Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[Black_Rose]

Christian morality does not demand that anyone has a right to vote. The question of who has a right to vote is a legal matter for the culture or society to decide. American culture was initially English,very mercantile,and very patriarchal. There’s a connection between the ownership of property and social standing,rights and priveleges. Property owners naturally are considered more important and have a higher social status than those who don’t own property.

Ok, so do you agree with that thinking then since it is rather consistent with a conservative mindset?

But my own remarks were directed against the notion that Christianity significantly increased the status of women in society relative to their baseline position in society.

So far, no one has answered my challenge:

You do have to remember that there was a strong confluence of government and religion before the Enlightenment. Of course, you statements can be formulated to yield testable hypotheses. During the reign of Theodosius I (347-395), Trinitarian Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire while it officially became tolerated after Constantine I (272-337) Edict of Milan in 313. Do you know any primary sources that highlight the contrast of the perception, treatment, and status of women before and after the reigns of Theodosius and Constantine ?

Of course, one who has a thorough knowledge of the culture of Late Antiquity can either provide evidence for against the proposition that the social status of women improved (never mind causation for now) after the Diocletian Persecution.

I am not accusing the Church of being a repressive force serving the elite of society or something similar since I would have to assume of burden of proof in order to take that stance. Instead, I merely wanted historical evidence in support of this assertion:

If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church and it’s teachings there would be no hospitals, universities, schools of any kind, no true judical system, no science, no women rights, etc., etc., etc. All of these things and more would not have happen without the Catholic Church. Read history from unbias history books and stop reading the proproganda you have been reading and studying.

In addition, that proposition also implies that those traits cannot occur independently without the Catholic Church. I provide the example of the Tang Dynasty as a falsification of notion. I also tried narrow the focus to the Catholic Church’s influence on woman’s rights and discussing topics such as woman’s suffrage is certainly germane.

 

[ERose]

But my own remarks were directed against the notion that Christianity significantly increased the status of women in society relative to their baseline position in society.

So far, no one has answered my challenge:

Here is the answer you are looking for and you may actually want to research this for yourself. In Europe a common woman had one future to look forward to and that was to get married and have as many children as they can. That was it.

Under Judeo-Christian influence during the middle ages women gained the ability to own property which was a huge step, choose not to get married normally by joining a convent or religious institution. During this time nuns were looked up to and given the greatest of respect and honor. In many if not most of these institutions women were allowed to learn how to read and write if they wished and become educated. Christian women had/have a incredible amount of influence withing the Church and that is shown by the number of saints that are women thoughout the history of the Church. These women ranged from nuns, girls, wives, generals, empresses, queens, common and rich people alike.

In addition, that proposition also implies that those traits cannot occur independently without the Catholic Church. I provide the example of the Tang Dynasty as a falsification of notion. I also tried narrow the focus to the Catholic Church’s influence on woman’s rights and discussing topics such as woman’s suffrage is certainly germane.

I have one question for you. Where did modern science begin and evolve from? I am not talking about just mathematics and engineering. I have done a little research and you should to. You most probably will not like the answer.

 

[Pitcharan]

Here is the answer you are looking for and you may actually want to research this for yourself. In Europe a common woman had one future to look forward to and that was to get married and have as many children as they can. That was it.

Under Judeo-Christian influence during the middle ages women gained the ability to own property which was a huge step, choose not to get married normally by joining a convent or religious institution. During this time nuns were looked up to and given the greatest of respect and honor. In many if not most of these institutions women were allowed to learn how to read and write if they wished and become educated. Christian women had/have a incredible amount of influence withing the Church and that is shown by the number of saints that are women thoughout the history of the Church. These women ranged from nuns, girls, wives, generals, empresses, queens, common and rich people alike.

I have one question for you. Where did modern science begin and evolve from? I am not talking about just mathematics and engineering. I have done a little research and you should to. You most probably will not like the answer.

A MYTH
Catholic church does not allow women to learn theology and that is why nuns do not learn it
A REALITY
There is no bar whatsover in the Catholic church for women to learn theology; that is why we have renowned theologians like Frances Hogan who was even a professor of theology in the best of catholic insitutions that provide formative learning for priesthood

 

[ERose]

How Americans went to Viet Nam on a lie by Johnson over the Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened. The lie confirmed by McNamara who talked abt it is his book. And you lost!

Can’t deny what you are saying here Monk. I want to point out two things there though. One, Johnson was a socialist. Odd that one of your fellow intellectual elites would want to go to war. Two, we lost because the United States Government refused to allow it’s generals to do what they should to win the war. It was a police action and not a true war. There was no intention whatsoever to defeat the enemy in Vietnam. We should not have been there.

You are wrong about Iraq though. The biggest mistake that we did concerning Iraq is not finish the job in the 1st gulf war. Sadam was a murderer and a criminal and should have been deposed. He was a rabid dog and needed to be put down. Currently though I would say that Iraq is a better place than it was under Sadam.

Concerning the weapons of mass destruction? They were there. I seen them personally after the 1st gulf war and now they are gone. The biggest fear that all of us should have is where did they go? My bet is Syria but no solid proof on my part.

What wonderful leaders you have.

We have had some ****** leaders in the past no doubt: Johnson, Nixen, Carter, Ford, and now Obama. Are you telling me though that Canada always had and continues to have great leaders? You cannot think of any Canadian leaders that are ******?

And would they help out in Rhunda. A Canadian general begged for help and the USA and the UN would not lift a finger. Another 800,000 people killed. And you worry abt socialized medicine.Some priorities.

I agree with you that if there was any military action that could be justified due to social justice it would have been Rhunda. The whole world should have responded to the attrocities that occurred there. If Canada is this perfect country with perfect leaders, why didn’t they do something about it. Having a general speak out isn’t the same as mustering your forces and taking care of business. So what happen?

 

[Black_Rose]

Here is the answer you are looking for and you may actually want to research this for yourself. In Europe a common woman had one future to look forward to and that was to get married and have as many children as they can. That was it.

Under Judeo-Christian influence during the middle ages women gained the ability to own property which was a huge step, choose not to get married normally by joining a convent or religious institution. During this time nuns were looked up to and given the greatest of respect and honor. In many if not most of these institutions women were allowed to learn how to read and write if they wished and become educated. Christian women had/have a incredible amount of influence withing the Church and that is shown by the number of saints that are women thoughout the history of the Church. These women ranged from nuns, girls, wives, generals, empresses, queens, common and rich people alike.

I have one question for you. Where did modern science begin and evolve from? I am not talking about just mathematics and engineering. I have done a little research and you should to. You most probably will not like the answer.

Unfortunately, I could not find any easily accessible resources regarding the role of women in Antiquity on the Internet. Most of the queries from google returned book previews and course syllabuses. But again, it is not my burden to support your arguments.

Again, I want primary and secondary sources that explicitly states that women cannot hold property before Constantine. Furthermore, one has to provide evidence that women were able to hold property in the Middle Ages.

Regarding science:

I would say that it was mainly developed during the Enlightenment and was heavily influenced by the philosophy of empiricism. Hume, Locke, and Berkeley weren’t Catholic.

Regarding the views of other people:

The views of Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, a Roman Catholic theologian, offers a perspective of the commonly accepted views in 16th Century Spain of the races encountered in the New World. Of course, he is not merely a politically incorrect extremist racist then; he merely articulated a well-respected position based on natural law about the inferiority of the New World people despite living in a society under the pervasive influence of Christianity. His intellectual adversary, Bartolomé de las Casas, (also a Catholic) would argue against the poor treatment of Native Americans under Spanish dominion.

 

[Black_Rose]

I’m not sure I accept this argument. A worker is free to change jobs, increase their skills or refuse to work if the remuneration is insufficient. The laws of supply and demand work both ways. Do you think a socialist system provides adequate remuneration? Ask those in N Korea

Ok, if that is true, then one could simply refuse to work and not suffer any negative consequences then, But since most people have families to support and bills to pay, people must gave a source of income to meet their personal upkeep. In this sense, people are not free to “refuse to work” since they do not have any economic leverage in the form of extra income outside of their employment.

Changing jobs:

Not possible since my post does not refer to the abuses by any particular individual employer, but the scenario where a laborer’s services are not worth that much to any market participant.

Acquiring skills:

What if employment does not require skills that can be acquired through apprenticeship or education, but talent? Talent, however, is an inherent to an individual and and cannot be acquired through individual effort (although it can be nurtured by conscientious effort). Ayn Rand had contempt for the talentless (she referred to a pyramid of human ability).

 

[zenblue102]

To the poster who has clients looking for a better tax system. I think that perhaps if you are working with those in the USA who can afford the services of a CPA or would even benefit from them, the clients you work with also benefit from the many deductions and loopholes in the American tax system. You will note that I mentioned that there were no loopholes or deductions where I lived and the tax rate is higher then in the USA… As a matter of fact, YOU benefit from the system which is so complicated that the rich need a CPA in order to most efficiently avoid paying their fair share. I heard that Warren Buffet once commented that he pays a lower % of his income in taxes than his administrative assistant. Fair, right?

I have not seen a response to my inquiry about why someone linked socialism to euthanasia. Explain that incorrect link and I will look up the 20 countries for you And tell you where I lived…anyone willing to take the bait??? it is spelled bait, not bate btw…for a CPA, your spelling is atrocious!!

 

[estesbob]

To the poster who has clients looking for a better tax system. I think that perhaps if you are working with those in the USA who can afford the services of a CPA or would even benefit from them, the clients you work with also benefit from the many deductions and loopholes in the American tax system. You will note that I mentioned that there were no loopholes or deductions where I lived and the tax rate is higher then in the USA… As a matter of fact, YOU benefit from the system which is so complicated that the rich need a CPA in order to most efficiently avoid paying their fair share. I heard that Warren Buffet once commented that he pays a lower % of his income in taxes than his administrative assistant. Fair, right?

I have not seen a response to my inquiry about why someone linked socialism to euthanasia. Explain that incorrect link and I will look up the 20 countries for you And tell you where I lived…anyone willing to take the bait??? it is spelled bait, not bate btw…for a CPA, your spelling is atrocious!!

There are deductions and loopholes in every country’s tax system You claimed everyone paid the same rate of income tax in your system. That simply is not true.

I am not the one who said there was a link between socialism and euthanasia. As far as your offer to google up this mythical country where the billionaire pays the same income tax rate as the pauper-why would you need to Google it-you claimed to have live there? Perhaps it was the Duchy of Grand Fenwick ?

 

[Monk21]

Can’t deny what you are saying here Monk. I want to point out two things there though. One, Johnson was a socialist. Odd that one of your fellow intellectual elites would want to go to war. Two, we lost because the United States Government refused to allow it’s generals to do what they should to win the war. It was a police action and not a true war. There was no intention whatsoever to defeat the enemy in Vietnam. We should not have been there.

You are wrong about Iraq though. The biggest mistake that we did concerning Iraq is not finish the job in the 1st gulf war. Sadam was a murderer and a criminal and should have been deposed. He was a rabid dog and needed to be put down. Currently though I would say that Iraq is a better place than it was under Sadam.

Concerning the weapons of mass destruction? They were there. I seen them personally after the 1st gulf war and now they are gone. The biggest fear that all of us should have is where did they go? My bet is Syria but no solid proof on my part.

We have had some ****** leaders in the past no doubt: Johnson, Nixen, Carter, Ford, and now Obama. Are you telling me though that Canada always had and continues to have great leaders? You cannot think of any Canadian leaders that are ******?

I agree with you that if there was any military action that could be justified due to social justice it would have been Rhunda. The whole world should have responded to the attrocities that occurred there. If Canada is this perfect country with perfect leaders, why didn’t they do something about it. Having a general speak out isn’t the same as mustering your forces and taking care of business. So what happen?

Today Mr. Hans Blix stated again to a committee in Briton that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Briton was sucked into the war on lies and so were the American people. And why the rush? The UN was checking it out and Bush would not wait. You saw the weapons??? Where did you see them and how did they get away??
So hundreds of thousands of civilians had to die because of this twit? Iraq people are now fighting among themselves just like Bosnia and Kosovo when Tito died.

We have had bad leaders, all conservative. We started the peace keeping through the UN via Lester Pearson one of our Liberal Prime Ministers. This was way back at the Cyprus war between Greece and Turkey. We have since via Conservative governments slipped away from this role.
As far as Rwanda is concerned, Canada had a peace keeping contingent there under General Delaire he fought tooth and nail to get help. He saved many but nobody would listen, Belgium lost troops and they pulled out. The USA only had to use the word genocide and the UN could have made a move, but nobody would say the word.
Now what have you got against Obama?

 

[anthony022071]

Ok, so do you agree with that thinking then since it is rather consistent with a conservative mindset?

I recognize it as a fact that people who own property have a higher social standing that those who do not own property. It does not mean that it is to be approved.

But my own remarks were directed against the notion that Christianity significantly increased the status of women in society relative to their baseline position in society.

The Catholic Church recognized that men and women were of equal value in the eyes of God,and that men should be respectful and considerate towards women,and loving towards their wives. But this does not necessarily demand that women should have the same social status or opportunities as men. The gradual increase in the social status and opportunities was indirectly made possible by the influence of Christian religion because,since men and women are equal in the eyes of God,there is nothing but cultural and attitudes to prevent women from having the same legal and social freedoms and rights that men do. But it had to wait for women to demand these freedoms and rights for them to be granted.

See post 122.

 

[ERose]

Unfortunately, I could not find any easily accessible resources regarding the role of women in Antiquity on the Internet. Most of the queries from google returned book previews and course syllabuses. But again, it is not my burden to support your arguments.

Again, I want primary and secondary sources that explicitly states that women cannot hold property before Constantine. Furthermore, one has to provide evidence that women were able to hold property in the Middle Ages.

Changing the rules I see considering that the majority of your sources when they were provided came from unsubstantiated sources. But I will play your game:

moyak.com/papers/roman-women.html
moyak.com/papers/athenian-women.html
rome.mrdonn.org/women.html
frontline.org.za/articles/liberation.htm
helium.com/items/1190059-womens-rights-in-ancient-china

Oh by the way the Christian influence started before Constantine.

 

[Black_Rose]

Changing the rules I see considering that the majority of your sources when they were provided came from unsubstantiated sources. But I will play your game:

moyak.com/papers/roman-women.html
moyak.com/papers/athenian-women.html
rome.mrdonn.org/women.html
frontline.org.za/articles/liberation.htm
helium.com/items/1190059-womens-rights-in-ancient-china

Oh by the way the Christian influence started before Constantine.

What specific claims of mine are unsubstantiated (or claims that cannot be easily checked/ common knowledge)?

 

[ERose]

Regarding science:

I would say that it was mainly developed during the Enlightenment and was heavily influenced by the philosophy of empiricism. Hume, Locke, and Berkeley weren’t Catholic.

Evaluate the thinking process of the religions before Christianity versus Christianity.

Greek, Roman, European, Egyptian, Norse mythologies believed in pantheons of gods, where each one had authority over a certain aspect of nature. One was god of the air, goddess of the earth, of hell, oceans, water, trees, hearth, thunder, storms, etc. Nature was chaotic in a way and could not be truly understood except in taking into account that there was a god in charge of it. Storms occurred because Zeus was angry. The earth quaked because Hades blew a fuse. etc. Science could never evolve out of this belief system. In Judeo-Christian mindset, the universe becomes understandable because one God created and maintains everything. There is order and laws on how things work, because our God is a God of order and structure and laws.

I know that in the past 100 years there is a huge attempt by the accademia to rewrite history to say that science in spite of resistence of the Chuch grew. But the truth of the matter is that many influencial scientists were monks, priest, and devoted Catholic and Protestant laymen. In comparison to the history of science, atheism is a relatively new concept. They did not grow together, but separately. Good thing is that there are many historians that are starting to set the record straight.

 

[ERose]

What specific claims of mine are unsubstantiated (or claims that cannot be easily checked/ common knowledge)?

I’m going to tell you the same thing that Monk has told others on this post. Stop being lazy and look it up yourself. I know that you do not want to believe that there has been good things that came from the Church for in your mind you have accepted the concept that the Church is purely evil and nothing good can come from it and that government, socialism, and liberalism is working on righting the world. You need to open your mind a little and see the forest in spite of the trees you want to believe even though deep down you know they are wrong.

 

[ERose]

Today Mr. Hans Blix stated again to a committee in Briton that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Briton was sucked into the war on lies and so were the American people. And why the rush? The UN was checking it out and Bush would not wait. You saw the weapons??? Where did you see them and how did they get away??
So hundreds of thousands of civilians had to die because of this twit? Iraq people are now fighting among themselves just like Bosnia and Kosovo when Tito died.

We have had bad leaders, all conservative. We started the peace keeping through the UN via Lester Pearson one of our Liberal Prime Ministers. This was way back at the Cyprus war between Greece and Turkey. We have since via Conservative governments slipped away from this role.
As far as Rwanda is concerned, Canada had a peace keeping contingent there under General Delaire he fought tooth and nail to get help. He saved many but nobody would listen, Belgium lost troops and they pulled out. The USA only had to use the word genocide and the UN could have made a move, but nobody would say the word.
Now what have you got against Obama?

Ok I get it. You are an bitter man who hates everything about America and Capitalism. You are a pure socialist, liberal, progressive thinker who will not accept anything that may have any inkling of conservatism in it. You have told other people on this post to start thinking for themselves and yet all I see is a close minded individual.

I am not going to get into the bashing each other’s countries with you because of the deep respect I have for some good friends that are Canadians. I do not have a problem visiting your country except for the price of gasoline and food.

I understand that you hate the idea that the United States is the supreme country in the world and your country is just another country. Everyone wants to have what we have but bashes everything that we have because they can’t have it. I will not apologize for that and you shouldn’t worry about it.

Concerning yours and my healthcare systems, there are pluses and minuses with each system. You prefer your and I prefer mine.

Concerning Iraq and weapons of mass destruction ask the Khurds in Halabja. But even in the case that there wasn’t any that they all disappeared into thin air after the 1st Gulf War, this monster needed to be put down. He was a murderer and a tyrant on the level of Hitler and Stalin within his own country. I guess you on the other hand think that Iraq was better off under Saddam’s rule than it is now. I just find it very interesting that Socialist have a love for tyrants and mass-murderers.

 

[Black_Rose]

Still, you did not successfully argue that Christianity itself is a progressive social force (in contrast, my position assumes no significant impact of Christianity on social issues). Of course, I was aware of the low status of women in the Roman Republic due to pater familias (I was unaware of their social status in the Roman Empire though), in Classical Greece (Sparta was an exception where women were afforded relatively high status and independence), and in China under its pervasive Confucian culture (during the Tang Dynasty, however, some women were able to own property).

This link made the general claim that the social status of women improved during the Roman Empire when compared to their condition in the Roman Republic. This claim does not seem extraordinary nor surprising, and I readily accept its veracity since it is consistent with my historical knowledge. But, it did not satisfactorily address my challenge, because I wanted evidence that Christianity contributed to the improved social status of women in Late Antiquity. The periodization of the “Roman Empire” is too broad because it also includes the reigns of other pagan Emperor’s, in addition to the Christian Emperors of Late Antiquity (with Julian being the sole non-Christian Emperor after Constantine’s reign). In order to satisfy my demand, one would have to argue that the pagan emperor’s maintained the repressive social institutions of the Roman Republic while Christian Emperors progressively abolished them.

The two moyak.com links had excellent specific content about the generally inferior social status of women in Ancient Greece and Rome, but it did not seem to have much relevance to my request. I never doubted the inferior position of women in those societies.

It does not seem extraordinary that Christian contributed to the cultural abhorrence of paedophila and “female circumcision” as claimed here.

Oh by the way the Christian influence started before Constantine.

Of course Christianity influenced Roman Society before Constantine. The main question is whether Christianity influence Imperial policies before the reign of Constantine.

 

[Black_Rose]

I’m going to tell you the same thing that Monk has told others on this post. Stop being lazy and look it up yourself. I know that you do not want to believe that there has been good things that came from the Church for in your mind you have accepted the concept that the Church is purely evil and nothing good can come from it and that government, socialism, and liberalism is working on righting the world. You need to open your mind a little and see the forest in spite of the trees you want to believe even though deep down you know they are wrong.

Again, I never made the claim the Church is evil.

Instead I said:

But my own remarks were directed against the notion that Christianity significantly increased the status of women in society relative to their baseline position in society.
…
I am not accusing the Church of being a repressive force serving the elite of society or something similar…

Again, what specific historical claims I made in this thread that are inaccurate or cannot easily be unsubstantiated? All you have to do is look at my posts in this thread and copy and paste.

 

[Monk21]

Ok I get it. You are an bitter man who hates everything about America and Capitalism. You are a pure socialist, liberal, progressive thinker who will not accept anything that may have any inkling of conservatism in it. You have told other people on this post to start thinking for themselves and yet all I see is a close minded individual.

I am not going to get into the bashing each other’s countries with you because of the deep respect I have for some good friends that are Canadians. I do not have a problem visiting your country except for the price of gasoline and food.

I understand that you hate the idea that the United States is the supreme country in the world and your country is just another country. Everyone wants to have what we have but bashes everything that we have because they can’t have it. I will not apologize for that and you shouldn’t worry about it.

Concerning yours and my healthcare systems, there are pluses and minuses with each system. You prefer your and I prefer mine.

Concerning Iraq and weapons of mass destruction ask the Khurds in Halabja. But even in the case that there wasn’t any that they all disappeared into thin air after the 1st Gulf War, this monster needed to be put down. He was a murderer and a tyrant on the level of Hitler and Stalin within his own country. I guess you on the other hand think that Iraq was better off under Saddam’s rule than it is now. I just find it very interesting that Socialist have a love for tyrants and mass-murderers.

Well there you go, when you don’t have the answers, put the person down.
No I do not hate Americans or your country. What bothers me is that all you can see abt your country are the good things and you can’t accept anything negative.
The saying “the best county in the world” is stuck in your head and you don’t want to listen to anything else.
Americans I talk to believe they won WWII in Europe. There is never any mention of the British, Canadians, Poles, Russians and all the people who were Partisans.
Just once I would like to see Americans get off their high horse and know that there are other countries that contribute to the good on this planet.
That’s all, if that bothers you, your still at it.
If you are going for the most killed, in particular civilians, by who in Iraq, you guys win.

 

[Monk21]

Erose;
Aside from our tit for tat on yours and mine I have to go along with you on women in the church. I think you are right on.
How many of us were more interested in what Sister Mary Hockey Stick had to say and the important role that women, right from the start of the church were given.

 

[anthony022071]

Of course Christianity influenced Roman Society before Constantine. The main question is whether Christianity influence Imperial policies before the reign of Constantine.

How could the Church have influenced imperial social policies when it was outlawed and being persecuted by the State?

See posts 122 and 190.