StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You might want to look up JPII's views on socialism.

---

John Paul II? The champion of labor unions who argued in Centesimus Annus that laborers must be paid a just wage, have the right to form unions, and should not be treated as expendable tools when they lose their productivity due to age?

The Solidarity Movement in Poland, that helped break the back of the USSR, was led by a Trade Union and supported by Pope St.John Paul II.

The "socialism" supported by myself and Pope St.John Paul II has nothing to do with Marxism.

---

Again, you might want to do a little more reading on his views. Here's one of his quotes to help you get started...

Quote:

---

"…the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decisions disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order."

---

---

I have no quibble with that, read on for what he says about capitalism.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I don't always agree with you my man, but your encyclopedic knowledge of the encyclicals is always quite impressive.

You take your faith quite seriously and put in the work to understand and communicate it when pressed. #respect

---

Thank you, I appreciate you saying that. I am a great sinner who needs to constantly hit myself over the head with knowledge in order to be civilized haha.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You might want to look up JPII's views on socialism.

---

John Paul II? The champion of labor unions who argued in Centesimus Annus that laborers must be paid a just wage, have the right to form unions, and should not be treated as expendable tools when they lose their productivity due to age?

The Solidarity Movement in Poland, that helped break the back of the USSR, was led by a Trade Union and supported by Pope St.John Paul II.

The "socialism" supported by myself and Pope St.John Paul II has nothing to do with Marxism.

---

Again, you might want to do a little more reading on his views. Here's one of his quotes to help you get started...

Quote:

---

"…the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decisions disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order."

---

---

I have no quibble with that, read on for what he says about capitalism.

---

Then you agree that JPII was against socialism. Thanks.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You might want to look up JPII's views on socialism.

---

John Paul II? The champion of labor unions who argued in Centesimus Annus that laborers must be paid a just wage, have the right to form unions, and should not be treated as expendable tools when they lose their productivity due to age?

The Solidarity Movement in Poland, that helped break the back of the USSR, was led by a Trade Union and supported by Pope St.John Paul II.

The "socialism" supported by myself and Pope St.John Paul II has nothing to do with Marxism.

---

Again, you might want to do a little more reading on his views. Here's one of his quotes to help you get started...

Quote:

---

"…the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decisions disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order."

---

---

I have no quibble with that, read on for what he says about capitalism.

---

Then you agree that JPII was against socialism. Thanks.

---

Marxian Socialism yes, but not what many on this board would consider socialism.

He argued that the telos of both marxian socialism and capitalism reduces the individual as a means to an end, rather than having the individual being the end itself. Labor is supposed to allow a person to raise a family, and facilitate the family's on their passage from this world to heaven. Communion with God is the end of the rightly ordered economy, not maximizing profit.

Under both capitalism and socialism the worker is reduced to his output, the only difference is who owns the machinery and how the surplus is distributed.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You might want to look up JPII's views on socialism.

---

John Paul II? The champion of labor unions who argued in Centesimus Annus that laborers must be paid a just wage, have the right to form unions, and should not be treated as expendable tools when they lose their productivity due to age?

The Solidarity Movement in Poland, that helped break the back of the USSR, was led by a Trade Union and supported by Pope St.John Paul II.

The "socialism" supported by myself and Pope St.John Paul II has nothing to do with Marxism.

---

Again, you might want to do a little more reading on his views. Here's one of his quotes to help you get started...

Quote:

---

"…the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decisions disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order."

---

---

I have no quibble with that, read on for what he says about capitalism.

---

Then you agree that JPII was against socialism. Thanks.

---

Marxian Socialism yes, but not what many on this board would consider socialism.

He argued that the telos of both marxian socialism and capitalism reduces the individual as a means to an end, rather than having the individual being the end itself. Labor is supposed to allow a person to raise a family, and facilitate the family's on their passage from this world to heaven. Communion with God is the end of the rightly ordered economy, not maximizing profit.

---

That almost sounds like when the younger generations say that we're going to do socialism right this time. In practice it always ends up the same.

A time for war and a time for peace

vs

No one should ever threaten another's existence


It's almost like this human will disregard anything, including the word of God, in order to criticize a political leader that he doesn't like




Either that or he fundamentally doesn't understand the concept of war or peace

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You have no idea what socialism is, then. People helping their neighbors and those in need is not socialism.

---

Where did I say otherwise?

---

Then what do you think is "Socialism" that aligns with the Bible? There is nothing in there that is inline with Socialism... Unless of course you are just referring to "Church Teaching" as some Catholic tradition. You may have a small point there.

---

That society is ordered to the family, and not the individual, and that those with the means to help those that truly can't help themselves, should. That laborers should be paid enough to live and raise a family, and that they have an obligation to ownership, just as ownership has an obligation to them.

---

That has nothing to do with socialism. The "laborers should be paid enough to live and raise a family" is not in the Bible anywhere. That says any job is worth the pay to support an entire family, and there is nothing in the Bible that says that. None of what you are saying has Socialistic alignment, that is just sphere of responsibility.

Yes, the sphere of responsibility for the individual is not just the single individual. It is role based to the family (extended) and then the responsibility for those who do not fall under the responsibility of another provider (widows and orphans) fall into the responsibility of the Church (both individual and corporate). No where in there is Socialism involved.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You might want to look up JPII's views on socialism.

---

John Paul II? The champion of labor unions who argued in Centesimus Annus that laborers must be paid a just wage, have the right to form unions, and should not be treated as expendable tools when they lose their productivity due to age?

The Solidarity Movement in Poland, that helped break the back of the USSR, was led by a Trade Union and supported by Pope St.John Paul II.

The "socialism" supported by myself and Pope St.John Paul II has nothing to do with Marxism.

---

Again, you might want to do a little more reading on his views. Here's one of his quotes to help you get started...

Quote:

---

"…the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decisions disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order."

---

---

I have no quibble with that, read on for what he says about capitalism.

---

Then you agree that JPII was against socialism. Thanks.

---

Marxian Socialism yes, but not what many on this board would consider socialism.

He argued that the telos of both marxian socialism and capitalism reduces the individual as a means to an end, rather than having the individual being the end itself. Labor is supposed to allow a person to raise a family, and facilitate the family's on their passage from this world to heaven. Communion with God is the end of the rightly ordered economy, not maximizing profit.

---

That almost sounds like when the younger generations say that we're going to do socialism right this time. In practice it always ends up the same.

---

Not really, look at the Nordic countries and Japan. All have heavy elements of socialism, which work out for them given the way they've structured their society.

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You have no idea what socialism is, then. People helping their neighbors and those in need is not socialism.

---

Where did I say otherwise?

---

Then what do you think is "Socialism" that aligns with the Bible? There is nothing in there that is inline with Socialism... Unless of course you are just referring to "Church Teaching" as some Catholic tradition. You may have a small point there.

---

That society is ordered to the family, and not the individual, and that those with the means to help those that truly can't help themselves, should. That laborers should be paid enough to live and raise a family, and that they have an obligation to ownership, just as ownership has an obligation to them.

---

That has nothing to do with socialism. The "laborers should be paid enough to live and raise a family" is not in the Bible anywhere. That says any job is worth the pay to support an entire family, and there is nothing in the Bible that says that. None of what you are saying has Socialistic alignment, that is just sphere of responsibility.

Yes, the sphere of responsibility for the individual is not just the single individual. It is role based to the family (extended) and then the responsibility for those who do not fall under the responsibility of another provider (widows and orphans) fall into the responsibility of the Church (both individual and corporate). No where in there is Socialism involved.

---

Why did the landowner in the Gospel of Matthew pay all of the laborers in the vineyard the amount for a day's work regardless of how long they worked?

Quote:

---

Why did the landowner in the Gospel of Matthew pay all of the laborers in the vineyard the amount for a day's work regardless of how long they worked?

---

Because that is how much he promised to pay. That was to point out the problem of the complaining of the lifelong "righteous" for having the same salvation as those who came to God at the last minute. It had nothing to do with "the payment to support a family no matter what the job is". That is a serious stretch.

It was to illustrate the generosity of God, not giving business advice.

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

Why did the landowner in the Gospel of Matthew pay all of the laborers in the vineyard the amount for a day's work regardless of how long they worked?

---

Because that is how much he promised to pay. That was to point out the problem of the complaining of the lifelong "righteous" for having the same salvation as those who came to God at the last minute. It had nothing to do with "the payment to support a family no matter what the job is". That is a serious stretch.

It was to illustrate the generosity of God, not giving business advice.

---

How much was a denarius? What was it equal to?

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You have no idea what socialism is, then. People helping their neighbors and those in need is not socialism.

---

Where did I say otherwise?

---

Then what do you think is "Socialism" that aligns with the Bible? There is nothing in there that is inline with Socialism... Unless of course you are just referring to "Church Teaching" as some Catholic tradition. You may have a small point there.

---

That society is ordered to the family, and not the individual, and that those with the means to help those that truly can't help themselves, should. That laborers should be paid enough to live and raise a family, and that they have an obligation to ownership, just as ownership has an obligation to them.

---

That has nothing to do with socialism. The "laborers should be paid enough to live and raise a family" is not in the Bible anywhere. That says any job is worth the pay to support an entire family, and there is nothing in the Bible that says that. None of what you are saying has Socialistic alignment, that is just sphere of responsibility.

Yes, the sphere of responsibility for the individual is not just the single individual. It is role based to the family (extended) and then the responsibility for those who do not fall under the responsibility of another provider (widows and orphans) fall into the responsibility of the Church (both individual and corporate). No where in there is Socialism involved.

---

Why did the landowner in the Gospel of Matthew pay all of the laborers in the vineyard the amount for a day's work regardless of how long they worked?

---

Oh I know this one. Because it was his to do so how he chose to. The lesson from that parable is about the sovereigns right to do what he chose to with his possession and for people not to fall into jealousy and thinking they had the right to question what the owner decided.

Oh FFS Nancy, there is no "unmitigated cruelty". They are beaten and tortuted, denied food and medical care, etc. they are humanely arrested, processed and deported. Sure if they choose not to comply they can get roughed up in the arresting phase, but that is 100% their choice and on them, period.

We don't have to apologize to anyone or try to be made to feel guilty for how we enforce our laws.

TxSquarebody said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

TxSquarebody said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Weird how you didn't correct the poster who brought up prayer rooms for Muslims in the Vatican

---

Maybe because I don't care one way or the other if the Vatican offers prayer rooms to onsite Muslim scholars. But if you had to press me on it, it just seems like a decent thing the Vatican is doing to accommodate fellow humans. So good on them for it, honestly.

---

Jesus flipped tables for similar. This is disgusting behavior by the church.

---

My memory tells me Jesus flipped tables because capitalists had set-up shop in a temple and were taking advantage of the poor and travelers. The temple had become a marketplace where profit was put ahead of spirituality, taking advantage of the less fortunate.

The phrase 'a house of prayer for all nations' comes to mind. In that sense, the by providing prayer rooms for others in the Vatican (not St. Peter's Basilica) is simply following Christ's teachings.

---

He flipped the tables and beat the SOCIALISTS who shrunk the middle class by relagating them to the poor, thereby dependent on them.
Also, had everything to do with where they were conducting business and less about the business. If you didn't know, now you do.

---

I didn't know SOCIALISTS existed in Christ's time. Must have taken Karl Marx by surprise.

Or, perhaps you are trying to spin way too hard?

---

You and your cohorts are doing the spinning. It was yall that called Jesus socialist.

---

Y'all??? You mean one person.

heavens11 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You have no idea what socialism is, then. People helping their neighbors and those in need is not socialism.

---

Where did I say otherwise?

---

Then what do you think is "Socialism" that aligns with the Bible? There is nothing in there that is inline with Socialism... Unless of course you are just referring to "Church Teaching" as some Catholic tradition. You may have a small point there.

---

That society is ordered to the family, and not the individual, and that those with the means to help those that truly can't help themselves, should. That laborers should be paid enough to live and raise a family, and that they have an obligation to ownership, just as ownership has an obligation to them.

---

That has nothing to do with socialism. The "laborers should be paid enough to live and raise a family" is not in the Bible anywhere. That says any job is worth the pay to support an entire family, and there is nothing in the Bible that says that. None of what you are saying has Socialistic alignment, that is just sphere of responsibility.

Yes, the sphere of responsibility for the individual is not just the single individual. It is role based to the family (extended) and then the responsibility for those who do not fall under the responsibility of another provider (widows and orphans) fall into the responsibility of the Church (both individual and corporate). No where in there is Socialism involved.

---

Why did the landowner in the Gospel of Matthew pay all of the laborers in the vineyard the amount for a day's work regardless of how long they worked?

---

Oh I know this one. Because it was his to do so how he chose to. The lesson from that parable is about the sovereigns right to do what he chose to with his possession and for people not to fall into jealousy and thinking they had the right to question what the owner decided.

---

Yes, and a denarius was enough money to sustain a man and his family for 1 day, this is why Leviticus 19:13 commands the master to pay the worker the same day he does the labor, because the amount is the minimum needed to take care of a family's needs. Malachi 3:5 is even more stark, saying that God's judgement will fall on those who oppress their workers with poor wages.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

Why did the landowner in the Gospel of Matthew pay all of the laborers in the vineyard the amount for a day's work regardless of how long they worked?

---

Because that is how much he promised to pay. That was to point out the problem of the complaining of the lifelong "righteous" for having the same salvation as those who came to God at the last minute. It had nothing to do with "the payment to support a family no matter what the job is". That is a serious stretch.

It was to illustrate the generosity of God, not giving business advice.

---

How much was a denarius? What was it equal to?

---

If you think that was the point, why would the workers who had been there all day be upset? If that is to be expected practice, shouldn't the workers who worked all day just expect that everyone who came in right up to the last minute gets the same reward? And what in the context of where Jesus was makes you think the illustration was to be economic in nature? As was stated by heavens11, the laborers had no say in what the owner of the vineyard (God, in this parable) was willing to freely give for the time worked. That's not exactly socialist at all.

Paying fair wages isn't anti-capitalist, nor is it socialist. Again, I think you have a misunderstanding of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is NOT the maximization of profits, it is the maximization of utility. The righteous considers the glorification of God a properly considered utility (a benefit that comes from the use of a resource). So no, there is nothing inherently socialist in God's teachings. A capitalistic system of Godly people is better than a socialistic system of Godly or unGodly people, because it maximizes the glorification of God. Without Godly people, however, whether it is socialist or capitalist makes no difference, it is unGodly.

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

Why did the landowner in the Gospel of Matthew pay all of the laborers in the vineyard the amount for a day's work regardless of how long they worked?

---

Because that is how much he promised to pay. That was to point out the problem of the complaining of the lifelong "righteous" for having the same salvation as those who came to God at the last minute. It had nothing to do with "the payment to support a family no matter what the job is". That is a serious stretch.

It was to illustrate the generosity of God, not giving business advice.

---

How much was a denarius? What was it equal to?

---

If you think that was the point, why would the workers who had been there all day be upset? If that is to be expected practice, shouldn't the workers who worked all day just expect that everyone who came in right up to the last minute gets the same reward? And what in the context of where Jesus was makes you think the illustration was to be economic in nature? As was stated by heavens11, the laborers had no say in what the owner of the vineyard (God, in this parable) was willing to freely give for the time worked. That's not exactly socialist at all.

---

Why would they be upset? Because they worked all day and they got the same pay as the one who had just gotten there. The valuation of the denarius was that it provided enough sustenance for a worker who had worked all day AND his family, not one that had just worked for a few hours, so in short the ones who were paid the same were "over paid" for the amount of labor that they did.

The beauty of the Catholic Church is that we have history, I can look back and see what Catholics though 1600 years ago, some of the greatest church fathers in our history, and some how, they also thought that it in addition to the parable explaining grace, it was economic in nature as well.

In Homilies on Lazarus and Homilies on Matthew; St. John Chrysostom notes that the workers who came late are not lazy, they haven't been hired by anyone as of yet, despite looking for work. He compares this with the Good Master making the first movement to his employee, just as in our salvation God makes the first move towards us. In the same way, God doesn't give us merely what we deserve, but exactly what we need; just as the Master did with his employees. This is echoed by St Gregory the Great, who makes the distinction between "want" and "need". The employees who worked all day "wanted" more, but the employees who only worked a partial day "needed".

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

Why did the landowner in the Gospel of Matthew pay all of the laborers in the vineyard the amount for a day's work regardless of how long they worked?

---

Because that is how much he promised to pay. That was to point out the problem of the complaining of the lifelong "righteous" for having the same salvation as those who came to God at the last minute. It had nothing to do with "the payment to support a family no matter what the job is". That is a serious stretch.

It was to illustrate the generosity of God, not giving business advice.

---

How much was a denarius? What was it equal to?

---

If you think that was the point, why would the workers who had been there all day be upset? If that is to be expected practice, shouldn't the workers who worked all day just expect that everyone who came in right up to the last minute gets the same reward? And what in the context of where Jesus was makes you think the illustration was to be economic in nature? As was stated by heavens11, the laborers had no say in what the owner of the vineyard (God, in this parable) was willing to freely give for the time worked. That's not exactly socialist at all.

---

Why would they be upset? Because they worked all day and they got the same pay as the one who had just gotten there. The valuation of the denarius was that it provided enough sustenance for a worker who had worked all day AND his family, not one that had just worked for a few hours, so in short the ones who were paid the same were "over paid" for the amount of labor that they did.

The beauty of the Catholic Church is that we have history, I can look back and see what Catholics though 1600 years ago, some of the greatest church fathers in our history, and some how, they also thought that it in addition to the parable explaining grace, it was economic in nature as well.

In Homilies on Lazarus and Homilies on Matthew; St. John Chrysostom notes that the workers who came late are not lazy, they haven't been hired by anyone as of yet, despite looking for work. He compares this with the Good Master making the first movement to his employee, just as in our salvation God makes the first move towards us. In the same way, God doesn't give us merely what we deserve, but exactly what we need; just as the Master did with his employees. This is echoed by St Gregory the Great, who makes the distinction between "want" and "need". The employees who worked all day "wanted" more, but the employees who only worked a partial day "needed".

---

There is nothing in the text about "Want" and "Need" except the landowner who can do what he wants with His money. There is, however the landowner answering that he is "generous". If someone is being generous, they are giving more than is expected or required. That is declaratively different than expecting all work to be paid the same. It implies the opposite, in fact.

Phatbob said:

---

Paying fair wages isn't anti-capitalist, nor is it socialist. Again, I think you have a misunderstanding of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is NOT the maximization of profits, it is the maximization of utility. The righteous considers the glorification of God a properly considered utility (a benefit that comes from the use of a resource). So no, there is nothing inherently socialist in God's teachings. A capitalistic system of Godly people is better than a socialistic system of Godly or unGodly people, because it maximizes the glorification of God. Without Godly people, however, whether it is socialist or capitalist makes no difference, it is unGodly.

---

You're not making a point. In a justly ordered society there's no need for capitalism or socialism as everyone voluntarily shares what they have for the good of all. Look at the organization of any family, I work while my wife and children are sustained by my labor, which I give them happily, because I love them.

Give me a real world example of the above, and I'll agree with you. I own a group of manufacturing companies, I've had many warehouse workers who have been with me since they were young and are now old. When they're younger they've got iron backs and they earn less money; after two decades they've gotten a bunch of pay increases and they're nowhere near as vigorous as they used to be.

Let's say I'm a public company with a fiduciary duty to my shareholders, what would the purely capitalist decision be, without regards to fringe benefits like morale, etc etc.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Paying fair wages isn't anti-capitalist, nor is it socialist. Again, I think you have a misunderstanding of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is NOT the maximization of profits, it is the maximization of utility. The righteous considers the glorification of God a properly considered utility (a benefit that comes from the use of a resource). So no, there is nothing inherently socialist in God's teachings. A capitalistic system of Godly people is better than a socialistic system of Godly or unGodly people, because it maximizes the glorification of God. Without Godly people, however, whether it is socialist or capitalist makes no difference, it is unGodly.

---

You're not making a point. In a justly ordered society there's no need for capitalism or socialism as everyone voluntarily shares what they have for the good of all. Look at the organization of any family, I work while my wife and children are sustained by my labor, which I give them happily, because I love them.

Give me a real world example of the above, and I'll agree with you. I own a group of manufacturing companies, I've had many warehouse workers who have been with me since they were young and are now old. When they're younger they've got iron backs and they earn less money; after two decades they've gotten a bunch of pay increases and they're nowhere near as vigorous as they used to be.

Let's say I'm a public company with a fiduciary duty to my shareholders, what would the purely capitalist decision be, without regards to fringe benefits like morale, etc etc.

---

I'm not going to get into the "no need for capitalism or socialism" bit, that is just theoretical utopia which doesn't really mean anything. Economics has to do with the distribution of scarce resources, so unless all resources are unlimited, it's a nonsensical statement about a "justly ordered society".

As for the real world example of you and your manufacturing companies - You, in your management of your companies, considering your relationship with the people you manage as well as the understanding of your relationship with God, derive more utility (the total overall benefit of all types of the use of your resources) from paying your employees a good wage, than paying them a lower wage and keeping the money for personal gain. You made that capitalistic decision, that there was a balance that is beneficial to you and to your employees, and to your business. Your understanding of your responsibilities is not socialistic at all, it is just a factor in determining how to maximize the utility of your resources.

Your last example of a public company, you've also misrepresented what a "pure capitalistic decision" could include, because you are saying it has no regard to morale or other fringe benefits. Just because a company makes poor decisions on maximizing utility does not mean that capitalism is at fault.

Interesting

Protestants aren't in Communion with the Catholics, but the Muslims are?

— Daniel Justice (@BereanHouse) April 14, 2026

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Interesting

Protestants aren't in Communion with the Catholics, but the Muslims are?

— Daniel Justice (@BereanHouse) April 14, 2026

---

Not really. What point does he think he's making?

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Paying fair wages isn't anti-capitalist, nor is it socialist. Again, I think you have a misunderstanding of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is NOT the maximization of profits, it is the maximization of utility. The righteous considers the glorification of God a properly considered utility (a benefit that comes from the use of a resource). So no, there is nothing inherently socialist in God's teachings. A capitalistic system of Godly people is better than a socialistic system of Godly or unGodly people, because it maximizes the glorification of God. Without Godly people, however, whether it is socialist or capitalist makes no difference, it is unGodly.

---

You're not making a point. In a justly ordered society there's no need for capitalism or socialism as everyone voluntarily shares what they have for the good of all. Look at the organization of any family, I work while my wife and children are sustained by my labor, which I give them happily, because I love them.

Give me a real world example of the above, and I'll agree with you. I own a group of manufacturing companies, I've had many warehouse workers who have been with me since they were young and are now old. When they're younger they've got iron backs and they earn less money; after two decades they've gotten a bunch of pay increases and they're nowhere near as vigorous as they used to be.

Let's say I'm a public company with a fiduciary duty to my shareholders, what would the purely capitalist decision be, without regards to fringe benefits like morale, etc etc.

---

I'm not going to get into the "no need for capitalism or socialism" bit, that is just theoretical utopia which doesn't really mean anything. Economics has to do with the distribution of scarce resources, so unless all resources are unlimited, it's a nonsensical statement about a "justly ordered society".

As for the real world example of you and your manufacturing companies - You, in your management of your companies, considering your relationship with the people you manage as well as the understanding of your relationship with God, derive more utility (the total overall benefit of all types of the use of your resources) from paying your employees a good wage, than paying them a lower wage and keeping the money for personal gain. You made that capitalistic decision, that there was a balance that is beneficial to you and to your employees, and to your business. Your understanding of your responsibilities is not socialistic at all, it is just a factor in determining how to maximize the utility of your resources.

Your last example of a public company, you've also misrepresented what a "pure capitalistic decision" could include, because you are saying it has no regard to morale or other fringe benefits. Just because a company makes poor decisions on maximizing utility does not mean that capitalism is at fault.

---

The entire thing is a though experiment, even the parable itself as a parable, is a thought experiment. The fact that you can't handle distilling it to a laboratory style argument to highlight the flaws is telling.

Capitalism can't ever be at fault, it's like saying gravity is at fault. Capitalism is a force of nature, it will spring up anywhere at any time because human nature is to maximize marginal utility. Rather than capitalism it should be called "economic freedom" because that's what it is, at its essence.

Much like with freedom, it can be used for good or for bad. Much like with freedom, which behaviors and what amount of freedom is good for society, and what amount is bad for society. As Christians we have to go even further.

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Interesting

Protestants aren't in Communion with the Catholics, but the Muslims are?

— Daniel Justice (@BereanHouse) April 14, 2026

---

"No"

Severian the Torturer said:

---

japantiger said:

---

The Pope is either 1) a complete dumbass or 2) in full Marxist ideological capture. Neither is a good thing. Given the coordinated nature of the anti-Trump messaging (Pope meets with Axelrod, Pope issues statement within 24 hours of meeting, 3 "bishops" miraculously/simultaneously appear on 60minutes, creates a Muslim prayer room at the Vatican, meets with radical Muslim gov't that does not allow Catholics free worship, Catholics loot US treasury to the tune of $2.5b annually, etc.) I assume the worst.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

---

The Pope is neither, he's a religious leader he's not a political leader, he doesn't view things through the lens of left or right. He's also not anywhere near as focused on the USA as people think he is. Yes, his recent comments have been about the USA, but there was a hubbub a few weeks ago when he made some pointed comments that Americans took offense about, and it was actually about Greece.

The Pope is going to meet with literally everyone as will the Episcopate. Cardinal Dolan used to give the benediction at both the RNC and the DNC, Bishop Robert Barron just prayed at the ridiculous Trump "National day of prayer", so the Pope meeting with Axelrod is a non starter.

The Church has a lot of left leaning high ranking clergy in the USA, the good news, as I posted above is that they are dying off and the younger crop is much more conservative.

The prayer room thing is also a tempest in a teapot, it's just a room set aside for muslim scholars to pray in; I've actually attended Mass in Algiers, so I don't know why you don't think Catholics are able to worship in Algeria.

With regards to the Catholic looting the treasury to the tune of 2.5 billion a year, you've got me. I don't know what that goes towards, but I wish we wouldn't take it, we don't need it. It's a drop in the bucket, the federal reserve building renovation is costing 2.5 billion.

---

I noticed you didn't address the orchestrated Democrat attacks (Axelrod, 60 minutes, etc.)...just a coincidence I guess?

As for churches in Algiers, they all must be approved by the gov't in gov't approved buildings. None have been approved since 2006. Every Protestant Church in Algiers has been closed in the last 20 years as a result. The gov't will not "approve" these churches. No proselytism or activities that could "undermine" Muslim faith are allowed: It is a criminal offense (25 years in prison + large fines). So if you preach to Muslims, you go to jail. You can't produce or store Christian religious material either. I guess since this is happening mostly to Protestants, his worship doesn't have an issue.

Cope harder Solas, you can only trace your roots to 1517, to this man here. https://t.co/yTKMeKMILf pic.twitter.com/AFgQkroO6P

— CATHOLIC MAXIMUS (@EcciusMaximus) April 14, 2026

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Paying fair wages isn't anti-capitalist, nor is it socialist. Again, I think you have a misunderstanding of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is NOT the maximization of profits, it is the maximization of utility. The righteous considers the glorification of God a properly considered utility (a benefit that comes from the use of a resource). So no, there is nothing inherently socialist in God's teachings. A capitalistic system of Godly people is better than a socialistic system of Godly or unGodly people, because it maximizes the glorification of God. Without Godly people, however, whether it is socialist or capitalist makes no difference, it is unGodly.

---

You're not making a point. In a justly ordered society there's no need for capitalism or socialism as everyone voluntarily shares what they have for the good of all. Look at the organization of any family, I work while my wife and children are sustained by my labor, which I give them happily, because I love them.

Give me a real world example of the above, and I'll agree with you. I own a group of manufacturing companies, I've had many warehouse workers who have been with me since they were young and are now old. When they're younger they've got iron backs and they earn less money; after two decades they've gotten a bunch of pay increases and they're nowhere near as vigorous as they used to be.

Let's say I'm a public company with a fiduciary duty to my shareholders, what would the purely capitalist decision be, without regards to fringe benefits like morale, etc etc.

---

I'm not going to get into the "no need for capitalism or socialism" bit, that is just theoretical utopia which doesn't really mean anything. Economics has to do with the distribution of scarce resources, so unless all resources are unlimited, it's a nonsensical statement about a "justly ordered society".

As for the real world example of you and your manufacturing companies - You, in your management of your companies, considering your relationship with the people you manage as well as the understanding of your relationship with God, derive more utility (the total overall benefit of all types of the use of your resources) from paying your employees a good wage, than paying them a lower wage and keeping the money for personal gain. You made that capitalistic decision, that there was a balance that is beneficial to you and to your employees, and to your business. Your understanding of your responsibilities is not socialistic at all, it is just a factor in determining how to maximize the utility of your resources.

Your last example of a public company, you've also misrepresented what a "pure capitalistic decision" could include, because you are saying it has no regard to morale or other fringe benefits. Just because a company makes poor decisions on maximizing utility does not mean that capitalism is at fault.

---

The entire thing is a though experiment, even the parable itself as a parable, is a thought experiment. The fact that you can't handle distilling it to a laboratory style argument to highlight the flaws is telling.

Capitalism can't ever be at fault, it's like saying gravity is at fault. Capitalism is a force of nature, it will spring up anywhere at any time because human nature is to maximize marginal utility. Rather than capitalism it should be called "economic freedom" because that's what it is, at its essence.

Much like with freedom, it can be used for good or for bad. Much like with freedom, which behaviors and what amount of freedom is good for society, and what amount is bad for society. As Christians we have to go even further.

---

...

You are the one who brought the parable up trying to use it as support for socialism... I just pointed out that none of it did, that there is nothing socialistic about what the Bible teaches.

We do have freedoms, but we have responsibilities as part of our roles in our families and our Churches, and like capitalism being a natural force, those responsibilities are a natural force as well, and as such have nothing to do with socialism.

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Paying fair wages isn't anti-capitalist, nor is it socialist. Again, I think you have a misunderstanding of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is NOT the maximization of profits, it is the maximization of utility. The righteous considers the glorification of God a properly considered utility (a benefit that comes from the use of a resource). So no, there is nothing inherently socialist in God's teachings. A capitalistic system of Godly people is better than a socialistic system of Godly or unGodly people, because it maximizes the glorification of God. Without Godly people, however, whether it is socialist or capitalist makes no difference, it is unGodly.

---

You're not making a point. In a justly ordered society there's no need for capitalism or socialism as everyone voluntarily shares what they have for the good of all. Look at the organization of any family, I work while my wife and children are sustained by my labor, which I give them happily, because I love them.

Give me a real world example of the above, and I'll agree with you. I own a group of manufacturing companies, I've had many warehouse workers who have been with me since they were young and are now old. When they're younger they've got iron backs and they earn less money; after two decades they've gotten a bunch of pay increases and they're nowhere near as vigorous as they used to be.

Let's say I'm a public company with a fiduciary duty to my shareholders, what would the purely capitalist decision be, without regards to fringe benefits like morale, etc etc.

---

I'm not going to get into the "no need for capitalism or socialism" bit, that is just theoretical utopia which doesn't really mean anything. Economics has to do with the distribution of scarce resources, so unless all resources are unlimited, it's a nonsensical statement about a "justly ordered society".

As for the real world example of you and your manufacturing companies - You, in your management of your companies, considering your relationship with the people you manage as well as the understanding of your relationship with God, derive more utility (the total overall benefit of all types of the use of your resources) from paying your employees a good wage, than paying them a lower wage and keeping the money for personal gain. You made that capitalistic decision, that there was a balance that is beneficial to you and to your employees, and to your business. Your understanding of your responsibilities is not socialistic at all, it is just a factor in determining how to maximize the utility of your resources.

Your last example of a public company, you've also misrepresented what a "pure capitalistic decision" could include, because you are saying it has no regard to morale or other fringe benefits. Just because a company makes poor decisions on maximizing utility does not mean that capitalism is at fault.

---

The entire thing is a though experiment, even the parable itself as a parable, is a thought experiment. The fact that you can't handle distilling it to a laboratory style argument to highlight the flaws is telling.

Capitalism can't ever be at fault, it's like saying gravity is at fault. Capitalism is a force of nature, it will spring up anywhere at any time because human nature is to maximize marginal utility. Rather than capitalism it should be called "economic freedom" because that's what it is, at its essence.

Much like with freedom, it can be used for good or for bad. Much like with freedom, which behaviors and what amount of freedom is good for society, and what amount is bad for society. As Christians we have to go even further.

---

...

You are the one who brought the parable up trying to use it as support for socialism... I just pointed out that none of it did, that there is nothing socialistic about what the Bible teaches.

We do have freedoms, but we have responsibilities as part of our roles in our families and our Churches, and like capitalism being a natural force, those responsibilities are a natural force as well, and as such have nothing to do with socialism.

---

Does the government have a mandate to compel behavior when freedom is used to harm society?

Sounds like Leo is just upset that the "no new wars" slogan that was so gleefully bantered about in the election has clearly been thrown to the trash heap.

That's an incredibly vague statement. That could apply to jailing murderers or outlawing religion depending on who defines what "harms" society. That is a poor foundation for deciding the best system of governance.

Phatbob said:

---

That's an incredibly vague statement. That could apply to jailing murderers or outlawing religion depending on who defines what "harms" society. That is a poor foundation for deciding the best system of governance.

---

It's an extremely easy question to answer. Of course the government has a mandate to compel behavior when society is threatened, that's why we put people in jail, that's why we outlaw child pornography, and other heinous activities.

At what point does government meddling in the economy turn from "market based" to "socialistic"?

This is an interesting article:

Quote:

---

Quote: But lest we forget: The Holy See the government of the Catholic Church, headed by the pope himself has maintained full diplomatic relations with Iran since 1954. The United States, on the other hand, broke off diplomatic ties with the regime in 1980, shortly after dozens of Americans were seized at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held hostage for 444 days.

On Iran, it's not Trump who's out of line.
It's Pope Leo.
His vision is cloudy. His judgment is tainted. And the fact Leo's come out publicly to denounce Trump and America only calls into question his ability to discern true evil from good or to at least support good over evil.

---

Pope Leo's ties to Iran.

Probably the most important thing in the article is that it brings up this article from January 2016:

The bond between the Vatican and Iran is a partnership destined to endure

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Many fellow Christians don't want to hear this, but Socialism is much more inline with Church Teaching than Capitalism is. The only downfall with Socialism is that it doesn't actually work except in extremely small in-groups that value the group above the individual.

"From each according to his ability to each according to their need" is fundamentally beautiful provided it's voluntary and not theft.

Again, this is all just philosophical because socialism will not work, except in extremely jerrymandered circumstances.

---

You have no idea what socialism is, then. People helping their neighbors and those in need is not socialism.

---

Where did I say otherwise?

---

Then what do you think is "Socialism" that aligns with the Bible? There is nothing in there that is inline with Socialism... Unless of course you are just referring to "Church Teaching" as some Catholic tradition. You may have a small point there.

---

One could see how socialism might be inferred from Acts 4:32-35, if one focused on the "no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had" and taking the proceeds of large sales of property to the leaders for distribution to the needy.

Quote:

---

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

---

Maybe I missed it, but I'd encourage each of you to define socialism, agree with that definition and then debate the Biblical text.

We're at a point I'm society where one can't even agree on what a woman is. Definitions and adherence to them are critical, especially within a Biblical debate.