Apologies for the late reply. Normally for the Prince's birthday I would round up 3,000 slaves and slow roast them as part of the celebrations, but since I've gone all liberal I had to sort out a bouncey castle and with thirteen inch razor sharp claws I had some trouble with it. Apparently three years olds actually enjoy bouncing more than the last screams of men and women and the smell of burning flesh. Weird.
Let's start with Balor's very lightweight and predictable reply.
Baal all you did was post a bunch of verses and then say that they mean what you want them to mean. That's how a lot of secular people approach the Bible reading, and they are unable to comprehend it because they have an irrational closed-mindedness.
If you actually wanted a serious discussion of biblical economics, then we could use Got Questions as a starting point.
That article is one of the worst I've seen yet. Using a passage about man's dominion over nature to justify private property rights and free market capitalism is quite a leap and there is no work what so ever to bridge the gap. Any article which doesn't reflect on two biblical principles, that of stewardship and that of Jubilee, nor reference Jesus' words 'no man can servce two masters, he hates one and loves the other. No man can serve both God and money' in any way isn't a very good article to begin anything with.
I think Baal has revealed himself to be some kind of ex-closeted, self-loathing radical leftist. not looking good bro.
I don't know what ex-closested means, I am not self-loathing and I am a radical leftist Christian. Looking very fine to me, bro.
And on to Wlrein's much more thought out and logical message:
This was all voluntary giving, out of changed and renewed hearts. It does not in any way support state seizure and control of wealth, i.e. socialism.
That is the model for Christian communities. My emprie is undergoing forced conversion and that is how I will model my empire. I'm not entirely sure there's a distincion between state and community. The Kingdom of God is at hand and is coming. Society will be modelled on God's ideals. If that is a free-sharing commune then so be it. We are not here just to set up little churches of parellel existance but to radically and dynamically change the world and Novaverse.
No, not states. People groups. Ethnoi. Jesus said this when the dominant state was multi-national, even without knowledge of the Greek it should be obvious he was not referring to states. Nor are they being judged as nations, only gathered together nation by nation to face judgment: the entire world, not just the Jewish people.
You are correct here since the concept of nation states didn't really occur until 1588 (ish). Until then people were 'of the people of... x' Example: Alfreid, king of the Angles, ratherthan King of Anglia. I will conceed that the idea of state is a 16th century invention. However, my basic premise remains: nations, or people, will be judged by how they treat their worst off. It's still a society / community based judgement rather than an individualist judgement model that you were proposing.
Gleaning isn't state-backed. And it's certainly not state-controlled. Legally required, yes, but it's still the farmer's responsibility to follow the law as he sees fit: liberally, or stingily, or not at all.
The codes laid down in the old testament aren't a personal code for people to follow. They were the god-given national laws that society was governed by. There was no king, rather a series of courts running the country. These courts directly interpreted the laws. Again there is no distinction here betwene people, community, state(?), nation. To be the people of God was to follow his laws and to be Jewish.
The point of this parable is that the master (God) can do as he pleases with his money (His rewards to believers, esp. the Holy Spirit) so long as he keeps to his prior word, not that the workers deserve to be paid equally nor even a "living wage". If anything this is in support of property rights and against a third party mucking about in things.
There can be many multiple meanings in a parable. Given what Jesus also says about money (A man can not serve both God and money; the love of money is a root of all evil; it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle; sell all your possessions and follow me) it fits very nicely. Not sure where you get third party property rights from.
The entire financial industry founded on usury is sinful, aye, but Socialists don't really seem to care about that very much, do they? Why would they, when the financiers are some of their strongest backers?
The socialists I know (and include myself) hate the current monetary system and outrightly want to reject it. I'm in no way defending financial systems. Perhaps your critique is more of 'left of capital' social-democrats in America who are essentially anti neoliberal capitalists who want to increase government spending. I want to see a massive change to how we trade and do business, founding the country on sustainable growth rather than burning fossil fuels to prop up dodgy balance sheets. I want to stop private banks creating money and interest and thus sucking up wealth to the richest 10%. I want to see environmental policies at the heart of all government decisions. And I want to see every citizen in the world receive a universal basic income paid for from consuption and corporation tax. To be honest I don't really know what you mean, perhaps you'll expand upon this.
As far as our treatment of others goes, the entire point of the OT law (which has never applied directly to Gentile Christians, though it is instructive) and the New Testament, is that we should love our neighbours as we love ourselves, voluntarily. NOT that we should rely on the state to do so for us.
I agree we should follow the Great Commandment. I'm not sure what it's direct relevent is for determining a socio-economic structure for us to live in is, other than to say we should structure our society so that the most vulnerable are looked after. I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't add the words 'voluntarily' after, it would seem to be somewhat demeaning to a multitude of sociey changers and movers from Marx to Wesley to St Francis to Mother Teresa to suggest they had nothing to say to society or government.