intervention in deference to some higher purpose.

Only you believe in a higher purpose for each individual case of non- intervention.

You recognize only one possible higher purpose—His determination not to violate criminals' free will.

This statement is not exactly my position. It is not merely God's “ determination not to violate criminals' free will.” Rather, it is that He does usually does not violate ANYONE'S free will, in order that all may, sooner or later, submit to Him of their own free will. Though rare, there seems to have been instances of His having overridden free will or even overridden the “laws” of nature in order to save people from harm. The question is, “Why doesn't He always do that?” Of course that is the fundamental question concerning the classic Problem of Evil, which has been debated for centuries. I don't pretend to have the solution to the problem, but I think where it come to human evil, the matter of free will as at least part of the answer. I am beginning to think that it may not be logically possible both to override free will in all cases of evil, and yet to have evil people submit to Him of their own free will.

I simply have a longer list of possible purposes that might be in His mind—like the potential eternal benefit of the sufferer or of others connected with the case.

Throughout my Christian life I have believed that God trains or disciplines His children even as a loving, human father does, in order to train them to be that which they ought to be. (Hebrews 12:6) But training a child by means of, say depriving him of privileges, or even spanking him, is a matter of a totally different order from that of torturing him, sexually abusing him, or killing him.

Your position always boils down to this: God does not intervene to prevent a six-year-old from being raped (though He could do so), for no other reason than that the expression of the criminal's free will is more sacrosanct in God's eyes than is the little girl's safety.

This is a gross distortion of my position. Though I have said nothing in the past, it is time that I exposed this ludicrous depiction of my belief. I have NEVER said that God does not intervene for this reason. I don't understand why you keep repeating this. As I have indicated elsewhere in this post, I say that God's non-intervention in the choices of man in general, is in order that people my be able to exercise their wills in order to become His children. If He overrides free will, then it won't be a willing submission, but a forced submission.

That this is God's priority, is the key argument advanced in a great number of your posts here over the years. Anyone who has read this forum for the past decade has seen your affirming of this point a dozen times or more. Is this a position you are now retracting?

No, because there's nothing to retract. It never was my position. If I have affirmed this point a dozen times or more (that the expression of the criminal's free will is more sacrosanct in God's eyes than is the little girl's safety), then it should be a easy matter for you to quote one of these affirmations.

So why should it seem strange to you that I find inconsistency between your belief that a) God should not violate the criminal's free will for the good of potential sufferers, and b) that the State has the very moral right and obligation to intervene in the violation of a selfish rich man's expression of free will? There is a disconnect in your thinking about these matters.

Why do you keep distorting what I have written? Nowhere did I write that “the State has the very moral right and obligation to intervene in the violation of a selfish rich man's expression of free will.” What I wrote was: “Government must sometimes override an individual's bad choices. That's why governments enforce laws against murder, rape, etc. and place offenders in prison—in attempt to control these atrocities.” This statement does not address state rights or morality as such. It simply states what governments need to do in order to control evil. This is the way that human government works. I neither applaud it or oppose it. But I do think democratic socialism as a form of human government is superior to Capitalism (which is not tantamount to "free enterprise.") Nor have I ever written that God “should not violate the criminal's free will for the good of potential sufferers.” I have written that God DOES NOT often override human free will, and that the reason is that He wishes all people to submit to Him of their own free will. So you are arguing against a position I have not taken. That kind of argument is known as “the strawman fallacy.”

So you think for a man to have a mansion, a yacht and a fat stock portfolio (which he earned by his own honest, hard work) makes him a criminal, on the level with murderers and rapists, and could justify his being jailed or forcibly impoverished by the government? You must think this, since you think that my acknowledging of one requires the acknowledging of both. Is there a scriptural basis for this position?

No, I don't think that. But I think that monopolies that crowd out small business, and concentrate their profits in the hands of a few, and also super-rich individuals who become even richer through usury (which the Bible condemns) should be taxed heavily in order to help needy persons who are struggling to make a living.The reason I pointed out crime prevention and imprisonment, is that you seemed to suggest that any government “force” or intervention is a violation of individual rights. But apparently you applaud force when it comes to restraining criminals.

You have expressed concern for the undernourished. Please name three people in North America who have died of starvation for lack of State Welfare. Are there any, or is this an imaginary category you have created for rhetorical purposes?

I do not personally know anyone who has died of starvation in United States. But I assumed that there were some. Call it imaginary if you wish.

The following website indicates that in 2014, 14% of households in United States were food insecure, and that 46.7 million Americans were living in poverty.

Hunger in America

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

I am surprised that you would say this. NEVER have I said that God does not intervene because it is not in His power to do so.....He is not interested in a race of robots. In order to bring about universal reconciliation, He does not override free will. You have claimed that this means that I do see God as having a higher purpose after all, and thus I “usually come around to admitting it.” But that is not what I meant by rejecting the higher-purpose theory. What I reject is that God has a higher purpose for “allowing” every individual atrocity committed by evil people.

Seems to me you make a distinction without a difference. How is turning men loose to do evil things (free will) not a higher purpose in your mind? Is it a lower purpose?

Allowing free will, in your way of thinking, must be more valuable to God than preventing individual atrocities.