You and the system you advocate are ruthless.
I may be harsh, but not any more harsh than God when He cursed the ground (Genesis 3:17). It is an inescapable fact that this is a fallen world - there is no free lunch, and there are sinful people out there wanting to grab lunch. So the best system is one in which everyone pays for whatever he or she takes from others. What is the kindness that you expect?
- If you want freebies, are you not being ruthless to those from whom the money for the freebies will have to be acquired?
- If you want job security, does it not mean that you want pay without adequate work? If your salary is worth the work that you put in, your employer will not fire you. If he tells you that you need to go because there is a recession, it does not mean that he is nasty - it only means that your work is no longer beneficial to other human beings (clients), and thus, you need to change the work you do (or wait till your clients find it useful again).
- To want to remain in your job when your employer does not want you demonstrates an un-Biblical sucker attitude.
The whole tenor of the Bible involves reaching out to the weak and under-privileged. Jesus was a socialist. You seem to be advocating the opposite.
No I'm not. It's not about whether the poor should be helped but how. On the basis of the Bible, I say that having a massive government bureaucracy whose objective is to rob the rich and give freebies to the poor is not the right approach. The poor can be got out of poverty if government policy allows business to flourish, enabling the poor to get jobs and send their kids to school.
The Bible speaks highly of philanthropy and I agree with it. But philanthropy must be done by individuals of their own free will - not forced on them by the government. There are many Bible verses that mention our responsibility to the poor. But this is a personal responsibility, according as each man's conscience dictates, not the responsibility of politicians and bureaucrats. Philanthropy is not the same as socialism. Jesus was not a socialist (he did not say a word about economic policy). He preached philanthropy as part of loving one's neighbour.
One of the fundamental mistakes to make in macroeconomics is to think in terms of DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. If you read the Bible, you see that wealth can be GENERATED through human effort coupled with natural resources (see Nehemiah 9:37, Proverbs 14:4, Proverbs 24:30-34, Proverbs 10:5, Proverbs 20:4, etc). So instead of thinking in terms of robbing those who have wealth (because they generated it) to give to the poor, we should be thinking in terms of enabling the poor to generate wealth.
Didn't the early church have common possessions? Does that not show that socialism is right?
Note the following:-
- First of all, the early churches did not have common possessions. Paul speaks about those who are rich (1 Timothy 6:17). It was only the Jerusalem church which held things in common, but that was because of an emergency. This church was made up of Jewish diaspora that had come on pilgrimage for the feast of Pentecost, and stayed back at Jerusalem. Such people would not be able to practice their trades right then; also there were no ATMs then - these things meant that many people would be greatly in need of all of a sudden.
- Secondly, true Christians are far less likely to loaf around expecting to eat out of the labors of others than atheists and other non-believers. So there is a big difference between a church having one purse and a country having one purse.