Jesus and socialism

[Billie-Joe]

"Jesus was the first socialist" - Tony Benn

Love thy neighbour etc etc.

True?

[DRMIZER]

I'm not sure about the term "socialist" as used in the current context but, Love thy neighbour is the most important lesson in Christianity.

[serenity]

And i was under the impression, at least recently, that patriotism, and the denunciation of homosexuality, are the most important lessons in Christianity.

:(

[Larani]

"Jesus was the first socialist" - Tony Benn

Love thy neighbour etc etc.

True?

The whole concept of Love thy neighbor as thyself comes from being able to litterally put yourself in someone elses shoes in relation to yourself. And then ask yourself how would you want this other person to treat you in any given situation. Now one of the greatest components required in this is of course Honesty for you cannot have true love without true honesty.

Now some claim that loving thy neighor means taking it in the shorts over and over again, and this is not so. because remember if one is honest with themselves and they were the one exploiting and cheating others would they indeed want others to just let them go scott free without any opposition?

I mean lets be honest how can one truly love themselves knowing this is who they are.and also rememeber if your the one taking it in the shorts over and over can you truly be said that your loving to yourself?

True and honest Love thy neighbor as thyself seeks balance between these two individuals the self and the neighbor, and where imbalance does occur it seeks to right it. either by the self being more loving to self and not allowing it self to be abused or by the self recognising its abusiveness towards others and empathising with their situation and recognising a corrrection has to be made.

True Love they neighbor as thyself is indeed all about self reflection it has very little to do with judging others as much as it does about judging the self in relation to others, and in all cases is seeks to help either raise the self or help lower the other for their own well being as well as the well being of all the others.

So is it socialism in a way. for it is the unspoken law of social interaction yes it is non-competitive, because by its very nature it regulates itself making it impossible to promote competition against they neighbor simply by placing yourself in the shoes of the loser every single time and who would want to be a loser everytime if they truly love themselves but also who would want to be a winner if that meant it had to be at the expense of thy neighbor.

[xexon]

Jesus was a true socialist.

He did what he did for the good of the whole. Personal gain never entered his mind.




x

[Jray573]

I think that's a little silly. Jesus believed that you should do the right thing, but he also acknowledged the free will of man. Basically, he didn't say that you had to love thy neighbor, or help the poor, but he asked for his followers to do it because it was right. Socialism doesn't typically allow for free will. The politicians or leaders in charge of the government decide what is moral and invest the countries money into it.

[Larani]

I think that's a little silly. Jesus believed that you should do the right thing, but he also acknowledged the free will of man. Basically, he didn't say that you had to love thy neighbor, or help the poor, but he asked for his followers to do it because it was right. Socialism doesn't typically allow for free will. The politicians or leaders in charge of the government decide what is moral and invest the countries money into it.

That is bull pucky Jray573 Goerge Bush is in the White House because of Free will. US forces are fighting in Iraq because of Free Will. Free will is what it is as I said earlier in any given situation and none of us cannot admit we face thousands of choices everyday unless we sleep the day away, how to choose handling a situation with our neighbor.

You right though on one front Jesus didn't say you had to he just said you could the choice is always right their in front of you. the question then one must ask is which is the right choice? How do we know? The golden rule is the guide Love they neighbor as thyself, and who is thy neighbor anyone who isn't you.

[Albert]

I think that saying Jesus was a socialist drastically overstates he teachings. More specifically Jesus was a communitarian in that the taught that the community should take care of its people. I don’t think he ever said anything about government owning all the business.

What is perhaps more to the point was his attack on greed and indifference. You must recall that in his day poor people were thought to be cursed by God and thus deserving of their fate. As someone who tries to be a good Christian, I struggle with those feelings everyday. I should also say something about the state of Conservative Christianity however when their perception of morality more closely mirrors Caiaphas than Jesus.

[Jray573]

First of all, I don't think Jesus supported any political or economic structure. I agree with Albert about the communitarian claim to an extent. I think that if people were to live by his teachings they would choose more of the utopian communist structure, but that isn't what Jesus taught, and knowing that the entire world, or even a country, will never fully adopt the teachings of Jesus, it will remain a utopia.

Jesus didn't seem to care what political structure was being used to control or free people. He wanted you to do the right thing regardless and live by his teachings no matter what. It's not about imposing your beliefs on a community, but living your life as an individual with the understanding that you alone are responsible for your fate.

Christianity is about the goodness of self. When you go before God on judgement day the actions of your family, friends, city, state, country, and world will not be held against you in deciding if you will go to heaven or hell. All that will matter is the decisions you made while living.

It's not about being good because you have to be under a socialist structure, it's about being good because you choose to.

[Rivet]

Jesus was definitely non-political (give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's) and somewhat of a pacifist (if someone slaps your right cheek, give them your left cheek).

He would probably be comparable to a modern day homeless person since he relied on the kindness of strangers - he only had the shirt on his back.

[Jray573]

That again would be a poor comparison. I don't know many homeless people providing fresh bread and fish for the masses.

[Rivet]

But he was against the accumulation of material possessions. There is no real modern day equivalent.

[Churlant]

But he was against the accumulation of material possessions. There is no real modern day equivalent.

Jesus was a Buddhist. Someone messed up and created Christianity instead.

-JC

[Jray573]

Against material possessions? He was a carpenter. He built material possessions for other people. He wasn't teaching people not to accumulate material possessions, he was teaching people to help those who have nothing.

[cpwill]

Jesus tended to steer clear of political matters; he advocated giving to the poor, but he was also in no way opposed to the utilization and gathering of capitol. you have the parable of the rich man's barn v. the parable of the talents; which seem to present (though it's not much to go on to build an economic philosophy) a Jesus who was in favor of personal wealth; but also wanted that person to use his wealth correctly. ultimately, money is simply another tool to him.

[Larani]

But he was against the accumulation of material possessions. There is no real modern day equivalent.

I don’t think he was against the accumulation of possessions, I think he had a different perspective on who owns the possession. If one considers we are all God's Children and God created all things then who is the true owner us or God and if God then how could one deny a child of God a cloak that belongs to God if the child is in need of one?

You see even how one chooses to perceive things is a choice in and of itself yes give to Caesar what is Caesar and give to God what is Gods, but if in reality one knows that Caesar is Gods and what is Given to Caesar is God’s then how could one really say give to Caesar what is Caesars the fact is it only in Caesars head that it belongs to him because that is how Caesars choose to believe and by his choices he simply will be judged as Jray573 said not by the choices of others.

[Plato]

Against material possessions? He was a carpenter. He built material possessions for other people. He wasn't teaching people not to accumulate material possessions, he was teaching people to help those who have nothing.

"Sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and come follow me". What was that all about?

[Larani]

"Sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and come follow me". What was that all about?

Plato for that particular man I think Jesus was just trying to prove to him how wrapped up he had allowed himself to be with his possessions and how it was his chosen belief in those possessions that were going to be his anchor if you will that was going to keep him chained to the bottom of the sea.

It a nutshell he was saying, "let go and give up your silly pretensions that you are the center of your universe and that your are the owner of all things. It was like saying what are the two greatest Commandments 1. Love thy father with all thy heart and soul and 2. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Now why does God have to come first? Simple lowers oneself its the opposite to the idea of Lucifer proclaiming himself God. its a humble position such as when Jesus washed everyone feet Master is no greater then Slave nor is Teacher greater then Student.

There is a wonderful part in the movie I AM SAM, played by Sean Penn that kind of illustrates this. While being cross examined the prosecutor says to the Sam Character who has the mind of a 7 year old How was he going to raise his 8 year old daughter who is clearly more intelligent. Sam say's he knows things she doesn't like how to take the bus or how to make an espresso maybe he doesn't know all the things she knows but she doesn't know all the things he knows. it makes the point beautifully.

[cpwill]

"Sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and come follow me". What was that all about?

:shrug: and there are plenty of other verses which allow or even encourage the utilization of capitol and growth. Jesus problem (which he was trying to get the man to address) was wealth for wealth's sake.

[Larani]

:shrug: and there are plenty of other verses which allow or even encourage the utilization of capitol and growth. Jesus problem (which he was trying to get the man to address) was wealth for wealth's sake.

I never understood how you infer this with scripture designed to discourage Slothfulness. Just as Gluttony is indeed destructive to the self and with it the whole so is Slothfulness destructive to the self and with it the whole I think that was his only point.

[cpwill]

i was unaware that the interview with the wealthy man who wanted to become a disciple was about sloth; how do you find?

[Jray573]

Plato for that particular man I think Jesus was just trying to prove to him how wrapped up he had allowed himself to be with his possessions and how it was his chosen belief in those possessions that were going to be his anchor if you will that was going to keep him chained to the bottom of the sea.

I'm terribly rusty on my Bible verses. I believe he said this to Matthew, the tax collector, when he asked him to be his apostle. I imagine he passed this on to all of his apostles because they would be the one to pass on his teachings when he was gone.

[Larani]

i was unaware that the interview with the wealthy man who wanted to become a disciple was about sloth; how do you find?

Sorry my bad I was refering to the other scriptures you mentioned not this particular one,the one I often hear you quoting about as a testament that Jesus promoted Capitalism is the Talents parable that is the one which teaches that sloth is destructive to self and with it the whole.

In a nutshell if you have God given Talents don't waste them because to do so is as much a a front to God as is using Gods given talents for the purpose of self fulfilling Gluttony, both will take you down and both will harm the creation as you harm yourself.

[cpwill]

talents as a message against sloth? eh, more against not utilizing what you have; however, sloth could play into it. as stated, Jesus wasn't against personal wealth; he was against the misuse of personal wealth.

[serenity]

as stated, Jesus wasn't against personal wealth; he was against the misuse of personal wealth.


And so we squuuueeeeeze the words of Jesus to fit our own particular worldview.

[cpwill]

not really; that's fully in line with both the gospels and the letters.

[Larani]

talents as a message against sloth? eh, more against not utilizing what you have; however, sloth could play into it. as stated, Jesus wasn't against personal wealth; he was against the misuse of personal wealth.

Again I cannot see how anyone could come to the conclusion about Jesus with regard to personal wealth I just have never saw that in anything he said in fact as I said I don't even think he conceptualised wealth as personal. I think he saw all things as belonging to God therefore the concept of personal wealth would be a abominations to his concept because to do so would promote self and ownership above God.

In a nutshell ITS MINE would get back a you might like to rethink that proposition.

[cpwill]

he obviously didn't see all things as belonging to God; else he would not have drawn the distinction between what is God's and what is Caesars.
nor would he have stated that a worker earns his (not God's) pay, for that matter.

[Jray573]

Again I cannot see how anyone could come to the conclusion about Jesus with regard to personal wealth I just have never saw that in anything he said in fact as I said I don't even think he conceptualised wealth as personal. I think he saw all things as belonging to God therefore the concept of personal wealth would be a abominations to his concept because to do so would promote self and ownership above God.

In a nutshell ITS MINE would get back a you might like to rethink that proposition.

haha, this is funny. Can you back it up with scripture at all? Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's, and to God what is God's does not mean that everything belongs to God. Food is a personal possession, and you would starve to death without it. A Bible is a personal possession, but you couldn't read the word of God without it. The theory is flawed.

[Larani]

he obviously didn't see all things as belonging to God; else he would not have drawn the distinction between what is God's and what is Caesars.

There is no distinction except in the minds of those who choose to believe this way that is the point. If Caesar belongs to God and All things given to Caesar belong to God. then how can anything truly belong to Caesar? It can't it all belongs to God except in the minds of those who choose to put themselves above God but anyone who understands this also understand the sheer folly of such propositions because its a road to Gluttony as surely as wasting Gods given see even those Talents are God's would lead to a road of slothfullness and God wouldn't do that with his talents.

[Rivet]

talents as a message against sloth? eh, more against not utilizing what you have; however, sloth could play into it. as stated, Jesus wasn't against personal wealth; he was against the misuse of personal wealth.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

[Larani]

haha, this is funny. Can you back it up with scripture at all? Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's, and to God what is God's does not mean that everything belongs to God. Food is a personal possession, and you would starve to death without it. A Bible is a personal possession, but you couldn't read the word of God without it. The theory is flawed.

24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

[Redratio1]

Whats with the socialism and jesus threads?

[cpwill]

people have always tried to justify their socio-economic/political model by claiming divine origin. this is just one of it's later manifestations.

[Jray573]

Larani, the first one is about a master, not possessions. Greed, gluttony, and sloth are all masters. Money, eating, and relaxing are not.

The second is about God, and how he provides for man. Not about man's material possessions belonging to God.

[Larani]

people have always tried to justify their socio-economic/political model by claiming divine origin. this is just one of it's later manifestations.

Yeah and some people have tried to use Salvation and Divine Grace to mean they can do anything they damm well please no matter what simply because they are so called saved. So what is your point? Do you not consider anything God said through Jesus as divinely inspired now or does what God said mean nothing just that he died and that was it. Seems God could have just gone straight to the cross and got it over with if that were the case why bother having Jesus open his mouth and say or teach anything then.

Fact is its not about any socio-economic/political model its about self and the individual but its true as the individual changes so to will society change by a factor of 1 and what they manifiest here on earth and we will indeed reap from what is sown on Earth as it is in Heaven.

[Lumpen Prole]

Playing politics with Jesus Christ seems a bit pointless to me. When I consider the fact that he was a pacifist, and that he was constantly helping the genuinely disadvantaged, he seems to be more left-wing than he is right. But who cares, really? You can be a capitalist and still show empathy for the homeless, and you can be a socialist and do the same. Truth be told I don't really care. Instead of bickering about whether Jesus likes Newt Gingrich or Karl Marx better, why don't we use or time, energy, and resources to discuss our current state of poverty, or better yet, get out and do something about it.

blah.

[Larani]

Larani, the first one is about a master, not possessions. Greed, gluttony, and sloth are all masters. Money, eating, and relaxing are not.

Possessions can become your master if you freely choose to allow them to be Just as the Rich man chose that day not to give them up and follow Jesus. He made his choice he chose his master. Money can indeed become ones master, Food can become ones master and relaxing can just become an excuse for slothfulness and it to can become one masters.



The second is about God, and how he provides for man. Not about man's material possessions belonging to God.

Why does not a Sparrow worry what it will eat? Does it not worry because it knows it is a creation of God? Does it not know its worth to God? As a Creation of God's what is their to worry about for will not God provide? For isn't God not the Sparrow the true Provider?

[Jray573]

For the first statement. Yes, I know, which is why I used the opposites of my examples. One is a master, the other is practical usage. Owning personal possessions is not a sin, letting those possessions own you is. There is a difference.

God isn't the sparrow. The bird is a being inferior to man by that verse. He is pointing out that he provides food for the bird, and asking why he would not provide for man.

[Larani]

For the first statement. Yes, I know, which is why I used the opposites of my examples. One is a master, the other is practical usage. Owning personal possessions is not a sin, letting those possessions own you is. There is a difference.

First I will stay away from using the term sin people just get to messed up with that term.

Lets take a glass of water shall we who owns it? Me or God? Who is Providing it Me or God? While I am not saying to have a glass of water is wrong the idea that I can own it is a baby step towards having the glass of water becoming my master. How far will I go to protect my now owned Glass of water will I kill for it? If I see a man dying of thirst we I say well that his problem he ought to have owned a Glass of Water like me, I guess I win in the supply and demand category and he loses. Does he or do we in fact all lose? simply because someone chose to own. something and by making such a choice that something ended up owning them.


God isn't the sparrow. The bird is a being inferior to man by that verse. He is pointing out that he provides food for the bird, and asking why he would not provide for man.

Yes what father gives his child a stone when he has asked for a Fish, or to use the above What Father gives his child a bag of dust when he is thirsty instead of a Glass of Water? I know what the Father would do? I also know what the slave of the Glass of Water would do?

[cpwill]

Yeah and some people have tried to use Salvation and Divine Grace to mean they can do anything they damm well please no matter what simply because they are so called saved.

one of the earliest heresies; and one which paul addressed in his letters.

So what is your point?

that the idea that Jesus was a socialist is just as foolish as the idea that Jesus was a democrat, a republican, a libertarian, a fascist, or a communist.

Do you not consider anything God said through Jesus as divinely inspired now or does what God said mean nothing just that he died and that was it.

obviously i consider everthing Jesus said to have een divinely inspired; as i believe he was divine.

Seems God could have just gone straight to the cross and got it over with if that were the case why bother having Jesus open his mouth and say or teach anything then.

because otherwise we would not have gotten it. many (most) of us still dont.

Fact is its not about any socio-economic/political model

which is why Jesus continually steered clear of politics; he just didn't see it as all that important.

[Jray573]

You are trying to think too deeply. That drives me nuts, so I may stop debating. My only purpose here was to show that Jesus wasn't a socialist. I'm not really interested in debating the Bible.

With that said, the glass of water is yours. You can do whatever you want with it including giving it to a man dying of thirst. You can drink it as you watch him die as well. You have free will, and can do whatever you want with what's yours.

The water itself was provided by God to the world for it's usage.

[Larani]

that the idea that Jesus was a socialist is just as foolish as the idea that Jesus was a democrat, a republican, a libertarian, a fascist, or a communist.

Agreed, but if all those things above are simply one word ways of speaking of ideals and Jesus did indeed have ideals. The only question then is which ideals did he have? I can understand people trying to categorise his ideals into certain lables its only natural if it wasn't we wouldn't have any of the above labels you just mentioned.



obviously i consider everthing Jesus said to have een divinely inspired; as i believe he was divine.

Well then I would think whatever ideals then were passed one would be ideals you would wish to choose to follow, and never would God's loving Grace be used as a excuse to say well I am a sinner and imperfect so what the hell who needs to listen to that stuff couldn't achieve it anyway. And your right you can't but God can and Jesus proves it.



because otherwise we would not have gotten it. many (most) of us still dont.

Gotten what? If I'll that is required is that I believe Jesus Died or my sins and I am saved what is there to get? That seems oddly simplistic to me.



which is why Jesus continually steered clear of politics; he just didn't see it as all that important.

What is politics? but simply the ideals of men. hashing them out, reasoning this ideal for that ideal, pro or con make it lawful make it unlawful, true Jesus was indeed far more concerned to talk to the man to get him to question his ideals I will give you that but to ask a man to question his ideals is a form of politics in its own way.

[Larani]

You are trying to think too deeply. That drives me nuts, so I may stop debating. My only purpose here was to show that Jesus wasn't a socialist. I'm not really interested in debating the Bible.

I have been certified insane so I have no problem being nuts :lol:


With that said, the glass of water is yours. You can do whatever you want with it including giving it to a man dying of thirst. You can drink it as you watch him die as well. You have free will, and can do whatever you want with what's yours.

The water itself was provided by God to the world for it's usage.

Yes indeed the Glass of water belongs to God as I belong to God as he who thirsts belongs to God and I will indeed do as any Father would do and give to him that which he is in need of or you are right I could indeed make another choice I could choose to see the world as unfair I could choose to see myself as more important then the thirsty man and thus more worthy of the Glass of Water I could make a deal with the thirsty man and tell him if he washes MY toilet for a year and a day I will give him but a sip of MY water so many other choices I could indeed make.

[beg your pardon]

Jesus was a capitalist who taught the people of earth that corporate profits come before anything else. Polute thy rivers and cut thy healthcare!

[Rivet]

Whats with the socialism and jesus threads?
Why aren't there more threads about Satan?

Is Satan a democrat or republican? Socialist, communist, capitalist?
:lol:

[xexon]

He's certainly a neocon.

Many say this world is his domain. If we are the biggest power here, what does that make us?




x

[cpwill]

an insurgency from above; the greatest hope for mankind :D

[Plato]

Some thoughts. Jesus cerainly urged his apostles to live a life of poverty saying that food drink and shelter would be provided for all his followers. The early Christians held things in common, even though this was voluntary. Jesus was maybe not directive about the role of the state, but he clearly would have had a moral problem with some of the awesome wealth held by modern Christians whilst such awesome poverty exited in the world. Wealth as a blessing, something at the core of right wing Christian fundamentalist belief, just has no New Testament justification. It is heresy. Even the parable of the Talents, the closest one gets to a justification of capitalism, judges a human on how they use wealth.

This certainly places a moral, if not a political, obligation on Christians to ease inequality. How can Christians drive gas guzzling SUVs, give sports cars to sixteen year old kids, own several homes, etc...when two thirds of the world lives in the direst of poverty. Jesus may not have called for political action to end this, but he certainly called on Christians to take moral stances on this and make personal contributions. Ironically it is Muslims who incorporate charity far more into their code of living than Christians.

Also remember the story of the widow who put in her last two coins compared to the rich with their big donations. Christ was impressed by poverty of spirit and humility, not a big gift. Republicans argue that wealth redistribution should be voluntary. the fact that this is usually (a) very paternalistic and does not allow people to lift themselves out of poverty (ie just like welfare) and (b) conditional and (c) actually totally inadequate when the means of Christians is compared with the needs of the poor, reveals some basic hypocrisy here.

[Rivet]

Jesus was maybe not directive about the role of the state, but he clearly would have had a moral problem with some of the awesome wealth held by modern Christians whilst such awesome poverty exited in the world.

Nice post. I agree 100%

Preachers will never preach this message for fear of losing parisheners with the most disposable incomes who contribute so the church can have the funds to go and build these mega-churches.

[cpwill]

Wealth as a blessing, something at the core of right wing Christian fundamentalist belief,

:confused: no it's not. they do believe that God will provide for you, mind you, but the idea that wealth=good doesn't form even a tenant of the fundamentalist belief; much less the core.

Even the parable of the Talents, the closest one gets to a justification of capitalism, judges a human on how they use wealth.

naturally; wealth is just like intellegence, good looks, ability to sing, ability to write, ability to be pursuasive, time, strength, patience, or anything else: it is a gift that should be used properly.

Ironically it is Muslims who incorporate charity far more into their code of living than Christians.

:rolleyes: so, then, you would argue that as a rule, say, iranians give more to charities than americans? the muslim tax for charity that is proscribed in the koran is 2%; in the christian bible, 10%.
:sorry: charity, whether monetary or otherwise is a fundamental tenet of christianity.

Republicans argue that wealth redistribution should be voluntary.

yes, Jesus teaches us to give to the poor; he never advocated stealing or taking from others in order to do this; as that would be wrong.

Preachers will never preach this message for fear of losing parisheners

:shrug: doesn't stop my dad; and every church he goes to usually experiences growth.

[Larani]

Some thoughts. Jesus cerainly urged his apostles to live a life of poverty saying that food drink and shelter would be provided for all his followers. The early Christians held things in common, even though this was voluntary. Jesus was maybe not directive about the role of the state, but he clearly would have had a moral problem with some of the awesome wealth held by modern Christians whilst such awesome poverty exited in the world. Wealth as a blessing, something at the core of right wing Christian fundamentalist belief, just has no New Testament justification. It is heresy. Even the parable of the Talents, the closest one gets to a justification of capitalism, judges a human on how they use wealth.

I disagree I don't think Jesus urged his apostles to live a life of poverty I think he urged them not to let material possessions to come between themselves and their brothers and their sisters, and that is why the early Christians held things in common and why they all as one benefited because they indeed did not let material possessions to come between themselves, but I suppose it was inevitable though with the integration of Roman Culture and Christianity that such holding things in common was destined to fall. As the church became more feudal and more aristocratic what was once held in common became a vehicle to propel the hierarchy in fact to even justify the hierarchy.


This certainly places a moral, if not a political, obligation on Christians to ease inequality. How can Christians drive gas guzzling SUVs, give sports cars to sixteen year old kids, own several homes, etc...when two thirds of the world lives in the direst of poverty. Jesus may not have called for political action to end this, but he certainly called on Christians to take moral stances on this and make personal contributions. Ironically it is Muslims who incorporate charity far more into their code of living than Christians.

Well again the politics, personally I never heard Jesus ever mention any term such as Christain or Muslim or any other such label it just didn't exist in his vocabulary all I heard Jesus describe was people. Yes he destingiushed between Rich and Poor people he talked about enviroments and such but in a nutshell all he talked about was behaviors he made no distinctions between races, sexes, nationalities or religions. and to me that is true of Jesus but not his later followers.


Also remember the story of the widow who put in her last two coins compared to the rich with their big donations. Christ was impressed by poverty of spirit and humility, not a big gift. Republicans argue that wealth redistribution should be voluntary. the fact that this is usually (a) very paternalistic and does not allow people to lift themselves out of poverty (ie just like welfare) and (b) conditional and (c) actually totally inadequate when the means of Christians is compared with the needs of the poor, reveals some basic hypocrisy here.

The concept of theft is one that Republicans use as a means to justify their case whenever it suites them. You never here them scream their money is being stolen for Interstate highway systems or for buying another Aircraft Carrier or B2 its only when their taxes are going to help those at the bottom of the pyramid that it becomes theft that is when you'll here them scream that ought to be voluntary charity.

The fact is we choose to decide what is and what is not theft or what is and what is not voluntary, the moment we decide whether we want to or we don't want to. If I don't want to help build that Interstate Highway Systems then any money taken from me to do so I will see as theft it matters not how the money will be spent or how it will help others I don't want to do it my choice and because I choose not to want to do it taking my money makes it theft. if I chose to wanted to help then it would be voluntary I might even consider it charity. If I just happen to be a huge contributor.

[Kathryn]

"3. And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
4. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
6. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
7. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
8. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
9. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. "



According to Jesus, honoring God is even more important than ending poverty. Jesus says we will always have the poor with us. He teaches his followers to care for the poor, but worshipping God comes first.

[Plato]

I disagree I don't think Jesus urged his apostles to live a life of poverty I think he urged them not to let material possessions to come between themselves and their brothers and their sisters, and that is why the early Christians held things in common and why they all as one benefited because they indeed did not let material possessions to come between themselves, but I suppose it was inevitable though with the integration of Roman Culture and Christianity that such holding things in common was destined to fall. As the church became more feudal and more aristocratic what was once held in common became a vehicle to propel the hierarchy in fact to even justify the hierarchy.

I use the word poverty here in a "religious" sense - like monks, with no possessions, or possessions in common - not that the apostles were supposed to starve or freeze. Sorry I was not clear, but I don't disagree with you. Nonetheless, this hardly appears to me to be a way of life emulated by many Christians today.


Well again the politics, personally I never heard Jesus ever mention any term such as Christain or Muslim or any other such label it just didn't exist in his vocabulary all I heard Jesus describe was people. Yes he destingiushed between Rich and Poor people he talked about enviroments and such but in a nutshell all he talked about was behaviors he made no distinctions between races, sexes, nationalities or religions. and to me that is true of Jesus but not his later followers.

I don't understand what you are on about. My point is that the followers of Jesus, who believe he is God, are less compliant with his words than the followers of Mohammed, who belived that Jesus was merely a Great Prophet. I don't know what you construed my argument to be :confused: Another post referred to the fact that Christians give 10% of their income. Yeah :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ! Well he might.

The concept of theft is one that Republicans use as a means to justify their case whenever it suites them. You never here them scream their money is being stolen for Interstate highway systems or for buying another Aircraft Carrier or B2 its only when their taxes are going to help those at the bottom of the pyramid that it becomes theft that is when you'll here them scream that ought to be voluntary charity.

Of course it isn't theft. It's decided by the people. And anyway, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". I agree with you.

[Plato]

According to Jesus, honoring God is even more important than ending poverty. Jesus says we will always have the poor with us. He teaches his followers to care for the poor, but worshipping God comes first.

Well I don't agree with your thesis. I think Jesus was rejecting the "either/or" approach of his critics. This is throughout the bible. When he is criticised for picking wheat on the Sabbath, he denounces the dogmatism of the pharisees. He also makes it quite clear that good works will get you into the Kingdom of Heaven and failure to do good works will get you (silly software won't let me put the word) sent to Hell:

He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


I know that some Christians believe that salvation is by faith alone and that good works do not come into it. To me this would be an un-loving God that would condemn good people who were not Christians. The quote from St Matthew tells me that you can achieve salvation by recognizing Christ in others and by treating them with love, you will be saved.

And now abideth faith, hope, love - these three, but the greatest of these is love.

[Larani]

I use the word poverty here in a "religious" sense - like monks, with no possessions, or possessions in common - not that the apostles were supposed to starve or freeze. Sorry I was not clear, but I don't disagree with you. Nonetheless, this hardly appears to me to be a way of life emulated by many Christians today.

Agreed I have know many a so called Christian in my 40 years of life and I have to say I have met few if any I would recognise as Followers if Jesus.


I don't understand what you are on about. My point is that the followers of Jesus, who believe he is God, are less compliant with his words than the followers of Mohammed, who belived that Jesus was merely a Great Prophet. I don't know what you construed my argument to be :confused: Another post referred to the fact that Christians give 10% of their income. Yeah :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ! Well he might.

Oops bit of a communication breakdown I think there I had no issue with your comments it was more just me commenting on Politics in general and how I never heard Jesus talk of such things even though today it seems Politics and faith and inevitably link and that is what I meant about it being inevitable since the integration of the Roman Culture and the Aristocracy and the then created hierarchy.



Of course it isn't theft. It's decided by the people. And anyway, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". I agree with you.

So true it is decided by the people funny how I never had a single penny stolen from me by the Government isn't it.

[Kathryn]

"What commandment is the first of all?
29. Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one:
30. and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.
31. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. "


Jesus taught that love of God comes first, then 2nd love of neighbor as thyself. This is basic Christianity. This is consistent with why it was better correct to use the oil to adore Him, than selling the oil and giving it to the poor.



"3. And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
4. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
6. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
7. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
8. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
9. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. "



According to Jesus, honoring God is more important than ending poverty. Jesus says we will always have the poor with us. He teaches his followers to care for the poor, but worshipping God comes first.

[Plato]

Kathryn

The first quote puts honouring God and loving your neighbour on an equal footing, or at least very close in importance to the extent that it is silly to argue about which is the most important.

The second quote you have already quoted. I heard you the first time. :confused: I gave you my opinion that I thought that Jesus was emphasizing the importance of honouring God as well as helping the poor. The reason he was criticized was that the Pharisees were trying to insinuate hypocrisy about a person who had made himself a champion of the poor and crippled. Arguing that one is much more important than the other just misses the whole spirit of the gospels where good works were emphasized over and over.

My point, which you ignore strangely, is that the scripture I cited demonstrates that by good works you fulfill both commandments. That is exactly what Jesus says.

[Larani]

My point, which you ignore strangely, is that the scripture I cited demonstrates that by good works you fulfill both commandments. That is exactly what Jesus says.

Agreed Plato To love ourselves and each other is indeed to honor God because we are God creations therefore we are him and he is us. or as Jesus put it I am in him and he is in me. therefore if God is present in Jesus clearly Jesus saw God present in his neighbors as well and to love them was to love God just as God love him.

[Kathryn]

Plato:

"The second quote you have already quoted. I heard you the first time. I gave you my opinion that I thought that Jesus was emphasizing the importance of honouring God as well as helping the poor. The reason he was criticized was that the Pharisees were trying to insinuate hypocrisy about a person who had made himself a champion of the poor and crippled. Arguing that one is much more important than the other just misses the whole spirit of the gospels where good works were emphasized over and over."

In the passage I presented there are no pharisees. Judas is saying to Jesus why waste the oil, when the oil could be sold to feed the poor. Jesus says there will always be poor and honoring Him is more important in this case.


"My point, which you ignore strangely, is that the scripture I cited demonstrates that by good works you fulfill both commandments. That is exactly what Jesus says."

Not quite, Jesus teaches that loving God above all things and loving your neighbor as yourself fulfills all the commandments. Good works alone is not taught by Jesus, just as faith alone is not taught by Jesus.

[Larani]

Not quite, Jesus teaches that loving God above all things and loving your neighbor as yourself fulfills all the commandments. Good works alone is not taught by Jesus, just as faith alone is not taught by Jesus.

I think the point that Jesus is making is that by loving God Loving yourself and Loving your neighbor good works are indeed the by product. One will not come without the other.

Or to put it another way if I hate God and I hate myself surely to be around me I will indeed hate you and only bad works will be the by-product.

[Kathryn]

I can agree with you on your last post Plato. The Bible teaches that Jesus message was "faith working through Love" as what is most important. Not faith alone, nor works alone. As far as the subject of the thread, Jesus being a socialist, I don't think so. Unless socialism teaches "Love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself." Love God above all things comes first, then good works will be the fruit. To reduce His message to socialism misses the mark.

[Larani]

I can agree with you on your last post Plato. The Bible teaches that Jesus message was "faith working through Love" as what is most important. Not faith alone, nor works alone. As far as the subject of the thread, Jesus being a socialist, I don't think so. Unless socialism teaches "Love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself." Love God above all things comes first, then good works will be the fruit. To reduce His message to socialism misses the mark.

Kathryn I think the confusion comes from people who want to attempt to box in Jesus's Ideals. What I am saying is that behind every so called movement, Socialism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Traditionalism, Judaism and on and on...

There is a groundwork of Idealism that forms the xxxxxxxxxxism and often everyone wants to be able to Say Jesus idealism is their idealism. It gives them comfort and the thought that they are on the correct path, remember many paths but small is the gate.

And then then are those who claim that Jesus ideals were not something one could even attempt to follow because he was perfect and they are not and thus why bother trying its futile to even attempt too, a perfect example being the man who was ask to choose to sell everything to follow him and he chose not to

To which of course I would say while one is imperfect God is not and it is not you who will walk in Jesus footsteps but God himself in you for only he truly can make the what seems impossible possible.

Food for thought Kathryn Food for thought.

[Simba]

"Jesus was the first socialist" - Tony Benn

Love thy neighbour etc etc.

True?

Not exactly. If anything, he was a communalist....as opposed to communist. Most likely spent some time in that very reclusive sect out in the desert who wrote very much about the things Jesus talked of. Can't remember their name. Other than that, he just enjoyed walking around doing really cool stuff, so maybe an Extreme Sport kinda guy, walking on water, wrestling with the devil, and doing hard core donkey driving around Galilee. Check the Koran, even some tales about Jesus early days in there.

No. I don't think you can peg Jesus that way. Man, he was solid. No pansy like those medieval pictures. I would say he looked more like we always painted Paul out to be....rugged....Maybe a Grisley Adams kinda guy... but dark. He must have had groupies......got to have. How could he have resisted. I would have failed the test. Most of them ladies would have been following my train with a full belly and bread in the oven.

He was also hardcore....ranger material, no doubt. Hell, look how long he lasted on that cross. I wouldn't have man it that long, nails and **** in my hands and feet, spear would on the side, and all that after a Roman Tickle Party. Yeah, he was something more that we don't yet understand. Saying he is something with a cheap tag like that....doesn't cut muster.

What a man....or whatever you want to call him. He was more than me, thats for sure.

[Plato]

It would be strange for the Son of God to ally himself closely with one human ideology. Jesus,as portrayed in the gospels, is a big challenge to Conservatives and Christian Socialists and to anyone else for that matter. Clearly Jesus made some statements that were very negative from a socialist point of view: "the poor will be always with us", "rend under Caesar what is Caesar's", and his refusal to lead an anti Roman uprising. Nonetheless for the nationalistic, gun toting, execution loving, welfare hating American Right to claim Jesus as their own is truly incredible.

[cpwill]

:shrug: well, to be fair; their opponents aren't helping.

[Mattbeekler]

And i was under the impression, at least recently, that patriotism, and the denunciation of homosexuality, are the most important lessons in Christianity.

:(


Dont forget about not getting a whole bunch of people killed.... ohh wait..... I guess we kind of throw that one out when it suits us....

[cpwill]

death is a part of life, innocent death should be avoided wherever possible and reasonable, however, this view of death as a negative prospect isn't contained within christian theology.

[Dangerrmouse]

So which part of "Thou shalt not kill" is inaccurate? Remembering that JC Himself used those words, as in;

'Thou shalt not kill any living thing,' for life is given to all by God, and that which God has given, let not man taketh it away.' Jesus, Gospel of the Holy Twelve

[MikeD4o7]

If death of innocents isn't bad... and neither is suffering....


then what is?

[cpwill]

So which part of "Thou shalt not kill" is inaccurate?

the "kill" part: the hebrew word is "murder".

[cpwill]

If death of innocents isn't bad... and neither is suffering....


then what is?

:shrug: ignoring (or rejecting) God's will, what else?

[JoeR]

If God's will is to cause the death of innocents, then screw God. I would no sooner follow a God like that than I would support a facist takeover of the United States.

Of course if there even is a God, there is no reason or evidence that God would be concerned with specks like us.

[MikeD4o7]

ignoring (or rejecting) God's will, what else?

If that's all there is... then it seems like it's just arbitrary. What is it about God's will that makes it good? Is it simply because he created us that we should obey it? It seems to me that there has to be something else to support it... and it just feels to me that joy and happiness are good, while pain and suffering are evil. I think it's a universal aspect of humanity... helping somebody achieve happiness just feels like it's a "good" thing while causing suffering or pain feels like an evil thing. I don't think we would need any religion to tell us that either... we just know because we have experienced those same things ourselves and we have empathy for other people.

[cpwill]

:shrug: God set up the universe, naturally when creating moral law he set it up in accordance to His will. and think about how your'e stating your argument here:
and it just feels to me that joy and happiness are good, while pain and suffering are evil. this is easily proven false; giving birth is not an evil act; nor is growing up, although that involves pain and suffering for all of us.

[DRMIZER]

this is easily proven false; giving birth is not an evil act; nor is growing up, although that involves pain and suffering for all of us.I thought we were all born in sin. :)

[Dangerrmouse]

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

[MikeD4o7]

this is easily proven false; giving birth is not an evil act; nor is growing up, although that involves pain and suffering for all of us.


I would argue that the giving birth example is simply one where the good outweighs the bad. If there were no positives that resulted from giving birth, then I would definitely consider it an "evil". The only hesitation I have there is that "evil" seems to me to carry a connotation that implies human causes. When you're giving birth, it's not another person causing you harm... it's just unfortunately a result of the natural process of it. That doesn't mean though that the pain is good. It's still undesirable, it's just that the benefits outweigh the pain for most people... remember we still do as much as we can to reduce and eliminate that pain during birth in as safe of a way as possible.

If it were the case that the pain was actually beneficial in some way... then wouldn't logic follow that at least in some cases it would be good for us to actually increase the pain of giving birth?