NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been brought up in the "The Case for Iscariot" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468696) thread, that Jesus was no friend of private property.

Are there any parts in the Bible to confirm or contradict this?

It has been brought up in the "The Case for Iscariot" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468696) thread, that Jesus was no friend of private property.

Are there any parts in the Bible to confirm or contradict this?

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

Pretty good starting point...

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Matthew 6:19-21

Didn't Jesus tell his disciples to abandon their jobs, family and possessions to follow him?

he also went into a fit of rage because people were engaging in trade.

he also went into a fit of rage because people were engaging in trade.
no, they were cheating people in the Temple......

I don't think Jesus had anything against property, he just didn't want that to be your focus in life.

no, they were cheating people in the Temple......

textual evidence?

he called the merchants 'robbers', but there is no indication in any of the gospels that they were doing anything other than engaging in voluntary exchange.

I don't think Jesus had anything against property, he just didn't want that to be your focus in life.

if you want to be perfect, sell all you own and give it to the poor.

if you want to be perfect, sell all you own and give it to the poor.
you won't find that in the Bible, esp. not in the New Testament, and esp. you won't find Jesus saying it, the whole point of Christianity is that we are imperfect, we are flawed, we can't be perfect. Living in a card board box in an attempt to "be perfect" is foolish.

Things taken out of context can prove whatever you want them to, I see no evidence in the Bible that Jesus was against personal property, or against wealth, I see every evidence that He doesn't want you to put money first in your life, I see evidence from Jesus himself that he wants you to take good care of your finances, to be good stewards with what you have to glorify God by helping others, by showing His love on earth.



besides if you give everything you have to the poor then they wouldn't be poor any more so they would have to give everything they had to you and it would be a never ending loop. ;)

you won't find that in the Bible, esp. not in the New Testament, and esp. you won't find Jesus saying it, the whole point of Christianity is that we are imperfect, we are flawed, we can't be perfect. Living in a card board box in an attempt to "be perfect" is foolish.

Things taken out of context can prove whatever you want them to, I see no evidence in the Bible that Jesus was against personal property, or against wealth, I see every evidence that He doesn't want you to put money first in your life, I see evidence from Jesus himself that he wants you to take good care of your finances, to be good stewards with what you have to glorify God by helping others, by showing His love on earth.



besides if you give everything you have to the poor then they wouldn't be poor any more so they would have to give everything they had to you and it would be a never ending loop. ;)

I don't have my Bible handy, but I'm pretty sure he just quoted that out of the Gospel of Luke. IIRC, Jesus said that to the young rich man who wished to know how to get into heaven.

Jesus was not very big on the imperfectability of man (that was more Augustine's bag), but he was definitely not a fan of consumerism in any form.

you won't find that in the Bible, esp. not in the New Testament, and esp. you won't find Jesus saying it

matthew 19:21

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

I've always seen Jesus as pretty much against private property, even when I was a kid. And it's not just me seeing it as an atheist. I have a mate, who is *very* religious, and he's just as amazed as me that so many people can be so right wing and anti-compassion and love of thy neighbour, and still claim to be perfect christians.

Wasn't most of luke et seq. about living a community life, and sharing possesions? I think it's pretty clear that jesus was a bit of a socialist, at the very least.

Jesus was not against privite property, he was for charity. After all, if you didn't own something you would have no right to give it away, and after you gave it away the person who received it would have no right to have it. Charity and Communism are totally different. Communism is the antithesis of what Jesus preached, because unlike charity it is meaningless because it is not a choice.

Wasn't most of luke et seq. about living a community life, and sharing possesions? I think it's pretty clear that jesus was a bit of a socialist, at the very least.
He was also a nudist and loved weapons.

If a man has no sword let him sell his garment and buy a sword.
Luke 22:36

matthew 19:21

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Context, context, context...

He was answering one man's personal question on how he (that one man) could get eternal life.

The man claimed to have never violated any of the ten commandments.

Jesus reply was to take action, to give away his money. Notice the man's response.

He walked away sadly. Why? Because he was too attached to his money. That is what Jesus was speaking to. The man's priority in life was his money, rather than devoting himself to God. He could have obeyed the commandments simply because he was afraid of getting caught, not because of any positive desire to worship God...

He was also a nudist and loved weapons.

If a man has no sword let him sell his garment and buy a sword.
Luke 22:36

Now, see, if it wasn't for my ingrained atheism, this is the kind of thing I could get behind. Stupid churches, they just don't know how to sell a religion. :mad:

He was also a nudist and loved weapons.

If a man has no sword let him sell his garment and buy a sword.
Luke 22:36

Christianity suddenly becomes more interesting...:p

Wasn't most of luke et seq. about living a community life, and sharing possesions? I think it's pretty clear that jesus was a bit of a socialist, at the very least.

socialism

n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]

When did Jesus advocate any economic or government system?

Most of the apostles were fishermen, ie capitalists. He never spoke against that, although he had many opportunities.

Charity does not equal socialism or communism. Personal giving is opposed to government forcing the redistribution of wealth/resources...

he also went into a fit of rage because people were engaging in trade.

he went into a fit of rage because they engaged in trade in a temple

Jesus was all for charitable giving

His point was that we are to serve Him, not money... not that it isn't okay to make some money, so long as it is not your master.

I don't think that Jesus was opposed to private property, only the selfish squandering of private property.

socialism

n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]

When did Jesus advocate any economic or government system?

Most of the apostles were fishermen, ie capitalists. He never spoke against that, although he had many opportunities.

Charity does not equal socialism or communism. Personal giving is opposed to government forcing the redistribution of wealth/resources...

Do you know who the Hutterites are? No? Good. They are a very devout sect of christians, who have drawn the exact opposite conclusion about jesus and private property that you have. What's more, they did it using the NT, and not dictionary.com.

It also seems that the apostles - the people who actually spent time with jesus, and not some Jerry Falwell type - have a differing opinion on how Jesus wanted to live their lives.

32: And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33: And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.



What's striking is that these words were written in english, hundereds of years before marx was born, and are based on the bible.

I'm not a christian, but as an impartial observer, it's obvious to me that even if jesus did not stand for the abolition of private property per se, christian teachings hold that the community's interest and need, suspercede any individual's interest in private chattels. Making it socialist. Obviously. :rolleyes:

I'll say it again: Communism is the antithesis of charity. It is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. It is government theft, pure and simple. In the Bible tax collectors are lumped in with sinners. Charity is voluntary, not government mandated.

Most of the apostles were fishermen, ie capitalists. He never spoke against that, although he had many opportunities.

Jesus never spoke against making a living. Nor does socialism.

I'm not a christian, but as an impartial observer, it's obvious to me that even if jesus did not stand for the abolition of private property per se, christian teachings hold that the community's interest and need, suspercede any individual's interest in private chattels. Making it socialist. Obviously. :rolleyes:

and that's all jesus expanding on the already commanded by god proto-welfare state of the ot.

In the Bible tax collectors are lumped in with sinners.


roman tax collectors

Do you know who the Hutterites are? No? Good. They are a very devout sect of christians, who have drawn the exact opposite conclusion about jesus and private property that you have. What's more, they did it using the NT, and not dictionary.com.

It also seems that the apostles - the people who actually spent time with jesus, and not some Jerry Falwell type - have a differing opinion on how Jesus wanted to live their lives.
I remember my grandmother saying "If you read 6 people a Bible verse you will get 7 opinions as to what it means" just because someone interprets the Bible different than you doesn't make them wrong, neither does them interpreting it the same as you make them right. There are a lot of groups that have unpopular views on the Bible, each one thinking that they are right and the other extreme is wrong.

Phelps thinks that it's okay to torture troops' families because we "let" people "be gay" in America, he believes that he has scripture to back this up...is he right?

I am going to guess you are going to say "no" and I bet the reason is that you think he is a nut, I agree, but the "Jesus was a socialist" people strike me as almost as nutty.

I don't believe something because "that's what other people do", I rely on my own interpretation, study, prayer and meditation, it may be flawed sometimes but it keeps me out of a lot of trouble.

In short, I don't think "so and so said" is a good way to convince anyone of anything. ;)

I think it doesn´t matter if Jesus has had properties or not...
but the church has definitely too much...

I remember my grandmother saying "If you read 6 people a Bible verse you will get 7 opinions as to what it means" just because someone interprets the Bible different than you doesn't make them wrong, neither does them interpreting it the same as you make them right. There are a lot of groups that have unpopular views on the Bible, each one thinking that they are right and the other extreme is wrong.

Phelps thinks that it's okay to torture troops' families because we "let" people "be gay" in America, he believes that he has scripture to back this up...is he right?

I am going to guess you are going to say "no" and I bet the reason is that you think he is a nut, I agree, but the "Jesus was a socialist" people strike me as almost as nutty.

I don't believe something because "that's what other people do", I rely on my own interpretation, study, prayer and meditation, it may be flawed sometimes but it keeps me out of a lot of trouble.

In short, I don't think "so and so said" is a good way to convince anyone of anything. ;)

I don't disagree that there a many ways any text can be interperated; happens all the time. I was more noting that the idea of Jesus believing in the primacy of community property over personal property was not novel, and has a base of acceptence withing the deeply religious christian community as well. So it cannot be a facially ridiculous idea. (Although I suppose it's clear from your post that you consider a four hundred year old anabaptist sect, that has endured forced relocation, attempted extermination, centuries of religious persecution etc. and maintained its convictions and faith, a bit nutty compared to those people who go to the mega-churches that don't even open on christmas. Actually I can see that though, so I shouldn't criticize).

But,there is also a natural limit to which the meaning of a text can be stretched without the interpretation becoming trivial and easily dismissed. It would be silly to say for example that 'to kill a mockingbird' was actually about the lincoln assasination. Which brings me to my point: I think it's fairly clear that jesus' big plan wasn't for 'good' christians to drive around in Lincoln Navigator's and live in McMansions - well at least not until everyone had one. The NT is replete with injunctions from the lord about giving your stuff away to the poor.

And I've noticed that the only people who've actually posted textual evidence for their claims are those 'nutty' folks who think jesus may have had socialist leanings.

I think it doesn´t matter if Jesus has had properties or not...
but the church has definitely too much...

Testify!!

roman tax collectors

the distinction is not made...

charitable giving... with communism, you can't give to charity... because the government has pretty much everything you (should) own.

arbitrary giving does not equal personal charity

matthew 19:21

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Interestingly, two things are advocated here:

selling your possessions (presumably for money).

and

getting "treasure in heaven" as compensation for investing in the poor.

So really, Jesus is all about capitalistic exchanges of service and labor, even going so far as to bribe people into being selfless by promising them goodies in Heaven(tm).

I don't disagree that there a many ways any text can be interperated; happens all the time. I was more noting that the idea of Jesus believing in the primacy of community property over personal property was not novel, and has a base of acceptence withing the deeply religious christian community as well. So it cannot be a facially ridiculous idea. (Although I suppose it's clear from your post that you consider a four hundred year old anabaptist sect, that has endured forced relocation, attempted extermination, centuries of religious persecution etc. and maintained its convictions and faith, a bit nutty compared to those people who go to the mega-churches that don't even open on christmas. Actually I can see that though, so I shouldn't criticize).

But,there is also a natural limit to which the meaning of a text can be stretched without the interpretation becoming trivial and easily dismissed. It would be silly to say for example that 'to kill a mockingbird' was actually about the lincoln assasination. Which brings me to my point: I think it's fairly clear that jesus' big plan wasn't for 'good' christians to drive around in Lincoln Navigator's and live in McMansions - well at least not until everyone had one. The NT is replete with injunctions from the lord about giving your stuff away to the poor.

And I've noticed that the only people who've actually posted textual evidence for their claims are those 'nutty' folks who think jesus may have had socialist leanings.


I've noticed that as well. No Bible quotes saying "greed is good" or "buy more stuff."

Interestingly, two things are advocated here:

selling your possessions (presumably for money).

and

getting "treasure in heaven" as compensation for investing in the poor.

So really, Jesus is all about capitalistic exchanges of service and labor, even going so far as to bribe people into being selfless by promising them goodies in Heaven(tm).

:D

Interesting points, though ...

the Jesus described in Matthews story was a firm proponent of property rights:

Matthew 22,20-21
and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

I've noticed that as well. No Bible quotes saying "greed is good" or "buy more stuff."
Greed isn't good. I haven't tried to say that it is. I believe Jesus is more interested in spiritual matters, and your motivations in life than He is what type of car you drive, or if you own a house. I haven't seen any clear verses not taken out of context that say "Let's all pool our belongings give them to the government and wait to see what we get back"

In this thred, just like in most others about religion, you have people who will take a piece of a verse, a part of a story, a snippet of scripture and try to build around it what they think it should say.

I don't see that God would have a problem with me working hard and using the talents and intelligence that I have to secure a life for my family. I don't really think Jesus cares if I have a house or not. I don't think I am going to go to hell because I own a computer and the kid down the road doesn't.

IMO, God is interested in why you do things, who you are, what you believe, how you serve Him.

the Jesus described in Matthews story was a firm proponent of property rights:

Matthew 22,20-21
and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

That is definite stretch.

It has been brought up in the "The Case for Iscariot" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468696) thread, that Jesus was no friend of private property.

Are there any parts in the Bible to confirm or contradict this?
Does it matter? Jesus may have been in favour of socialism, but he was also in favour of getting nailed to two stout planks, and no one is suggesting that as a good form of governance.

Some of you seem to have no idea what Socialism is, and that is irritating to me. The ones that do, know who you are.

The only type of socialism I could get behind is the anarchist variety, sometimes called anarco-communism. I like to call it pure socialism. Jesus plainly didn’t believe in that as evidenced in the “Give to Ceaser” line, so I could care less about his opinions on economics.

Greed isn't good. I haven't tried to say that it is. I believe Jesus is more interested in spiritual matters, and your motivations in life than He is what type of car you drive, or if you own a house. I haven't seen any clear verses not taken out of context that say "Let's all pool our belongings give them to the government and wait to see what we get back"

I suppose that is technically true. Looking at acts, you are supposed pool your belongings and just distribute them among the community as needed. No government involved really; which I suppose makes Jesus an anarcho-communist.

And I think it is fairly clear that while jesus may not be against you having a house or a car, he is extremely interested in pointless accumulation of wealth. Which is exactly what a Lincoln Naviagator and a McMansion is.

In this thred, just like in most others about religion, you have people who will take a piece of a verse, a part of a story, a snippet of scripture and try to build around it what they think it should say.

No I am taking it on what I see from my knowledge of the totallity of the synoptic gospels, and acts. Things like the parable of Lazarus and The Rich Man etc. It's more than just a verse or snippet. Jesus was all about giving the property away, and sharing. (Actually didn't he even do a miricle where he took someone's lunch from them, and spread it around the crowd to proove this point.)

If there is one thing that Jesus wasn't it was Milton Freidman. Further, Remember the parable about the rich man and the poor old woman and charity? If that is not someone justifying progressive taxes on the theory of marginal utility, I don't know what is. Say what you like, the man definitely has socialist tendencies. I can't once recall him advocating a national sales tax, or expansion of property rights.

I don't see that God would have a problem with me working hard and using the talents and intelligence that I have to secure a life for my family. I don't really think Jesus cares if I have a house or not. I don't think I am going to go to hell because I own a computer and the kid down the road doesn't.

I think it depends upon how much you have. A bit like socialism. Everyone is entitled to a basic standard which ensures dignity and decency, so it's not wrong to have that, of course. Once you start accumulating beyond that point, is where you get into trouble. Very socialist. I approve.

IMO, God is interested in why you do things, who you are, what you believe, how you serve Him.


Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!

Some of you seem to have no idea what Socialism is, and that is irritating to me. The ones that do, know who you are.

The only type of socialism I could get behind is the anarchist variety, sometimes called anarco-communism. I like to call it pure socialism. Jesus plainly didn’t believe in that as evidenced in the “Give to Ceaser” line, so I could care less about his opinions on economics.

There's socialism, and socialism. But you know, let's have a leftist fight about who has the 'real socialism.' Those are always dead productive.

The only type of socialism I could get behind is the anarchist variety, sometimes called anarco-communism. I like to call it pure socialism. Jesus plainly didn’t believe in that as evidenced in the “Give to Ceaser” line, so I could care less about his opinions on economics.

except that he says that because the pharisees are trying to trick him into sayng something they can turn him in to the authorities over it. it's written right in to the passage. in the book of matt (the holy book of my religion i invented once for a "come as your favorite diety" party) this story is taken and renamed "the parable of the tricky bastard"

mark 12:12-17

Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we?"

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
And they were amazed at him.

except that he says that because the pharisees are trying to trick him into sayng something they can turn him in to the authorities over it.So you think Jesus is lying only to evade the trap? That is utter bs. the mythological Jesus of the bible would never lie or say something he doesnt mean to say, he would rather be tortured to death on a cross than lie.

So you think Jesus is lying only to evade the trap? That is utter bs. the mythological Jesus of the bible would never lie or say something he doesnt mean to say, he would rather be tortured to death on a cross than lie.

he meant every word. it's just that what he said is completely ambiguous. ask yourself this - what did the pharisees and herodians expect him to say that would get him into trouble?

-snip-
Somebody was raised religious. :p

Do you know who the Hutterites are? No? Good. They are a very devout sect of christians, who have drawn the exact opposite conclusion about jesus and private property that you have. What's more, they did it using the NT, and not dictionary.com.

It also seems that the apostles - the people who actually spent time with jesus, and not some Jerry Falwell type - have a differing opinion on how Jesus wanted to live their lives.


What's striking is that these words were written in english, hundereds of years before marx was born, and are based on the bible.

I'm not a christian, but as an impartial observer, it's obvious to me that even if jesus did not stand for the abolition of private property per se, christian teachings hold that the community's interest and need, suspercede any individual's interest in private chattels. Making it socialist. Obviously. :rolleyes:

I had heard of the Hutterites, but did not remember what their distinction was...

Once again, though, I must take issue with the idea that Jesus or the apostles were advocating a form of government. They were sharing amongst other Christians, not with the general public. Had nothing to do with a socialist form of government.

Unless you mean socialism=sharing what you have, without government intervention?:confused:

So you think Jesus is lying only to evade the trap? That is utter bs. the mythological Jesus of the bible would never lie or say something he doesnt mean to say, he would rather be tortured to death on a cross than lie.

Consider the difference between lying and being intentionally ambiguous (saying something that can be taken more than one way).

The Bible itself says that Jesus was avoiding a trap by his careful wording.

he meant every word. it's just that what he said is completely ambiguous. ask yourself this - what did the pharisees and herodians expect him to say that would get him into trouble?ofcourse they expect Jesus to say that one should not obey the emperor, but only serve god, which would have given them a reason to have him arrested for incitement against obedience to the emperor. Jesus' answer is not ambiguous, but general, he tells them to respect property rights, but to devote their souls and everything detached from worldly stuff to god alone.

Somebody was raised religious. :p

heh, yeah. though i did become an atheist by about confirmation time.

but even worse, i've taken...religious studies courses *shock horror!*

Meh, I think everything we have to know about Jesus and Capitalism is in these two events:

He breaks up the financial advisors and investment managing companies in front of the temple, and
his good mate gets him killed for money.

if you want to be perfect, sell all you own and give it to the poor.

Rather buggers things up for the poor - if they receive of the benificence of others then they are but in the position where they should also sell all that they own and give it to others.

To say nothing of the question as to what the poorest individual should do: sell all they own and just throw away the money?

In the Bible tax collectors are lumped in with sinners. Charity is voluntary, not government mandated.

You clearly know nothing about that period.

Tax collectors in the days of this time were basicly swindelers. They colaberators. Jews who were employed by the Romans to collect money. They were given a mandated by the Romans to collect any ammount, because the ammount of tax varied every few years or so, so the mandate was general but the specifics were given out year by year. So when the tax collector showed up at someones door, they showed them that they had authority to take any ammount. The poor subject of the empire most likely didnt know what the ammount was, so the collector took what he liked, gave what the Empire asked for, and pocketed the diffrence. Thats why Zacheaus was so amazing. He gave people back tripple that which he had swindled of them

He breaks up the financial advisors and investment managing companies in front of the templelol, sounds like goldman-sachs, mlp or S&P.

Rather buggers things up for the poor - if they receive of the benificence of others then they are but in the position where they should also sell all that they own and give it to others.

To say nothing of the question as to what the poorest individual should do: sell all they own and just throw away the money?

hence the new revelation given to us by john frum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468372), that the people down the chain should throw the money into the sea.

Jesus was a Market-Socialist.

He wasn't particularly opposed to people earning a living or having private property. He was, however, big on helping the poor. He was big on making sure business was moral(the temple scene, anyone?). He had a low opinion of misers and wealthy people, and an even lower opinion of the lying, hypocritical misers and wealthy people. He was pro-free health care(think about it... when did he ever ask for compensation for his miracle cures?) He was even pro-pay-your-taxes-and-quit-yer-bitching('Ceasar's is Caesar's....' that was telling his followers to pay their taxes).

He sounds like a market-socialist aka 'liberal' to me.

Caesar. C-A-E-S-A-R. It ain't that hard.

Adriatica II, I already knew that the tax collectors were swindlers, but the point remains; charity is voluntary. Jesus never advocated anything like socialism. If anyone can find one quote were he actually seems to suggest that the government should forcibly redistribute wealth then I will admit that Jesus was a socialist.

Jesus was a Market-Socialist.
No, not really. Even a casual reading of the Bible reveals that Jesus never favored taxation to sponsor the welfare state. For example, look at the man that FS brought up. When the rich dude was told to sell everything he owned, and then decided that the didn't want to, he was allowed to walk away.
Jesus didn't flag over a disciple to kosh the man and take his things anyway, Jesus didn't pick the man's pocket, and Jesus didn't charge the man for the information. Further, Jesus never redistributed the wealth on his own. It was the responsiblity of his followers to sell their things and then see that they made it to the little people.
Jesus simply favoured an absurd and completely unrealistic level of individual charity, with minimal administration and a general atmosphere of happiness. There's a reason he got whacked, and there is a reason why his cult never made it out of the ghetto until after his followers cleaned it up, toned down the language, and started offering interpretations that were easier to swallow.

No, not really. Even a casual reading of the Bible reveals that Jesus never favored taxation to sponsor the welfare state. For example, look at the man that FS brought up. When the rich dude was told to sell everything he owned, and then decided that the didn't want to, he was allowed to walk away.
Jesus didn't flag over a disciple to kosh the man and take his things anyway, Jesus didn't pick the man's pocket, and Jesus didn't charge the man for the information. Further, Jesus never redistributed the wealth on his own. It was the responsiblity of his followers to sell their things and then see that they made it to the little people.
Jesus simply favoured an absurd and completely unrealistic level of individual charity, with minimal administration and a general atmosphere of happiness. There's a reason he got whacked, and there is a reason why his cult never made it out of the ghetto until after his followers cleaned it up, toned down the language, and started offering interpretations that were easier to swallow.

I think the rich dude goes to hell ultimately. Maybe you call that 'individual charity'; I'm not so sure.

I think the rich dude goes to hell ultimately. Maybe you call that 'individual charity'; I'm not so sure.
Yeah, individual charity because the rich guy has to be willing to do it on his own to avoid going to Hell. If Jesus had simply grabbed the guys wallet, he'd still be going to Hell, but the poor would have gained.
More importantly, the man was required to be charitable on his own. Jesus didn't charge admission (a maneuvre that might have been easier for the rich man to accept), he said that it should be given to the poor.

Yeah, individual charity because the rich guy has to be willing to do it on his own to avoid going to Hell. If Jesus had simply grabbed the guys wallet, he'd still be going to Hell, but the poor would have gained.
More importantly, the man was required to be charitable on his own. Jesus didn't charge admission (a maneuvre that might have been easier for the rich man to accept), he said that it should be given to the poor.

I get you, it's voluntary like american taxes.

No, not really. Even a casual reading of the Bible reveals that Jesus never favored taxation to sponsor the welfare state. For example, look at the man that FS brought up. When the rich dude was told to sell everything he owned, and then decided that the didn't want to, he was allowed to walk away.
Jesus didn't flag over a disciple to kosh the man and take his things anyway, Jesus didn't pick the man's pocket, and Jesus didn't charge the man for the information. Further, Jesus never redistributed the wealth on his own. It was the responsiblity of his followers to sell their things and then see that they made it to the little people.
Jesus simply favoured an absurd and completely unrealistic level of individual charity, with minimal administration and a general atmosphere of happiness. There's a reason he got whacked, and there is a reason why his cult never made it out of the ghetto until after his followers cleaned it up, toned down the language, and started offering interpretations that were easier to swallow.

i don't know man, acts 4:32-5:11 makes it look like god will strike down those that don't pay up.

No, his "cult" made it out of the ghetto because he rose from the dead. The message was never toned down. If it was toned down you wouldn't read things in the Bible like "it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle," or "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life, NO man comes unto the father EXCEPT through me."

The message was never toned down.

so you guys are still owning all things in common, and occassionally selling off a bit of property to continue to fund the group until the apocalypse?

No, his "cult" made it out of the ghetto because he rose from the dead. The message was never toned down. If it was toned down you wouldn't read things in the Bible like "it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle," or "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life, NO man comes unto the father EXCEPT through me."

The toning down did not occur in the bible itself but in the passages of the bible focused on by the clergy, and how those passages are interpreted. And from what I remember (its been a while since I've read the bible) there doesn't even seem to be an agreement in the new testament as to whether Jesus physically resurrected or returned as a vision (making it even easier to reach the conclusion that Jesus, like everyone else, stays dead).

i don't know man, acts 4:32-5:11 makes it look like god will strike down those that don't pay up.
Acts does, but Acts has nothing to do with Jesus. It was written by an apostle about what the apostles did after Jesus and the Romans attempted their, rather unconventional, experiments with portable trees.
At that point, the apostles were trying to establish the current top-heavy, adminstrative Christian establishment (*cough*catholics*cough*). After all, what is the point of having theocratic status when that status doesn't convey financial and political power?

No, not really. Even a casual reading of the Bible reveals that Jesus never favored taxation to sponsor the welfare state. For example, look at the man that FS brought up. When the rich dude was told to sell everything he owned, and then decided that the didn't want to, he was allowed to walk away.
Jesus didn't flag over a disciple to kosh the man and take his things anyway, Jesus didn't pick the man's pocket, and Jesus didn't charge the man for the information. Further, Jesus never redistributed the wealth on his own. It was the responsiblity of his followers to sell their things and then see that they made it to the little people.
Jesus simply favoured an absurd and completely unrealistic level of individual charity, with minimal administration and a general atmosphere of happiness. There's a reason he got whacked, and there is a reason why his cult never made it out of the ghetto until after his followers cleaned it up, toned down the language, and started offering interpretations that were easier to swallow.

Think about it, Jesus was a private person(as in not a government official in any way). He had no authority to shake a guy down in the street and redistribute wealth by himself. That doesn't mean he wouldn't vote for a government that would use taxes to help the poor.

It's bloody obvious that Jesus was big on helping the poor, and that it was such a big deal to him that he'd send people to hell for NOT doing it. I don't think he'd have any qualms about levying a tax to accomplish the goal of feeding and clothing his children.

I'll give you that he never directly said it. But if faced with the choice between two candidates, a market-socialist who will tax people to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and a laissez faire capitalist who will let those people starve but not tax as heavily, I submit that Jesus would vote for the market socialist.

Acts does, but Acts has nothing to do with Jesus. It was written by an apostle about what the apostles did after Jesus and the Romans attempted their, rather unconventional, experiments with portable trees.
At that point, the apostles were trying to establish the current top-heavy, adminstrative Christian establishment (*cough*catholics*cough*). After all, what is the point of having theocratic status when that status doesn't convey financial and political power?

ah, but it's god who does the striking down for holding out from the collective. jesus may be a long-haired utopian hippie peacenik, but papa is an out and out stalinist.

ah, but it's god who does the striking down for holding out from the collective. jesus may be a long-haired utopian hippie peacenik, but papa is an out and out stalinist.

You should start your own franchise. You're good at this.

"so you guys are still owning all things in common, and occassionally selling off a bit of property to continue to fund the group until the apocalypse?"

Christians pitch in to help other Christians, or even non-Christians, all the time.

"The toning down did not occur in the bible itself but in the passages of the bible focused on by the clergy, and how those passages are interpreted."

The Christians I know don't do that.

"And from what I remember (its been a while since I've read the bible) there doesn't even seem to be an agreement in the new testament as to whether Jesus physically resurrected or returned as a vision (making it even easier to reach the conclusion that Jesus, like everyone else, stays dead)."

That depends on who you are talking to. Almost all Christians will admit that Jesus physically resurrected. How else could Jesus eat with the apostles than by being physically there? Not to mention that there would be no need for the empty tomb story if it was not meant to be a physical resurrection. Early Christians were quite persistant that the tomb was empty; why would they argue this if they didn't beleive it was a physical resurrection? Moreover, after they argued this, why didn't the people they argued against produce the body?

"so you guys are still owning all things in common, and occassionally selling off a bit of property to continue to fund the group until the apocalypse?"

Christians pitch in to help other Christians, or even non-Christians, all the time.

mere pitching in to help people out is a bit of a come down from what's described in acts.

"32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

Think about it, Jesus was a private person(as in not a government official in any way). He had no authority to shake a guy down in the street and redistribute wealth by himself. That doesn't mean he wouldn't vote for a government that would use taxes to help the poor.
He didn't have the authority to take a bull whip to the merchants at the temple, but that didn't bother him. He never had the authority to start declaring that people should follow him, but he commanded the apostles to drop what they were doing and tag along.
As the Son of God, he was the Supreme Ruler on Earth. He could demand whatever he wanted and have it in an instant (which was the whole point of the chat he had with the Devil in the desert), and so it was within his power and authority to simply take the man's money.
Further, the other element is that of distribution. Government tax requires that you hand your money off to another guy who gives to the poor, Jesus told the man to give to the poor. Not "give to me", not "give to the temple", not "give to Caesar", just the "poor."
This gets downplayed, of course, because direct charity requires no monolithic organization or governing body to distribute.
It's bloody obvious that Jesus was big on helping the poor, and that it was such a big deal to him that he'd send people to hell for NOT doing it. I don't think he'd have any qualms about levying a tax to accomplish the goal of feeding and clothing his children.
You fail to understand the rich man's role in the affair. Remember, the man had to give so he could gain. Note "give" and "gain", components of a free exchange. If the government levies taxes to provide for the people, I am not freely giving. As such, I am not being charitable and am not going to make it to heaven.
"I pay my taxes" is a worthless statement. Even though in the process of paying, I am providing welfare and feeding children around the world, it isn't "good" because I'm only paying up to save my own skin.
I'll give you that he never directly said it. But if faced with the choice between two candidates, a market-socialist who will tax people to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and a laissez faire capitalist who will let those people starve but not tax as heavily, I submit that Jesus would vote for the market socialist.
I submit that Jesus wouldn't vote. Christianity isn't about governance, and the Christ wasn't a political figure in life. Later, his followers and the Romans found him a convenient figure head, but that was more accident then anything else.
Jesus would form an Anarcho-Socialist compound somewhere, in which people who didn't want to participate could "walk away" without fear of reprisal or having to pay any tax toward them.

"so you guys are still owning all things in common, and occassionally selling off a bit of property to continue to fund the group until the apocalypse?"

Christians pitch in to help other Christians, or even non-Christians, all the time.

"The toning down did not occur in the bible itself but in the passages of the bible focused on by the clergy, and how those passages are interpreted."

The Christians I know don't do that.

"And from what I remember (its been a while since I've read the bible) there doesn't even seem to be an agreement in the new testament as to whether Jesus physically resurrected or returned as a vision (making it even easier to reach the conclusion that Jesus, like everyone else, stays dead)."

That depends on who you are talking to. Almost all Christians will admit that Jesus physically resurrected. How else could Jesus eat with the apostles than by being physically there? Not to mention that there would be no need for the empty tomb story if it was not meant to be a physical resurrection. Early Christians were quite persistant that the tomb was empty; why would they argue this if they didn't beleive it was a physical resurrection? Moreover, after they argued this, why didn't the people they argued against produce the body?

Read your bible, you will find what I speak of in it. But also for all of it, especially arguments, has it ever occured to you that the bible is not an accurate historical source? Of course we all know the old testament is extremely faulty in that regard; why assume that the new testament is any better?

ah, but it's god who does the striking down for holding out from the collective. jesus may be a long-haired utopian hippie peacenik, but papa is an out and out stalinist.
And it will be God's responsibility to mete out God's judgement; I'm sure that after all these millenia he's grown into a big enough boy that he can take care of himself.
If God really does want that commune, it means that Heaven will just be a continuation of the ideal collective that Jesus wanted his disciples to follow. Everyone pooling their time to be happy together with no problems or poverty. Perfect peace and utter, soul-crushing boredom.

Jesus would form an Anarcho-Socialist compound somewhere, in which people who didn't want to participate could "walk away" without fear of reprisal or having to pay any tax toward them.

Except for hell.

As you said, he's the son of god, he could have made different rules.

Except for hell.

As you said, he's the son of god, he could have made different rules.
Hell is the world outside the commune.
As I've said before, if living in a worldly Anarcho-Socialist paradise isn't the thing for you, then you probably wouldn't enjoy heaven all that much anyway.

Hell is the world outside the commune.
As I've said before, if living in a worldly Anarcho-Socialist paradise isn't the thing for you, then you probably wouldn't enjoy heaven all that much anyway.

So it's the Anarcho-Socialist paradise, or nothing, then the fiery lake. I mean, it's pretty clear that not gaining entry to the kingdom of heaven ends up in you going to the big burny place.

Had jesus been truly ambivalent about economic arrangements, he could have set up two camps. Anarcho-socialist, and anarcho capitalist, and let people choose. (Of course all the non-anarchists whould still go to the burny place, but that's a seperate issue).

That fact that he didn't only goes to show that he was not afraid of backing his 'ideas' up. Albeit not personally. (Like every great dictator).

"has it ever occured to you that the bible is not an accurate historical source?"

Has it ever occured to you that it is a good idea to do research before making bold claims? Credible historians find no reason not to beleive the NT. The OT on the other hand... is largely a collection of what are essentially parables.

You don't have to take the lake of fire literally. Hell is merely the abscence of God.

He didn't have the authority to take a bull whip to the merchants at the temple, but that didn't bother him. He never had the authority to start declaring that people should follow him, but he commanded the apostles to drop what they were doing and tag along.
As the Son of God, he was the Supreme Ruler on Earth. He could demand whatever he wanted and have it in an instant (which was the whole point of the chat he had with the Devil in the desert), and so it was within his power and authority to simply take the man's money.
Further, the other element is that of distribution. Government tax requires that you hand your money off to another guy who gives to the poor, Jesus told the man to give to the poor. Not "give to me", not "give to the temple", not "give to Caesar", just the "poor."
This gets downplayed, of course, because direct charity requires no monolithic organization or governing body to distribute.

Different spheres of authority. Jesus never claimed political, military or economic authority. He claimed relgious authority, which meant he was within his bounds to bullwhip the people defiling the temple and to call for faithful followers.

As to distribution, I'm not sure it matters much how the money gets to those who need it, just that it does. I maintain that charity by government is still giving to the poor, because the money goes the same place as if I did it directly.

You fail to understand the rich man's role in the affair. Remember, the man had to give so he could gain. Note "give" and "gain", components of a free exchange. If the government levies taxes to provide for the people, I am not freely giving. As such, I am not being charitable and am not going to make it to heaven.
"I pay my taxes" is a worthless statement. Even though in the process of paying, I am providing welfare and feeding children around the world, it isn't "good" because I'm only paying up to save my own skin.

The ends of both false charity and taxational charity are good. That makes it good, because no significant harm is done in the process of either. They're not pure charity because they're not opitional or sincere as the case may be, but they're still good things to have. Now Jesus would probably prefer pure charity, but as evidenced by the using the 'carrot' of heavan and the 'stick of hell, Jesus is willing to taint pure charity for a good outcome, in this case getting more people to do it. If Jesus is willing to taint charity in that manner than I submit that there isn't really a good reason he wouldn't be willing to taint it by accepting taxational charity as well.

I submit that Jesus wouldn't vote. Christianity isn't about governance, and the Christ wasn't a political figure in life. Later, his followers and the Romans found him a convenient figure head, but that was more accident then anything else.
Jesus would form an Anarcho-Socialist compound somewhere, in which people who didn't want to participate could "walk away" without fear of reprisal or having to pay any tax toward them.

Probably. Jesus didn't focus much on government in general. But if he had no option I think he'd still go left economically before he voted right.

I just realized I don't even know why I'm debating this. I'm not a Christian, and it makes no difference to my arguments for Socialdemocracy whether Jesus was or was not my political homeboy.
I'm willing to drop this if you are.:)

So it's the Anarcho-Socialist paradise, or nothing, then the fiery lake. I mean, it's pretty clear that not gaining entry to the kingdom of heaven ends up in you going to the big burny place.
The burning was added later, by the people who needed to consolidate power (what good is a carrot without a stick to go with it?). Jesus never specifically mentions Hell at all (that I can remember) and never offers it as part of the ultimatum.
Had jesus been truly ambivalent about economic arrangements, he could have set up two camps. Anarcho-socialist, and anarcho capitalist, and let people choose. (Of course all the non-anarchists whould still go to the burny place, but that's a seperate issue).
Jesus had his one thing, and that is all he offered to anybody. It's a religion, not a fucking all you can eat buffet, you can either follow it's tenants or find a god that suits you better.
I find him hopelessly idealistic and rather naive, so did a lot of people. Which is why the original message found a fairly limited audience.
That fact that he didn't only goes to show that he was not afraid of backing his 'ideas' up. Albeit not personally. (Like every great dictator).
It wasn't a matter of backing things up. If a person, like myself, finds the idea of living in an Anarcho-socialist commune horrifying, then they would find the idea of an eternal one even worse. To put it bluntly: His Heaven would be my Hell.
Further, the fact that Jesus didn't offer multiple afterlifes is jsut part of forming a religion. God doesn't change for the individual (at least not in Western religions), he offers some rules to play by. If you don't like those rules, that god isn't for you.
In early polytheistic religions, that wouldn't be a problem. If you wanted compassion, there were gods for that, and if war was your thing, there were gods for that. When Monotheism started up, however, there were no longer alternate gods to pal around with, there is the one diety, and if you don't play by his rules you have no where else to go.
Hence, Satan and Hell are needed to act as a negative.

I just realized I don't even know why I'm debating this. I'm not a Christian, and it makes no difference to my arguments for Socialdemocracy whether Jesus was or was not my political homeboy.
I'm willing to drop this if you are.:)
And I'm an atheist. in fact, I think that, with the exception of Elite Battle, everyone in this debate is a non-Christian (Hell, I worship destruction and human ambition, about as unJesus as you can get).
This is what I get for using t3h Interwebs at 2 in the morning.

So, I'll drop this after saying that a good deed requires both free will and knowledge, regardless of the outcome. That debate, however, is most definitely for another time.

"has it ever occured to you that the bible is not an accurate historical source?"

Has it ever occured to you that it is a good idea to do research before making bold claims? Credible historians find no reason not to beleive the NT. The OT on the other hand... is largely a collection of what are essentially parables.

I'm sure there are plenty of credible historians out there who find claims of a man raising from the dead reason enough to apply a hefty does of skepticism.

And I'm an atheist. in fact, I think that, with the exception of Elite Battle, everyone in this debate is a non-Christian (Hell, I worship destruction and human ambition, about as unJesus as you can get).
This is what I get for using t3h Interwebs at 2 in the morning.

So, I'll drop this after saying that a good deed requires both free will and knowledge, regardless of the outcome. That debate, however, is most definitely for another time.

Destruction and Human Ambition eh? Throw in Lust and I'd say you're cooking up a good time.

The whole question on what constitutes a good deed is a tempting and juicy debate I'd say. But I'm with you, it's too late for that level of seriousness and critical thinking.

I bid you adieu sir.

[QUOTE=Elite Battle Hordes]"has it ever occured to you that the bible is not an accurate historical source?"[QUOTE]

I don't think, that this is the main problem. Before asking for historical stuff in the NT you have to see that the text is written in ancient greek and that words and ideas do not translate that easy. And then, if there was someone like Jesus, he was not speaking greek, so the greek text is already a translation, one written at least 50 years after his death. I think from a histrical point of view there is nothing at all to get here, so one has to focus on how the text inspires oneself.

If Jesus was a communist might be a very interesting question, but yet it remains a categorial mistake, to ask it. Communist ideas were formed as a reaction to capitalism, an abstract form of capitalism which was unknown to the ancient world. Jesus seems to have been against trasures, a form of stocking money that is relatively harmless form the modern capital that at times made people work 14 hours a day in coal mines and die at 40. Ancient slaves were better off, since they could at least hope to be liberated some day due to war or death of there master.

If I see that St. Paul did tell slaves to obey there master, I tend to conclude, that the christian ideas quickly tried to adapt themselves to the given society. There they got stripped of all revolutionary potential and led people to think that some kind of charity was enough to full express christian ideas.

Finally Marx was against Christianism, because the way he knew it in the society of the 19. Century it christian ideas were used to give people fear and make them shut up. I personally think he could have made better use of it, than making it his enemy.

"I'm sure there are plenty of credible historians out there who find claims of a man raising from the dead reason enough to apply a hefty does of skepticism."

Such reasoning is the very definition of a non-credible historian. A historian is not supposed to decide whether or not something is credible because it makes a claim he or she finds hard to beleive. They are supposed to decide based on the evidence for said claim. Think of what our knowledge of history would be limited to if historians regarded all books as uncredible that had claims that did not match up with their preconceived notions. Example: "The battle of Thermopylae is a legend, 300 Spartans couldn't do all that. We can't trust Herodotus, let us just ignore all evidence regarding this matter."

I know this is a little off the wall, but I'll throw it out there anyways, in the Acts of the Apostles, a reference is made to the fact that early Christian communities practiced communalism in some form. It's partially the basis for Christian socialism.

You fail to understand the rich man's role in the affair. Remember, the man had to give so he could gain. Note "give" and "gain", components of a free exchange. If the government levies taxes to provide for the people, I am not freely giving. As such, I am not being charitable and am not going to make it to heaven.
"I pay my taxes" is a worthless statement. Even though in the process of paying, I am providing welfare and feeding children around the world, it isn't "good" because I'm only paying up to save my own skin.


That would only be true if it were impossible to agree to be taxed. If I agree with the principle of taxation, and agree with the use of taxation for the purposes of clothing and feeding the poor, then I see no fundamental distinction between my paying someone else the money to get the coat and soup and giving it directly myself. In both cases, we are acting out of an intent to help the poor man, and acting in a right way to achieve that end.

Moreover, you are forgetting the many passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that effectively served as laws in Israel and Judah concerning redistributing wealth to the poor. Jesus never spoke out against those laws, and indeed seemed with most of his other speeches to uphold the spirit by which they were created. If so, then I find it hard to believe that he would be miffed at a government which stressed welfare for the poor, even through direct use of laws.