God loves free market

"I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’"

Matthew 20:13

The real god is watching us as a simulation.

The god of Christianity prefers a more merciful share and care approach than free market. Christians should actually lean to Socialism but so few understand their religion, same is true for Muslims except their socialism should only extend to other Muslims.

Looks like it, BK. 

Laborers in the Vineyard
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last.”

In other words. If you  are or agree to be good all of your life your wages/reward is a place in heaven. Buy if you only agree to be good for the latter part of your life, you will still get the same reward.  

One of the 10 commandments is though shalt not steal which violates socialism automatically. We also have the issue that Jesus taught people to be generous. That is literally impossible if the government r is stealing your momey

So if the members of a society are not compelled to contribute to the running, provision and  infrastructure of that society. How do you propose that  things are going to work out.

Socialism is BS.

Socialism is simply the same old same old, dressed up as socialism.

Though history suggests that socialism tends to be a tad more oppressive.

And one can only be generous if one can afford to be generous.

And one can afford to be generous if one is clever, astute and takes advantage of opportunities.

Those that complain tend to be lower down in the pecking order of ability.

Such is how all social systems work.

Free market requires 0 generosity and significant greed and stealing happen in free market economies alot.

There's less theft than in socialist economies. Again look at how much is stolen and how much people struggle in communist regimes in general. People in Venezuela and North Korea pretty much have to steal in order to survive and so many people are in poverty that there really is no room for generosity.

You can make bare assertions all day that capitalist nations like the united states or japan or switzerland have more theft and poverty than the most socialist nations like North Korea and Venezuela but since conventional wisdom as well as the economic freedom index which measures how capitalistic an economy is disagree with you, than it will take a bit more than bare assertions to prove your point.

I also think if pushed hard enough on this topic you will likely start back pedaling soon and advocating for a mixed economy, and since mixed economies by default are considered capitalistic you'll just be sounding like an idiot.

Do you really want to go in circles where you start by saying socialism helps the poor more and then when I show the mass starvation in the USSR, China when Mao was in charge and North Korea, and then you start back pedaling to admitting that capitalist economies are superior but through the guise of pretending like you think mixed economies count as socialist ones?

I do need to challenge the following statement

"Free market requires zero generosity"

It's not really generosity if it's required that you give to the poor now is it?

I would say socialist policies typically harm generosity. Before the laws that FDR used to control the economy there was no such thing as health insurance. Health insurance was a way for companies to get around pay caps the government was imposing. We don't need to get into how insurance created a buffer between the consumer and medical prices and how that drove prices up. Instead this is about generosity. Prior to that government intervention nearly all doctors took on probono clients. This was their tithe to the community. A good 25% of their work was their tithe to the poor and it was subsidized by high paying clients.

True.

People in Socialism tend to be very poor or starving.

Thats why you dont see people lining up to move to North Korea or USSR or Mao's China.

Anyone who wants to live under Socialism is free to move to North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China, Venezuela...

Really, I dont see whats stopping you.

You can live under Socialism, and Capitalism even invented planes so you can move to a Socialist country quickly.

See? You can live in Socialism.

You dont have to be oppressed anymore by voluntary free market.

You can be free and live in a country where you are free from oppressive voluntary free market.

Most doctors will tell you they would be happy to treat a percentage of indigent patients pro-bono, but they can't because their insurance rates would skyrocket.  An indigent person is eleven times more likely to sue for malpractice, and because of that, they must commit that they will not treat indigent patients when they get their malpractice insurance.  

All it would take to solve the problem is a law protecting them in that case, if the law said pro-bono indigent patients do not have the right to sue their doctor, the doctors would be glad to treat the indigent.  The push back is this is unfair to the indigent patient, my thinking is that without it, they don't get the treatment and would have nobody to sue anyway. Is denying treatment more fair?

Sure maybe. You never know what a mew law will do. You only know its intention . If we have a model that works and is proven to work, why not go back to that?

Not all the way no, you do not have the right across the board to do what you want with your own money.

This individual does not have the right across the board to do what they want with their own money.

"The god of Christianity prefers a more merciful share and care approach than free market."

"Christians should actually lean to Socialism"

So you're saying there's no other economic system where people can be merciful and care a worth for Christ's sake.

"Free market requires 0 generosity and significant greed and stealing happen in free market economies alot."

A  complete socialist society would eliminate theft, is that right?

Socialism wouldn't require generosity. 

So much for socialism.