Jump to content

Socialism is Evil


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Therefore those that support it and follow it's belief system are in error.  Socialism is one of the serious errors of some apostate and false churches.

Every church is apostate and false to another church. As I pointed out, we have been worshiping God for over a hundred thousand years. We are talking about tens of thousands of theologies.  

I don't think anyone has addressed the question, was Stanley Knowles evil?

What are the immoral laws that the "socialists" put through?

Why use an American site to argue against democratic socialism?  Just for the record, Canada has never had a socialist federal government.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really evil in our political system is captured in the post I just left in the NDP/Liberal Dictatorship thread.

This is not socialism. It's cronyism and given the financial institutions that must be involved I think it's clearly more closely related to capitalism. Joined at the hip actually.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Every church is apostate and false to another church. As I pointed out, we have been worshiping God for over a hundred thousand years. (I have no desire to question anyone's faith. I am putting forth my own view.)

I don't think anyone has addressed the question, was Stanley Knowles evil?

What are the immoral laws that the "socialists" put through.

Why use an American site to argue against democratic socialism?  Just for the record, Canada has never had a socialist federal government.

First of all, I am not going to say Stanley Knowles was evil.  That is not my job.  He was a long-serving and famous politician in Canada highly respected by many Canadians, much like Tommy Douglas and others.  

This is what the Canadian Encyclopedia says about Stanley Knowles.

"Born in the US of Nova Scotian/New Brunswick parentage, Knowles had a profoundly religious upbringing in the SOCIAL GOSPEL tradition of the Methodist Church. He never forgot his mother's death from tuberculosis in 1919 or his father's firing from a machinist's job in 1932; both incidents marked his choice for theological studies at United College, Winnipeg, and then for political action via the CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION in 1935. He had to change laws rather than souls."

" for almost 40 years he badgered successive governments into enlarging Canada's nascent WELFARE STATE. "

So we can understand why he believed in making Canada a welfare state.  This is what he was thoroughly indoctrinated in by the false ideology of the social gospel taught in the Methodist Church in those days.  He badgered the government for decades to make Canada a welfare state.   Or a Socialist state in common terms.  This is much the same as Tommy Douglas who was a minister as well.  It is ironic that these men came from social gospel churches and now their party is the most anti-Bible party in existence as they support same-sex marriage and abortion more strongly than any other party.

These ideas were the centre of the CCF party which he belonged to and later became the centre platform of the NDP.  Today the Liberal party is shifting more and more toward the ideology of a welfare state.  We can see how it originated from the false gospel or social gospel of certain denominations and today from the Pope as well.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's. 

How is that different than if you owe money to any creditor? If you do not honour your debt, your creditor will take you to court and get a judgement. Are you saying the Crown is not entitled to collect money owed?

No i'm saying the Crown is not Jesus.  The Crown colonized half the earth and stole, abused, and neglected indigenous children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No i'm saying the Crown is not Jesus.  The Crown colonized half the earth and stole, abused, and neglected indigenous children.

The Crown symbolized the divine right of kings - the right to do whatever they wanted by God's authority - granted when Jesus was in Dad-mode presumably.

It's interesting that God seems to have become more progressive than conservative over the years.  That seems to be at odds with the idea that He made us in His image.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

The Crown symbolized the divine right of kings - the right to do whatever they wanted by God's authority - granted when Jesus was in Dad-mode presumably.

 

 

The last King in our Royal Family who dabbled in the devine right was Charles I. It did not end well. It was an alien concept then as it has been ever since. While our head of state is elected by God in theory, they are still bound by Parliament and it has been that way for many centuries.

 

13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No i'm saying the Crown is not Jesus.  The Crown colonized half the earth and stole, abused, and neglected indigenous children.

They also facilitated the transition of India from a depotic system before British rule to the largest democracy in the world after they left. It was the Christian churches that abused and neglected indigenous children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 It was the Christian churches that abused and neglected indigenous children. 

The only churches who ran the residential schools were the Roman Catholic church (about 60%), the Anglican, the United, and the Presbyterian to a lesser extent.  The rest of churches, such as Baptists, Community churches, Evangelical churches, etc. and the cults had nothing to do with residential schools.  The Roman church is not a "Christian" church.  It was formed from Nimrod's Babylonian religion back in the early centuries.  Read this article and watch the video:

The Babylonian Roman Catholic Church – Hear the trumpets

If you seek the truth with all your heart in the King James Bible, you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2022 at 10:39 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

They also facilitated the transition of India from a depotic system before British rule to the largest democracy in the world after they left. It was the Christian churches that abused and neglected indigenous children. 

The Crown created the system and stole the children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is as evil as liberalism, and neo-liberalism, the only thing that a liberal system doesn't give a damn to is the ordinary people of the society, only rich become richer and the poor become poorer, remember that's the social Darwinism that has been rebranded! However socialism in compare with liberalism and communism is still better.... 

Pertaining to liberalism: 

1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic World view, liberalism is no different. 

2. Socialism punishes virtue, the so called liberal countries are making money out of sex and porn industry. 

3. Socialism Endorses Stealing, in a liberal system only the rich has the right to steal from ordinary people. 

4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare, not to say that how liberal countries (USA and NATO countries) attacked others because of their oil and minerals (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan....)

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage and Family, liberal countries already did it, by making LGBQs heinous actions credible. 

So literally they have no differences, and as much as liberalism has something to do with "Christianity", socialism is related too. 

Edited by User47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Did your marriage and family fall apart after gay folks were allowed to get married?

Hmm, In a given school year, 58 percent of 7th-12th graders experience sexual harassment, Sexual Assaults Up Nearly 40% in US Military, and so much more things that you can never find their "official" and "accurate" figure. 

By passing laws that don't prohibit homosexualism any more, this horrific rates would become even more horrific, the birth rate has already dropped in the US, it'll be so stupid if I want to only be worried about myself or my own family, the society matters too, because that's where you live in, the society would effect the personal life of every single member of it, how would two gay or lesbian people bring kids? That's not a "family" for sure. 

I'm not an American and not living there (Thanks to God), but I'm still worried because these issues are like contagious viruses and make other societies ill as well.

And this is not going to stop here, once they moved to make prostitution legal (the same as Germany that now gets tax from prostitutes), then they moved to pass laws in favor of gays and lesbians, the next time they made it legal to get married with your own sister and brother, now they're moving to have sexual relationship with animals..... can you imagine a limit to all of that? 

This isn't just me or my family, while the youth of my society become corrupt, this would be harm done to me, too, as a young person I found it deplorable that aim of most people has become "sex", we are humans, not animals we have a lot more capacity than just thinking about these issues. 

Look at the Hollywood movies, they have passed all limits, I don't like innocent 10-year-old kids in my society be watching sexual relationships between men and women or men and men or women and women, this would destroy the soul of a kid in that age . "Sex" isn't the final destination of human being, when you make busy the mind of a 10-year-old kid with sex, through their lesbian or gay friends or even those who are sexually incited at this age at school or the contents they're fed through movies and cartoons, you can never expect that kid becomes a responsible knowledgeable person in the future, then what would be the future of that country? I'm not lonely living in a cave to only think about myself or my own family, the future generations matter, too, what would be left for them from morality and ethics? 

This is too appalling that an army should say to its soldiers "Don't ask, don't tell" should such a thing be the most important issue of an army? 

 

Edited by User47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2022 at 4:37 PM, blackbird said:

Socialism is evil for five key reasons:

1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview.

2. Socialism punishes virtue.

3. Socialism Endorses Stealing.

4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare.

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage and Family.

  From Julie Roys, Christian Post contributor July 12, 2016.

For the detailed explanation of each of these five points, please go to:

5 Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian | Opinion News (christianpost.com)

   Since the federal NDP and Liberals have reached an agreement which includes the governing Liberals enacting more major social programs such as dental care, and pharmacare, in addition to the existing programs, the question of whether it is moral or not should be examined.  These programs sound good on the surface or without an in depth examination of what it all means.  But the fact is they will cost Canadians tens of billions of dollars on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt we already have.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Somebody has to pay for all these expensive programs and the only people who can pay are the taxpayers.  But many Canadians are already stretched beyond the brink and struggling to make end's meet.  So how will all this work and is it fair for taxpayers?  Gas prices are already beyond reasonable, real estate and rents in cities is getting out of sight, and food is going up.  Yet the left wing parties and politicians believe now is the time to really splurge on social programs.  They also believe we should not spend on our poverty-stricken Canadian forces, even at a time when the world has changed and we face serious aggressive behavior from adversaries in the world.  So it is really a moral issue as well as a political issue.

Good grief...

Socialism is no more or less "evil" than Capitalism...and that's...NONE.

Neither are "evil". People can be "evil" but theoretical social governance cannot.

Your problem is not socialism nor Capitalism.

Your problem is with the leaders of said methodology.

Edited by Nationalist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 Socialism is no more or less "evil" than Capitalism...and that's...NONE.

The basic sense of this post - which I agree with - is that ANY system will provide equitable and satisfactory results if it runs perfectly and matches the values of the participants and stakeholders.

After all - what does "fair" really mean and doesn't it matter more that the participants THINK it's fair than it matches some abstract equation.  Is Canada "socialist" because it offers public healthcare, or "capitalist" because of low taxation, low barriers to entry and low government involvement in business ?

As you point out - it's not inherently good or evil, just how you use the tools and how people think of the system in the end.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2022 at 7:32 AM, Nationalist said:

Good grief...

Socialism is no more or less "evil" than Capitalism...and that's...NONE.

Neither are "evil". People can be "evil" but theoretical social governance cannot.

Your problem is not socialism nor Capitalism.

Your problem is with the leaders of said methodology.

Your problem is you have no moral compass.  Socialism is simple stealing.  I would suggest you consider going out and buying a King James Bible and reading it  or read it online.  Nobody has the right to confiscate someone else's property and redistribute the wealth.  That's called Communism, Marxism, or Socialism depending on a variety of related factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Your problem is you have no moral compass.  Socialism is simple stealing.  I would suggest you consider going out and buying a King James Bible and reading it  or read it online.  Nobody has the right to confiscate someone else's property and redistribute the wealth.  That's called Communism, Marxism, or Socialism depending on a variety of related factors.

Huh...Your problem is the way you read and understand that book of yours. That and your assumption that I have no moral compass. What a silly comment.

We live in a political and economic structure that gives both the political left and the political right equal say in matters. It has been noted, over time, that this is not only inevitable, but when properly balanced produces the optimum results. That's called "compromise". You should try it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Huh...Your problem is the way you read and understand that book of yours. That and your assumption that I have no moral compass. What a silly comment.

We live in a political and economic structure that gives both the political left and the political right equal say in matters. It has been noted, over time, that this is not only inevitable, but when properly balanced produces the optimum results. That's called "compromise". You should try it.

I'm sure the Communist parties in Russia and China all reach agreement to do all the evil things they do too.  Compromise among a gang of thieves doesn't make it right.  Right and wrong is not determined by a so-called "compromise" between crooked politicians, Communists, thieves or anyone else.  You have no right to other people's property simply because you think they have more than you or you need something that you think they don't need.  However Socialists think they are not bound by any kind of moral laws.  They think they can do whatever they wish.  They think, after all, it's for the "common good".  Rob Peter to pay Paul.  It's all ok with them.   That's the same reasoning we have abortion on demand which is the killing of the innocent and medical assistance in dying, which again is killing of people based on some kind belief that what a Supreme  Court says must be morally correct.  It is simply moral bankruptcy.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I'm sure the Communist parties in Russia and China all reach agreement to do all the evil things they do too.  Compromise among a gang of thieves doesn't make it right.  Right and wrong is not determined by a so-called "compromise" between crooked politicians, Communists, thieves or anyone else.  You have no right to other people's property simply because you think they have more than you or you need something that you think they don't need.  However Socialists think they are not bound by any kind of moral laws.  They think they can do whatever they wish.  They think, after all, it's for the "common good".  Rob Peter to pay Paul.  It's all ok with them.   That's the same reasoning we have abortion on demand which is the killing of the innocent and medical assistance in dying, which again is killing of people based on some kind belief that what a Supreme  Court says must be morally correct.  It is simply moral bankruptcy.

I don't disagree with you for the most part. Civilization could probably not exist without what is known as The Social Contract. A public acquiesce to taxation for things like police, roads, stuff. This is socialism used well.

What China does is a dictatorship. Never a good thing. But it takes a human to impose that dictatorship. To inflict the evil.

Balance is the "sweet spot".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I don't disagree with you for the most part. Civilization could probably not exist without what is known as The Social Contract. A public acquiesce to taxation for things like police, roads, stuff. This is socialism used well.

What China does is a dictatorship. Never a good thing. But it takes a human to impose that dictatorship. To inflict the evil.

Balance is the "sweet spot".

I think we agree on that.   I look at police, roads, fire protection as basic public services, not Socialism. 

Just one of the serious problems arising out of our Socialist public health care system in B.C. is that it was reported today that 900,000 people in B.C. do not have their own family doctor.  The Socialist NDP solution is to build clinics where mass health care can be provided.  This would provide second class care, not the kind of care people would get with their own family doctor who knows their health conditions and problems and is dedicated to his patients.  Socialist politicians don't worry about things like that.  They just want to mass produce inferior services because there would never be enough money to provide first class services in the Socialist system.  A large part of the money has to go to the huge bureaucracy to run it.  B.C. is facing contract demands in a few months for 300,000 public servants whose contracts are up for renewal and they want 5% to cover inflation.  This will cost billions more.  The money is just not there.  This on top of everything else like millions for the RCMP for retroactive pay, and massive housing shortages, etc.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2022 at 3:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

This is so simple as to be ridiculous.

 

 

When is Sweden's Stalin due to arrive?  

What makes you think Swedes are socialists?

They're not, you know.

Sweden Isn't Socialist

Can you even find a Swede that thinks they're socialists?

I'd be curious to see that if you could. I imagine Swedes have whack-a-doodles too, so I imagine there's one out there if you want to look.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I don't disagree with you for the most part. Civilization could probably not exist without what is known as The Social Contract. A public acquiesce to taxation for things like police, roads, stuff. This is socialism used well.

I disagree.

Socialism is about control. I believe the phrase is "control of the means of production."

You can have police and firehalls and not be a socialist. You can even have your roads paved and not be a socialist, That's not socialism.

When you hand over your right to own or control property or for that matter have rights, now you're a socialist. Good luck with that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...