Sunday, May 6, 2018

Who really views God as a Just Judge?

This is not really a Biblical Argument for Universal Salvation, I've made those already and will continue to do so in the Future.  This is my response to how many Christian Apologists try to defend the Doctrine of Eternal Endless Fiery Torment to Non-Believers.  And this has been in my mind actually since before I became a believer in Universal Salvation, even when I still accepted the traditional doctrine of Hell, this argument was irrational to me.

The argument is that God can't be a Just God if He doesn't Punish Sin. That it'd be horribly unfair for a nice old lady who never hurt anyone her whole life got the same eternal fate as a sadistic serial killer.  Obviously, they insist, God wouldn't be a good Judge if He allowed that.

And yet the Gospel being taught by traditional Protestant Evangelical Faith Alone Christians is not at all presenting the Heavenly Court Room as one that would be Just by modern secular legal standards.

They're teaching that the same person that provoked you to Sin in the first place is going to be your Prosecutor, even though the Judge knows full well that this Prosecutor is engaged in open Treason against Him.  But if you're a "True Christian" then your Defense Attorney is the Judge's Son, and His defense is simply "I already took his Punishment for him" and so you get let off scot-free.  But if you're not a Christian then you don't get a Defense attorney at all, and the bare minimum sentence being handed out is being set on Fire forever and ever, even if you never killed or raped anyone and your sins were trivial.

Our current Legal System doesn't even really give out Life Sentences, what we call that is really 50 years.

There are many indications in The Bible that the Punishments God gives out will fit the Crime, that some Sinners will have it worse then others.  And Matthew 5:25-26 rules out the possibly of the Sentence being permanent.  Evangelical Universalists like myself do not believe there are no ramification for our actions, but we believe God's Punishments are corrective and come from a place of Love as our Father.

There is a tendency for people (like Superheroes in badly written comics like Cry for Justice) to say Justice when they mean Vengeance or Revenge.  And I suppose the way we Translate The Bible sometimes encourages that since Goel (which is used of God) is sometimes translated Avenger or Revenger when what it really mainly means in Kinsman and Redeemer.  But as Linkara likes to quote from the movie Camelot "Revenge... the most worthless of causes.".

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Early Jewish-Christian groups.

Th different early Jewish-Christian groups mentioned in Early Church writings are often confused with each other, some of that confusion may begin the Greek and Latin fathers themselves not always treating them as different.  Nazarenes, Ebonites and Hebrews are three names that get thrown around.

The Nazarenes according most references were not guilty of any major Heresies, they had the entire New Testament, they viewed Jesus as the Son of God and believed in The Virgin Birth, and they did not reject Paul.  They were viewed as outside of Orthodox Christianity only because they kept The Law.

The Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was Divine, used only an altered version of Matthew, and rejected Pau as well as the Virgin Birth.

The name Nazarenes is used of Believers in Acts 24:5, but it is of outside origin just as much as the name Christian was.  Contrary to how some people present it, I feel the origin of the name Christians in Acts 11 at Antioch is presented positively.

A website called NazareneJudaism.Com claims the Nazarene sect were the true Church and seek to identify themselves as the heirs to that group.  They have a lot of good information, but I also have to disagree with them in many areas.  Mainly they think the fact that the Nazarenes kept the Law means they must have disagree with "Christianity" that we're not under it anymore.

Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho distinguished between Jewish-Christians who keep the law but don't teach it's obligatory, and those who teach it is.  I believe the former were the Nazarene and the later the Ebonites.  My own position is that keeping the Law can be beneficial, but we are not obligated to keep it.

The Nazarenes as I said used the proper New Testament, but they did have the original Hebrew version of Matthew.  Confusion seems to come in via that the altered Matthew the Ebonites used was called the Gospel According the Hebrews and sometimes of the Nazarenes.  In Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures book, everything he puts under either the Nazarenes or the Ebonites I view as being from the Ebonite Gospel.  And I think the Egyptian Gospel of the Hebrews may be the same as the Gospel of the Egyptians.

The Nazarenes viewed Jesus as the Son of God, but it's difficult to verify that they held a true Trinitarian doctrine, what's said of their Christology could be interpreted as consistent with Arianism, or a view that Jesus had no pre-existence before being conceived in Mary's Womb (which is sometimes an aspect of Modalism).  It's difficult to know one way or the other.  However that the Arian Emperors engaged in a lot of Anti-Semitism makes me think them and the Nazarenes wouldn't have seen eye to eye.

According to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/antioch the Gentile Christians of Antioch at least originally weren't that Antisemitic, but often joined the Jews in Synagogues.  But after the Church married Rome the establishment started trying to fight this.  It may not be a coincidence that the key adversities of Nestorius (Cyril of Alexandria and the Sister of Theodosius II) were also highly Anti-Semitic.
In Antioch, various means were used to counteract the great influence which the Jews had upon the local Christians. The synod of Antioch (341) forbade the Christians to celebrate Easter when the Jews were observing Passover, and John Chrysostom of Antioch, in his six sermons (c. 366–387), vituperatively denounced those Christians in Antioch who attended synagogues and resorted to the Jewish law courts.
When Christianity became the state religion, the position of the Jews of Antioch deteriorated. The Jews of Imnestar were accused of having crucified a Christian boy on the feast of Purim, and the Antiochian Christians destroyed the synagogue (423 C.E.). When the emperor Theodosius II restored it, he was rebuked by Simon Stylites and refrained from defending the Jews. In the brawls between the sport factions known as the "blues" and the "greens," many Jews were killed.
So that may make interesting background for my Nestorians and the Church of The East postEpiphanius of Salamis associates the Nazarene with Boreas (Aleppo) and Basanitis (Bashan), so placing them near Antioch.

Some commentators view the Gospel reaching Damascus as fulfilling the Syria part of the Great Commission, but that's because of Old Testament Aram being misleadingly translated that way.  Antioch was the capital of the Roman Province of Syria, so the Church being established in Antioch by the end of Acts 11 is what I view as fulfilling the Syria part of the Great Commission.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

The Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of The World

The YouTube channel called Remember The Commands did some videos during this last Passover season criticizing the concept that New Testament Jesus fills the role of the Passover Lamb.

Much of it is nitpicking and stuff that is an inevitable result of a Human playing the role of the Lamb as a willing Sacrifice.  And objections to a Human playing such a role at all I already addressed in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post.  It's not about denying the original meaning of the Passover, it's about God using a similar method to achieve an even greater deliverance.

However there is one specific criticism mentioned there that every Christian should know how to answer if they've studied Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.  He points out that The Passover Lamb is offered per Household, not for individuals or one for the whole Nation.  A valid point, and the response is that Jesus was offered for the Household of Adam.

And that leads me to how The Passover itself in this context is an argument for Universal Salvation.  There is no evidence in the Exodus account that it was possible for an individual within the Household who didn't have Faith in this ritual being left behind when they left Egypt.  It being offered for The Household meant the entire Household regardless of individuals.

Likewise John The Baptist said in John 1 that Jesus takes away the Sins of The World, not of those who place their Faith in Him, The World.  John 3:16 promises Believers will not Perish, but that doesn't contradict the rest being Saved after they Perish.

And again going back to Romans 15, the clear teaching there is that everyone made a Sinner by Adam is now made Righteous by Christ.

And in 1st Corinthians 15 Paul talks about the meanings of the Harvest Festivals further, like Revelation 14 does, defining Believers as the Firstfurits of the Harvest, which clearly means we are not the whole Harvest.

Monday, April 30, 2018

Aulus Pudens and 2 Timothy 4:21

I've become fairly convinced of the theory that the Pudens and Claudia of 2 Timothy 4:21 are the same as Aulus Pudens and Claudia of Rufina mentioned by the poet Marital.  I mentioned this in I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians.

Now that belief often gets tied into British Israelism or other ways to try and develop a very Britannia centrist view of History, of Anglicans and other English Speaking Protestants attempting to argue the British Church is the True Church.  Those kinds of views I don't agree with.  But what I do believe is that very early on The Gospels reached every corner of the then known world.  And so my believing it reached the British Isles also ties into my desire to talk about it's history in East Asia, Africa and Arabia, subjects I'll be posting more on in the future.

The thing is a lot of the people who think Aulus Pudens was Saint Pudens are very Conservative Christians.  So that's why I want to point out an implication of this identification they've overlooked.

Aulus Pudens was Bisexual, Marital records his marriage to Claudia Rufina, but also records his passions for young male slaves.

And that can lead us to another potential answer to the objection, that Pudens and Claudia aren't right next to each other in 1 Timothy 4:21.  Claudia Rufina was from Briton, and Julius Caesar records that the Celtic Britons practiced Polyandry.  And believe it or not examples of Polyandry occurred in Rome as well.  There is a common assumption that Polyandry can't ever by compatible with Biblical Laws, only Polygyny can.  But that's derivative of assumptions about the Pre-Marital Sex being a Sin which I've already deconstructed.  And it's easy to make an argument for Fraternal Polyandry from the reasoning behind the Levirate Marriage.  So maybe what Marital left out is that Pudens wasn't the only husband of Claudia.

Friday, April 27, 2018

Nestorianism and The Church of The East

My previous post on the subject of the Nestorian Schisim was a bit mistaken.  The actual Council of Calchedon happened after Cyril of Alexandria and Theodosius II had died.  And Miaphysite Christians tend to identify themselves as being the true followers of Cyril.

YouTuber Ryan Reeves has a series of informative videos on Church History, but they reflect his bias a Protestant of the Reformed tradition.  He also reflects the very Western Bias is how we tend to view Church History, including when he talks about Nestorius as if the opposing side was the one vindicated by History.  Because the Church that did not condemn Nesotrius may well have actually been larger then all of Calchedonian Christendom at some points during the Middle Ages.

Catholic Apologists will often attempt to smear Protestants by associating them with Nestorianism, chiefly because of the refusal to call Mary by the title Theotokos (Mother of God or God Bearer).  Protestants will respond by saying something like "Nesotrius was disputing the title's technical accuracy while we're concerned with quasi deification".  The thing is it's not like the Nesotrian controversy was already raging and then the Theotokos dispute was a symptom, it was the inciting incident, that's how it started.  And there are other ways in which Nestorians have been compared to Protestants.

In my opinion the core disagreement between Calchedonians, Miaphysites and Nestorians is semantical.  They all view Jesus as both Divine and Human, and as not being one more then He is the other.  Critics of Nestorius have greatly exaggerated the implications of what he taught, there is nothing "Schizophrenic" about the Nestorian view of Jesus because the issue in mind is His Nature(s) not His Personality.  Still, if I had to choose, the Nestorian position on this is the least likely to be the one I'd take, I prefer to think of Deity and Humanity as united or made one in Christ.  So I'm going to defend Nestorians not out of intellectual agreement but out of respect for their Labor for The Gospel.

Ryan Reeves seems to feel that the Nestorian view is a problem for the doctrine of Salvation, specifically of Jesus dying as our substitute. Jesus was out substitute because He was of Adam's flesh and blood, but was without Sin, was tempted but never sinned.  And it was only his Divinity that made that Sinslessness possible.  The semantic technically of how they relate are irrelevant to that.  So no, what Nestorius taught was not inherently related to the Pelagian Hersey.  It is also wrong to suggest that Nestorius believed in something bordering on Adoptionism as Ryan Reeves makes it sound.

The Ancient Church of the East or Assyrian Orthodox Church, does not really call themselves Nestorian.  They refused to condemn him as a Heretic and for that reason rejected the 3rd and all following Ecumenical Councils, but his teachings are not considered core defining doctrines of their Church.  Now there are people who would call themselves Nestorians both within and without that Church, but that position is not the definition of the Church itself.  And I've seen Church of the East followers say they agree that the doctrine that was condemned as Ephesus 1 was Heresy, they just view it as wrong to attribute that to Nestorius.

Before the Council of Ephesus even happened the Christians who were east of what the Roman Empire controlled were already becoming isolated from the Romans Church, partly because the persecutions they faced from the Persian Government were justified by their being associated with a foreign nation.

The Council of Ephesus in 431 was really two Councils, one lead by Cyril, who started it before most Bishops likely to be sympathetic to Nestorius arrived, that excommunicated Nestorius without him even being there.  And then when the other Bishops arrived they held their own council that excommunicated Cyril.  The Anti-Nestorius ruling became the official position of the Roman Church essentially because Theodosius II decided they were the valid one, because his sister was good friends with Cyril sharing her immense hatred of The Jews.  So the Christians outside the Roman Empire had very good justification to simply reject those proceedings altogether.

Christianity had reached Iraq and Persia very early on.  Acts 2:9 lists Jews and Proselytes of Mesopotamia, Elam, Media and Parthia as present at Pentecost.  I also firmly believe Peter was exactly where he said he was when he wrote his First Epistle, and in response to some criticism of that I am going in the future to argue he may have wrote it there before 41 AD.  I also have my theory that Helena, Izates II and Monobaz II of Adiabene may have been Christians.  And Osroene/Edessa was definitely a Christian region before 200 AD because of the Conversion of Abgar VIII also sometimes called Abgar IX.  Traditions also say Simon Zelotes and Thaddeus/Jude of the 12 may have come to Edessa and other parts of Mesopotamia.

So the Christian Communities that rejected Ephesus had deeper roots then those in Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople.

And then the Fifth Ecumenical Council/Second Council of Constantinople's condemnation of the previously consistently viewed as Orthodox Theodore of Mopsuestia as well as certain writings of Theodoret and Ibas of Edessa for their tenuous association with Nestorius, further drove many more Christians of the Schools of Antioch and Edessa out of the Roman Church.  If any Ecumenical Council was the product of the then Roman Emperor asserting his will it was this one.  Justinian had the idea in his head that the way to bring the Calchedonian and Miaphysite Churches back together was to crack down even harder on the Nestorians, it of course didn't work, it only created more divisions.

Antioch was kind of Paul's base of Operations in the Book of Acts.  But it's also interesting how the region where Antioch is was part of the Assyrian Empire in the time of Isaiah.  So one could argue it's Antioch and Mesopotamia becoming Christian that partly fulfilled the later part of Isaiah 19.

Nestorianism is thought to have had some presence in Pre-Islamic Arabia, with figures in the biography of Muhammad sometimes said to be either Nestorians or Ebonites depending on who you read.  But one figure of the Church of the East who definitely was born in Arabia was Isaac of Nineveh, born in the region of Beth Qatraye in Eastern Arabia in 613 AD, three years after Muhammad has his first vision.  He lived to the year 700 AD.

Actually it may be much of the reason for this association is how many Christian Communities of Arabia were moved to Mesopotamia by early Caliphs.  So they became part of the Assyrian Communion and basically merged with them making their background also part of the Eastern Church's background.

I recommend this YouTube Video.

It talks about a Monument in China erected in about 780 AD commemorating Christians of the Church of the East coming to China in about 635 AD.  One thing it suggested was that by the time this monument was erected the Church of the East may have been twice the Size of the Western Church.

Claims of the Church of the East reaching Japan are more controversial.  They tend to get tied into speculation about the Hata Clan which in turn gets tied into Lost Tribes coming to Japan theories.  Those theories I have an interest in, but the thing left out is that the Hate Clan arrived and become prominent in Japan before when the Nestorians reached China according to the above video.

However a claim I do find fairly plausible is that a Persian Missionary arrived in Nara in 735 AD during the reign of Emperor Shomu (724-749) and that his wife Empress Komyu might have converted.  However these Christians were probably always a small Minority in Japan just as the Catholics have been since they arrived.

Another important factor in the History of Nestorian Christianity in Asia were the Keraites, a Turkic-Mongol Tribe who converted about 1000 AD.  For a time they were the dominant political force in what we today call Mongolia until they were conquered by Genghis Kahn.  The adoptive father of Genghis Kahn Toghrul was a ruler of the Keraites.

So if either side of the 431 Schism should be viewed as the Heretics who broke off from the true Church, it would be the Roman side.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Pelagius was in error but it wasn't Free Will.

I've already shown that Free Will was taught by the Church before Pelagius.  And then contemporary with Pelagius, and not likely to have been influenced by him, was Gregory of Nyssa who taught Free Will.  And also Theodore of Mopseustia wrote against Augustine's understanding of Original Sin.

Calvanists love to use the condemnations Pelagius received from Councils against the doctrine of Free Will, and indeed Theodore was also condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the Justinian Concil as I call it) because of his association with Nestorianism.  But the seventh and last Ecumenical Council called Gregory the Father of Fathers and a Champion of the Faith.

I feel my fellow Protestant supporters of Free Will are a little too quick to seek to exonerate Pelagius.  Proving it existed before him is sufficient.  I in the past had been reluctant to say much one way or the other on Pelagius himself, but now I've now done more research.

It is true that the views of Pelagius were often misrepresented by his critics.  Here is a quote from a letter he wrote to Augustine explicitly denying certain beliefs attributed to him.

Letters of Pelagius
“That Adam was created mortal, and that he would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned. That Adam’s sin
injured only himself, and not the human race. That the law, no less than the gospel, leads us to the kingdom. That
new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before he fell. That, on the one hand, the entire human
race does not die owing to Adam’s death and transgression; nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise
again through the resurrection of Christ. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men,
even if they are baptized, unless they renounce and give up all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done,
nothing of it reckoned to them; neither shall they possess the kingdom of heaven.”

“All these statements have not been made by me, even on their own testimony, nor do I hold myself responsible for
them.”
The first Red Flag that Protastants should be weary of him is that he's clearly saying he does believe in Infant Baptism.  A subject which comes up again in his letter to Pope Innocent.
"[I have been] defamed by certain persons for [supposedly] refusing the sacrament of baptism to infants, and
promising the kingdom of heaven irrespective of Christ's redemption.  [I have] never heard even an impious heretic
say this about infants.  Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as not only to attempt to make such an
affirmation, but even to be able to lightly say it or even let it enter his thought? And then who is so impious as to wish
to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven, by forbidding them to be baptized and to be born again in Christ?"
Now he's not necessarily saying he thinks Unbaptized Babies burn in Hell for Eternity, which Augustine certainly believed.  Just that they can't enter the Kingdom, which I in both my former and current Soterology distinguish from Salvation.  I don't think Water Baptism is necessary to enter The Kingdom, but I suspect the the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is.

These quotes show how widespread Infant Baptism already was during an era when Council affirming Protestants want to think Catholic error hadn't really taken off yet.

YouTuber Ryan Reeves in his videos on Augustine wants to emphasize strongly the things he taught that are similar to Calvin and Luther, ignoring his teachings on Infant Baptism and The Virgin Mary.  And he totally misrepresents City of God ignoring it's Amillennial bent.

Gregory of Nyssa's teaching on Baptism has been interpreted as opposing Infant Baptism, but I'm unsure, even Gregory wasn't perfect.

We don't have Pleagius On Nature in full, just quotations of it, so maybe this was misrepresented, but if it's Authentic it's a pretty major issue.  It's quote number 42 on this web page.



  • [In regards to the passage which states ‘By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned. As by the offence of one, upon all men [came a bringing] to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One, upon all men [came a bringing] unto justification of life (Rom. 10:3-4).’ I teach that] there can be no doubt that not all men are sanctified by the righteousness of Christ, but only those who are willing to obey Him, and have been cleansed in the washing of His baptism [thus there can be no doubt that not all men are sinners, but only those who are willing to disobey him.]"
  • For some reason, what I Copy/Pasted says Romans 10 when the quote of Paul is actually from Romans 5, verses 15-18.

    Now I will say that Pelagius in a way is closer to being right on this passage then Protestants (especially Calvinists) who believe in Eternal Damnation.  He at least recognizes that you can't interpret the amount of people the word "all" refers to differently for Christ then you do for Adam, and you certainly can't make it a smaller number when it refers to Jesus.

    I however strongly believe that yes ultimately all are Made Righteous by Christ, in agreement with Gregory of Nyssa.

    Some might argue verse 19 supports Pelagius interpretation, as there we see many and not all.  But that verse also stresses that it is the Obedience of Jesus that matters.

    I can maybe sympathize with Pelagius when he's just arguing against Augustine's pessimism towards the ability of Believers to live exemplary lives.  But the above quote does show that he's trying to wiggle around the clear teaching of "all have sinned and fallen short" so that he can propose a works based Salvation.

    Defenders of Pelagius love to appeal to the Synod of Diospolis.  I agree it was unfair of Councils he wasn't able to defend himself at to Condenm him.  But we can read much of what transpired at the Synod of Diospolis.  And to some extend his exoneration here was a result of his being very slick.

    First however, on the subject of Free Will itself.
    Synod: Let another section be read.  [It was then read from his book that] ‘all men are ruled by their own will.’
    Pelagius: This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when
    sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.
    Synod: Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church.
    Wasn't even much of a dispute, this one was probably only an accusation because Augustine insisted on it.

    The problems emerges in what is said next.
    Synod: [Pelagius has written in his book that] ‘In the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and
    the sinners, but they will be consumed in eternal fires.’  [To this Synod this statement seems to be worded in such a
    way as to imply that all sinners whatever were to be punished with an eternal punishment, without excepting even
    those who hold Christ as their foundation, although ‘they build thereupon wood, hay, stubble,’ concerning whom the
    apostle writes: ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved, yet so as by fire.’]
    Pelagius: I made this assertion in accordance with the Gospel, in which it is written concerning sinners, ‘These shall
    go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.’  [He] who believes differently is an Origenist.
    Synod: [What you are saying then is] not opposed to the Church.
    What's in [] here seems like it's added commentary from this website, which annoys me that they mislead me into thinking the Synod used that verse of 1 Corinthians.

    Pelagius did not even really address the Synod's concern, or try to figure out what their concern was, and I suspect they backed down only because of his using Origenist as a slur.  Already people were using the other things Origen was wrong on to smear all Universalsim by affiliation.  The Synod should have responded by mentioning men like Gregory of Nyssa.

    Pelagius was from the West, and so probably using a Latin translation of Matthew 25.

    Basically the Synod should have grilled him harder on what his Soterology actually was.  There was no attempt to make sure he understood that Salvation is not by Works.  Instead they just allowed him to say his teaching had some basis in some Scripture.

    Also what I quoted above from On Nature was not brought up in this Council or in the Statement of Faith he sent to the Pope to gain his approval.

    The Council of Orange ultimately Condemned Augustine's Doctrine as much as it did Pelagianism.
    It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the grace of God, enlightening the human mind and enabling belief.[4][5][6] However, it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, "We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema."
    Still even that Council made rulings I disagree with.  I only bring them up because Calvanists keep acting like these Councils affirm Calvanism.

    The Pelagius-Augustine conflict perfectly anticipates the modern Arminian-Calvanism dispute in that both begin with a false beleif that some people won't be saved.

    Friday, April 20, 2018

    The Average Anti-Marxist American doesn't even understand what Marxism is.

    I consider myself a type of Communist and even now a type of Socialist, yet I am not a Marxist.  And the ability to explain what that means is complicated by the fact that most Americans treat those three terms as completely interchangeable.  The irony is my objection to Marx is that he actually encourages the very mentality I find so offensive about traditional conservative American values.  You see what makes Marxism more specific then the first two labels is it's emphasis on the Working Class or "Proliferate".

    Where I agree with Marxism is that the Working Class do deserve more then what they actually get for the Work they do.  A mere Hourly wage, even the proposed $20 an hour Republicans and "Libertarians" currently find to be too ridiculously high a minimum wage, is mere pocket change compared to what they deserve.  The people working full-time especially deserve well over twice that.

    My Dad spent most of his life working hard for various employers, one in particular for over 30 years, and yet he's not as financially secure as he should be.  He had to retire later then he originally planned with less then he originally planned.  But the sad Irony is it's the Pride he puts in all that hard work he's done that makes him hate anything "Socialist" because he thinks all forms of Socialism simplistically come down to taking from those who work and giving to those who don't.

    Karl Marx's proposed "Utopia" included forcing everyone who was physically able to work.  He was not about giving people Free money for nothing.  The difference between Marxists and American Conservatives is simply that Marxists see the super-rich as the parasites leeching off the working class while Conservatives are selling a ridiculous narrative that it's the poor who are the parasites.

    The thing is I kind of am the Strawman these people think all Socialists are.  My ideal world is one where I can get away with doing nothing but sitting around watching Anime all day.  So that's part of why I support things like a Basic Income or "Guaranteed minimum income".

    But of course I'm the kind of person people are going to be least tolerant of hearing propose such an economic system.  As someone who's currently and has been for most of my adult life Unemployed, and yet am Privileged and Lucky enough that I haven't suffered the way most people for whom that can be said are suffering.  But I'm going to attempt to defend it anyway.  And I am after-all still worried about my future.

    I'm offended by the notion that only those who work matter, that you have to "contribute to society" to deserve to get anything from it.  Left-Wing Marxists may put more polite dressing on how they express that attitude then Conservatives, but it's still basically the same attitude.

    I think everyone is entitled to the means to keep them alive. You should work for what you want in addition to that.

    The argument against the proposed Basic Income system is a belief that if you allow people to get money for nothing you'll eventually wind up with not enough people working to Tax to pay for that system.  But most people are going to want more then the proposed $10,000 a year or $1,000 a month.  Those currently used to making millions every year aren't going to just stop.  And those raising families are gonna need more then that.  Which goes back to my belief that those working should be making far more then they are.  I also want the Labor Income Tax to be drastically decreased and the Capitol Gains Tax to be significantly increased.

    But the people who's desires are small enough that they could live off just that should.  I'm not saying NEETs should live in luxury, just that those who don't want to work because they don't want that much from life shouldn't be forced to have to.

    The thing is not everyone who contributes to society does so in a way that is viable to make money off of.  Many artists were starving the whole time they were alive and not appreciated till they were dead.  And the equivalent of that does still exist.  I'm not even the biggest EndlessJess fan, but I feel he's an artist who's contributed more then enough society to deserve to be set for life.

    And me, I'm someone trying to contribute to society via these Blogs and interacting with people in Social Media.  But I'm not yet remotely doing anything I think anyone would feel worth Paetroning me for.