NationStates Jolt Archive

Sweet Jesus! Yes, yes!:eek:

I win! I stole the thread! Woohaaa

Well that's the question, but I want to know what NSG thinks. I personally think he was, and instead of making a long post I thought I'd quote from the gospel to put substance to my claim, poll up also.


Acts of the Apostles at chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45:
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship [...] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)

Acts 4:32-37:
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. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)

Gospel of Luke (1:49-53):
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Matthew 19:16-24:
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew 21:12-14, Mark 11:15, and John 2:14-16:
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

Mark 12:28-31:
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; 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: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Matthew 25:31-46:
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

Mine: Notice that the critique based on helping people was on 'nations' and not individuals, indicating a shared responsibility for national economic systems which have inequities.

Leviticus 25:35-38: "If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God." and Acts 4:32-35, "All 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 [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need." As well as Acts 2:42-47, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they [...] ate together with glad and sincere hearts [...] "

of course he was

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2021924316

:)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1440097282

:D

No, Jesus was not a communist. If he was a communist he would PRETEND to distribute the money from the land and keep most of it for himself. But with all seroiusness, if he was a marxist, they would have been forced whereas here the richer ones felt compelled by their need to help the poor. PLus it's less taxes to pay! YAY!

I personally think Acts 4:32-35 is the best example, you can't get much more of straight forward communist ideology than that.

Jesus was a money grubbing Jews, everyone knows that. :rolleyes:

Jesus was a money grubbing Jews, everyone knows that. :rolleyes:

Yes everybody knows that, I mean there is in fact so much evidence of the life of the man Jesus, I mean of course independent of what the Bible says!:rolleyes:

No, Jesus was not a communist. If he was a communist he would PRETEND to distribute the money from the land and keep most of it for himself. But with all seroiusness, if he was a marxist, they would have been forced whereas here the richer ones felt compelled by their need to help the poor. PLus it's less taxes to pay! YAY!

Actually I have been scanning my copy of the gospel (King James) and I believe I can respond to this, and that Jesus did not believe that equal communism was optional, and he certainly held (as Matthew 25:31-46 shows) that those who did not treat people equally would be judged accordingly on a national basis.

Acts 5:1-10:
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Notice how Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God for keeping part of their wealth for themselves and not sharing it equally?

Also:

He who does not work, neither shall he eat. - Vladimir Lenin

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. - Paul (II Thessalonians 3:10)

I would put that this indicates a pretty clear view that communism is compulsory for those claiming to follow His word.

Of course he was. Trying to reconcile Christianity and capitalism has been one of the great tragic jokes of our time.

Of course he was. Trying to reconcile Christianity and capitalism has been one of the great tragic jokes of our time.

Shut up and buy a chocolate Jesus.

http://paskewich.typepad.com/paskewichcom/images/2007/04/05/chocolate_jesus_1_2.jpg

:)

There's a difference between being a communist and not being a selfish, bourgeois pig. Communism is a system of government, which I don't think Jesus would have supported or decried. Sharing is nice, though, and Jesus was nice. :)

Shut up and buy a chocolate Jesus.

http://paskewich.typepad.com/paskewichcom/images/2007/04/05/chocolate_jesus_1_2.jpg

:)

Must... eat... capitalism...

No, Jesus wasn't a communist (not even a pre-marxist communist) because he didn't care for MATERIAL issues - da mihi animas, caetera tolle.

Anyway, many of the social justice issues one can find in Jesus' words have influenced heavily the leftist (including communist) thought. So, it's more "Marx was a follower of Jesus" (at least about social issues) than "Jesus was a communist". After all, Marx comes about 1800 yeast later.

guys Acts and Thessalonians are Paul. Maybe Paul was a communist.

Well, I distincly remember an old priest once telling me that communism was really just atheistic Christianity...

Obviously not, because Jesus wouldn't have forced anyone to give their shit away. Thats stealing and obviously against God's laws.

I've never thought that there was much of a contradiction between Christianity and Socialism, but that there was more of one between Christianity and Capitalism.

Obviously not, because Jesus wouldn't have forced anyone to give their shit away. Thats stealing and obviously against God's laws.

I can see you haven't bothered reading through the thread, have you?
And I seem to remember a certain bonmot that it'll be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, or something to that effect...

I can see you haven't bothered reading through the thread, have you?
And I seem to remember a certain bonmot that it'll be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, or something to that effect...

and the rich guy walked off and Jesus didn't chase him down and take his shit away.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. It can't be either you are a selfish troll or a communist. There are other options.

Jesus from all I could tell would want people to give willingly and to want to help others, not to be forced to.

No, he was not a communist.

Why?

...because for Jesus we are all equal only because our focus in life should only be on God, and all else is immaterial, so material things are unimportant.

For communists, equality is an end in itself, equal materiality is the ultimate judge of that

Jesus is more comparative to the one-eyed king in the land of the blind.

That presupposes Jesus was the son of a presupposed god...

..which in fact just means that we're all blind...

...which aptly describes religion.

Open your eyes people :)

and the rich guy walked off and Jesus didn't chase him down and take his shit away.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. It can't be either you are a selfish troll or a communist. There are other options.

Jesus from all I could tell would want people to give willingly and to want to help others, not to be forced to.

The capitalist "ethos", in its post-1980s neoliberal form, is that selfishness and individualism are the highest virtue, and that your right to become rich supersedes everything else, including other people's right to survive. Or at least, such is the interpretation offered by self-proclaimed Libertarians on this forum, such as FreedomAndGlory or Neu Leonstein.

You do agree that this is incompatible with Christianity?

Well, there's no doubt to me that the early Christian church was very socialistic, both in its Pauline form in Rome and its Jamesian form in Jerusalem. The Jamesian church, rooted in the tribal forms of the Hebrew people, was the more socialist of the two (if I remember correctly, it was explicitly communist in its ethics). It mostly drew its inspiration from tribal traditions of reciprocity and the Gospels of Matthew and St. Thomas (which is now apocrypha, btw).

Of course, the Jamesian sect of Christianity was swept away during the Diaspora. But even Pauline Christianity had a highly socialistic in its early incarnation. Its monastic orders maintained a spiritualistic socialist ethos long after the church of Rome had ascended to dominance. St. Augustine descriptions of New Jerusalem were explicitly socialistic as well.

There is a wealth of socialist ideas in early Christian groups. But, I believe it would be a mistake to call it "proto-Marxist". If anything, early Christian socialism is an echo of primitive tribalistic communism.

The capitalist "ethos", in its post-1980s neoliberal form, is that selfishness and individualism are the highest virtue, and that your right to become rich supersedes everything else, including other people's right to survive. Or at least, such is the interpretation offered by self-proclaimed Libertarians on this forum, such as FreedomAndGlory or Neu Leonstein.

You do agree that this is incompatible with Christianity?

sure. This entire conversation is idiotic though. It's like trying to figure out if Peter Rabbit was a republican.

and the rich guy walked off and Jesus didn't chase him down and take his shit away.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. It can't be either you are a selfish troll or a communist. There are other options.

Jesus from all I could tell would want people to give willingly and to want to help others, not to be forced to.

Nope, judging from that statement I'd say he waited until the rich guy died and sent him to hell.
The fact that punishment for possessing more than others is not handed out straight away but rather at some point in the future doesn't mean it's not punishment either way.

I'm not saying that there's no middle path between selfish pig and communist, after all most of the world's population is found somewhere on that middle path. I'm just saying that both Jesus and Karl Marx preached the same extreme.

sure. This entire conversation is idiotic though. It's like trying to figure out if Peter Rabbit was a republican.

*lol
Now, THAT would be worth some scrutiny ;)

No, he was not a communist.

Why?

...because for Jesus we are all equal only because our focus in life should only be on God, and all else is immaterial, so material things are unimportant.

For communists, equality is an end in itself, equal materiality is the ultimate judge of that

Jesus is more comparative to the one-eyed king in the land of the blind.

That presupposes Jesus was the son of a presupposed god...

..which in fact just means that we're all blind...

...which aptly describes religion.

Open your eyes people :)
What good will that do? We're blind!
sure. This entire conversation is idiotic though. It's like trying to figure out if Peter Rabbit was a republican.
Somehow I suspect that Eureka Australis is just trying to convince some christians to become communists, because that's what Jesus would do. Which doesn't really make any sense, because why would christians really care what Jesus would do about matters totally unrelated to God or spirituality in general?

*lol
Now, THAT would be worth some scrutiny ;)

Heh I don't see that it would take long though, the clues in the name folx!

Meh, who knows? Maybe he was, it seems there's significant proof he might and might not be. Till' then, well, think what you want.

What good will that do? We're blind!

Dammit, I need to alter my analogy.

Religion is a blindfold we put on ourselves because we put faith in Gods to guide us. All we're actually doing is blinding ourselves.

I remember a possibly apocryphal story when tootling around India about the bus driver who would not turn his lights on at night, because if it was his fate to crash then lights wouldn't help much.

This is the illogical nature of religion.

Communism is the opposite, it's entirely logical...in theory

Alas it doesn't take into account the illogical nature of humans.

Dammit, I need to alter my analogy.

Religion is a blindfold we put on ourselves because we put faith in Gods to guide us. All we're actually doing is blinding ourselves.

I remember a possibly apocryphal story when tootling around India about the bus driver who would not turn his lights on at night, because if it was his fate to crash then lights wouldn't help much.

This is the illogical nature of religion.

Communism is the opposite, it's entirely logical...in theory

Alas it doesn't take into account the illogical nature of humans.

Naaaa I don't agree with you there. In what way are religious people blinding themselves?

Naaaa I don't agree with you there. In what way are religious people blinding themselves?

In the same way Leeds supporters provide any amount of excuses for why their team is a load of shite.

The rest of us can only wonder that their pitch isn't a damn sight better given the amount of shite seen on it every Saturday.

Eh?

From my reading of the Gospels, I'd be reluctant to conclude that Jesus was a communist. He frequently preached the Kingdom of God, which isn't exactly compatible with the kind of communism most folks who call themselves communists would like to see.

On the other hand, he was obviously opposed to greed and encouraged others to voluntarily give to their fellow persons from their material goods and focus more on their inner growth and their social growth.

Do I think that someone could legitimately claim that Jesus saw greed and money-grubbing as a powerful distraction from loving God and neighbor? Certainly.

Do I think that someone would be crazy to see elements of socialist or communist ideology in his teachings? Not at all.

Do I think that someone could legitimately claim that Jesus was a communist? I'm leaning towards no.

In the same way Leeds supporters provide any amount of excuses for why their team is a load of shite.

The rest of us can only wonder that their pitch isn't a damn sight better given the amount of shite seen on it every Saturday.

Eh?

Oi oi, now thats below the bloody belt that is! You do know we lost our first game of the season the other week, 13 games without defeat, well then Leeds Utd are obviously the next Arsenal!

Back to the topic though, in what way do religious people blind themselves? Are you suggesting that in some way having faith in the existance of God or Gods, stops people from seeing other things?

From my reading of the Gospels, I'd be reluctant to conclude that Jesus was a communist. He frequently preached the Kingdom of God, which isn't exactly compatible with the kind of communism most folks who call themselves communists would like to see.

On the other hand, he was obviously opposed to greed and encouraged others to voluntarily give to their fellow persons from their material goods and focus more on their inner growth and their social growth.

Do I think that someone could legitimately claim that Jesus saw greed and money-grubbing as a powerful distraction from loving God and neighbor? Certainly.

Do I think that someone would be crazy to see elements of socialist or communist ideology in his teachings? Not at all.

Do I think that someone could legitimately claim that Jesus was a communist? I'm leaning towards no.

It's strange don't you think? I mean it's strange how, what , who and why people defend this principle, or that ideal, seemingly without thought on the other sides POV or stance, and always inline with their own philosophies.

What, I wonder, sort of debate would we get if we had a socialist or communist Christian, and a more umm right leaning Christian here?

Oi oi, now thats below the bloody belt that is! You do know we lost our first game of the season the other week, 13 games without defeat, well then Leeds Utd are obviously the next Arsenal!

Back to the topic though, in what way do religious people blind themselves? Are you suggesting that in some way having faith in the existance of God or Gods, stops people from seeing other things?

Are you saying religion doesn't have customs that make little practical sense aside from fulfilling homage?

Some Sikhs feel the need to carry a ceremonial knife - can you give me a rational reason why? Muslims won't eat pork - can you give me a medical reason for this.

I don't want some ancient justification - I want a logical reason for the here and now.

Are you saying religion doesn't have customs that make little practical sense aside from fulfilling homage?

Some Sikhs feel the need to carry a ceremonial knife - can you give me a rational reason why? Muslims won't eat pork - can you give me a medical reason for this.

I don't want some ancient justification - I want a logical reason for the here and now.

You are right many religions have these sorts of things, what Sikhi calls meaningless ritual. I can't answer why Muslims don't eat pork, I can though say that Amdrehti Sikhs(baptised) carry the kirpan, for one and only one reason, coz Guru Ji told us to.

Ritual in itself is wholey human though, and not just reserved for religion.

Any way ritual is no indication of blindness, what did you even mean when you said it, what was your analogy trying to get at?

It's strange don't you think? I mean it's strange how, what , who and why people defend this principle, or that ideal, seemingly without thought on the other sides POV or stance, and always inline with their own philosophies.

What, I wonder, sort of debate would we get if we had a socialist or communist Christian, and a more umm right leaning Christian here?

I'm a somewhat right-leaning Christian, and in most of my discussions with my friends who are left-leaning Christians, the real point of disagreement is the role of government.

For example, both I and my Christian socialist friend are living below the poverty line in the US. We both still give freely of what we have to others (in fact, I've given him money for food on a couple of occasions) and if either of us were wealthy, we'd give most of that wealth away to those in need, because we believe that we should.

Our only real disagreement is on the issue of whether it should be a governmental responsibility to re-distribute wealth or an individual responsibility.

There's a difference between being a communist and not being a selfish, bourgeois pig. Communism is a system of government, which I don't think Jesus would have supported or decried. Sharing is nice, though, and Jesus was nice. :)

Thank you! See, I really don't think you can give Jesus a political idealogy, only a life philosophy. As long as you follow his teachings, I don't think he really cares weather your Socialist or Capitalist. As I phrase it, God Doesn't give a damn over politics (except in certain circumstances).

You are right many religions have these sorts of things, what Sikhi calls meaningless ritual. I can't answer why Muslims don't eat pork, I can though say that Amdrehti Sikhs(baptised) carry the kirpan, for one and only one reason, coz Guru Ji told us to.

Ritual in itself is wholey human though, and not just reserved for religion.

Any way ritual is no indication of blindness, what did you even mean when you said it, what was your analogy trying to get at?

Well then I can talk about areas of science, which are strongly opposed by religious bodies. I can talk about class divisions, strongly supported by religious bodies. I can talk about many things that have meaningless basis for opposition aside from religious doctrine.

The examples I've given previously are, essentially, harmless - yet let's look at the dispensation given to those who wear turbans when riding motorcycles in the UK - here's a clear area where, rationally, wearing helmets save lives.

Religion blinds people to this and actually endangers personal lives. I don't mean blinding in terms of not being able to see the logical reason, it's blinding us to logical action.

Religion blinded us to seeing the sun at the centre of our solar system, one that is merely a part of a galaxy, which is part of a greater universe. Religion blinds us to stem-cell research, something that could make life better for so many people.

Imagine where we might be without this brake on discovery.

Now, there may be an argument that a brake on society is a good thing, lest we reach too far too soon - but that doesn't necessarily imply that illogical religion is the best means of braking progress.

In many ways, it blinds us.

First off, this thread topic is, like, prehistoric.

The problem Jesus saw with money was that that of his objection to materialism. It had the unique property of separating the individual from God by attaching the individual to this world.

More than that, the classic example being the tale of the "Rich Young Man" from Matthew 19 (if I recall correctly), in which the rich young man goes off, sells his possessions, and promptly receives back what he has given. The reason is because the young man managed to bring himself close to God, and God rewarded him for it.

Well then I can talk about areas of science, which are strongly opposed by religious bodies. I can talk about class divisions, strongly supported by religious bodies. I can talk about many things that have meaningless basis for opposition aside from religious doctrine.

The examples I've given previously are, essentially, harmless - yet let's look at the dispensation given to those who wear turbans when riding motorcycles in the UK - here's a clear area where, rationally, wearing helmets save lives.

Religion blinds people to this and actually endangers personal lives. I don't mean blinding in terms of not being able to see the logical reason, it's blinding us to logical action.

Religion blinded us to seeing the sun at the centre of our solar system, one that is merely a part of a galaxy, which is part of a greater universe. Religion blinds us to stem-cell research, something that could make life better for so many people.

Imagine where we might be without this brake on discovery.

Now, there may be an argument that a brake on society is a good thing, lest we reach too far too soon - but that doesn't necessarily imply that illogical religion is the best means of braking progress.

In many ways, it blinds us.

Ummm Okay yes, I will concede that religion can be a bar to rational thought, but then so can (as you have pointed out) allegiance to a footie team. Is then religion the cause of this or does humanity hold to irrationality anyway, and religion is just one of the manifestations of this?

I would never call religion illogical either, many religious people can offer subjective, well thought out reasons for their faith, although it is true many cannot.

No I don't think religion blinds, I think people are everything, and ideals, principles, ideas, beliefs, are merely the veheciles we use to express our selves. After all a blind man can never see the sun, yet all of us here now see it clearly.

Perhaps then I can agree that looking over the history of mankind, religion may well have slowed down some scientific research.

I think the main distinction between the charity that Jesus spoke of and the early church tried to put into practice against the marxist communism is that Jesus said; give away what you have to the poor, and Marx said, lets take away all your rich neighbor has and give to the poor and ourselves, it is simply two different things in essence, IMO.

Of course he was. Trying to reconcile Christianity and capitalism has been one of the great tragic jokes of our time.

:headbang:

Separation of church and state
Separation of church and state
Separation of church and state

Christianity is not inherently political, trying to reconcile ANY religion with ANY government will be an epic failure. Jesus clearly believed in separation of Church and state and voluntary charity to the poor. Remember, render onto Caesar what is Caesar, and render onto God what is Gods.

Christianity is not inherently political, trying to reconcile ANY religion with ANY government will be an epic failure.


I'm glad we agree.


Jesus clearly believed in separation of Church and state and voluntary charity to the poor. Remember, render onto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render onto God what is Gods.

Didn't that mean "pay your taxes and stop complaining about them"?

The problem Jesus saw with money was that that of his objection to materialism. It had the unique property of separating the individual from God by attaching the individual to this world.
I agree with this general sentiment. The Capitalism/Communism dilemma only exists when you're rooted in thinking about "things". When actual material items are incidental, it doesn't matter whether you believe in private or collective property, because the two become interchangable and similarly unimportant.

I'm glad we agree.


Point being, that isn't a valid argument, since Christianity isn't exclusively incompatible with only Capitalism.


Didn't that mean "pay your taxes and stop complaining about them"?

Yes, but in the broader sense it represented a view that Religion is not above the law of the lay.

He's a bastard.

I don't know about Jesus but Santa sure is a Communist...running that Gulag of his at the North Pole and his whole giving kids a handout of "Presents" each Christmas...Damn kids should start working for their presents in less than minimum wage sweatshops...Not to mention all that red he wears

I'M ON TO YOU COMRADE CLAUS!!!

How the hell should I know?

Didn't that mean "pay your taxes and stop complaining about them"?

actually, it was more like "look at me, i'm tricky bastard jesus"

the people sent to ask the question were explicitly sent to entrap jesus into saying something that would get him in trouble. jesus then says "i saw what you did there" and launches into his tricky bastard non-response.

Notice how Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God for keeping part of their wealth for themselves and not sharing it equally?I read that passage as saying they were struck dead for lying to God/the Holy Spirit, not for keeping part of the wealth. Rather than admit that they kept a percentage for themselves, both of them misrepresented their donation as being the full value of the land, which it wasn't.

thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

He's a bastard.

Hmm.

*ponders*

Fergi America;13219133']I read that passage as saying they were struck dead for lying to God/the Holy Spirit, not for keeping part of the wealth. Rather than admit that they kept a percentage for themselves, both of them misrepresented their donation as being the full value of the land, which it wasn't.

but why did they lie? what was the point of lying if it didn't matter?

This just goes to show that not even God himself can make Communism work.

BURN!!!

Didn't that mean "pay your taxes and stop complaining about them"?

While the specific issue was people were griping about paying taxes to support the military force that was occupying their homeland (imagine if Iraqis had to pay American taxes!), in general it is an admonition to relegate the wordly to the world and God to the spirit, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

in general it is an admonition to relegate the wordly to the world and God to the spirit, and ne'er the twain shall meet...

...because the world will be ending within your own lifetime

...because the world will be ending within your own lifetime

Either that, or the more common belief that it's a reference to the individual's "world" ending, aka, dying.

Once that bucket's kicked,there isn't any more use for anything.

Once that bucket's kicked,there isn't any more use for anything.

Anything physical, at least. (Of course, a lot of people are screwed if it turns out some kind of ancient Egyptian model is in place and all they've got are the clothes on their back...).

Thank you! See, I really don't think you can give Jesus a political idealogy, only a life philosophy. As long as you follow his teachings, I don't think he really cares weather your Socialist or Capitalist. As I phrase it, God Doesn't give a damn over politics (except in certain circumstances).

But the entire point is that if you follow his teachings you cannot be a capitalist.

and the rich guy walked off and Jesus didn't chase him down and take his shit away.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. It can't be either you are a selfish troll or a communist. There are other options.

Jesus from all I could tell would want people to give willingly and to want to help others, not to be forced to.

Yes but he does make it quite clear that those people will be judged for the inequities they inflicted, I believe my last post pointed that out quite clearly.

No, he was not a communist.

Why?

...because for Jesus we are all equal only because our focus in life should only be on God, and all else is immaterial, so material things are unimportant.

For communists, equality is an end in itself, equal materiality is the ultimate judge of that

Jesus is more comparative to the one-eyed king in the land of the blind.

That presupposes Jesus was the son of a presupposed god...

..which in fact just means that we're all blind...

...which aptly describes religion.

Open your eyes people :)
That also makes no sense, if material equality was not an issue to Jesus, he wouldn't have come into the world in a 'material' form, that was the point of Jesus - to be a human and therefore to connect with our material lives, if Jesus didn't care about material inequities he wouldn't have come to earth as a human, he would have just bellowed from heaven to get your soul saved and don't worry about anything else. The central tenet of Christianity, that he sacrificed himself for humanity collectively, the ultimate selfless act, is communistic innately.

But the entire point is that if you follow his teachings you cannot be a capitalist.
I think this is the main point to be made, yes Christian communistic sharing is voluntary, but it's only voluntary as far following the teachings of Christ is voluntary. It's you're free choice to follow Christ, but if you call yourself a Christian then you should denounce wealth accumulation (capitalism) in line with Christ's teachings. So my commentary is more about Christians calling themselves Christians while practicing capitalism and being wealthy, being totally out of line of Christ's teachings if you read my quotes. I mean how hard did Jesus say it was for a rich man to enter heaven, I believe he said it was all up impossible, how can you argue against that?

That also makes no sense, if material equality was not an issue to Jesus, he wouldn't have come into the world in a 'material' form, that was the point of Jesus - to be a human and therefore to connect with our material lives, if Jesus didn't care about material inequities he wouldn't have come to earth as a human, he would have just bellowed from heaven to get your soul saved and don't worry about anything else. The central tenet of Christianity, that he sacrificed himself for humanity collectively, the ultimate selfless act, is communistic innately.

I think you're entirely misunderstanding why Jesus came down - I'm no religious scholar but I don't think he came down to propose equal sharing of wealth among mankind, I think he came down to die for mankind and therefore absolve them of their sins with a side mission of showing, or inspiring in, man the way to God.

The material, I'd say, in his view was unimportant if not insignificant compared to the riches of knowing God.

You can quote the Bible but it should be accompanied by comprehension.

I think you're entirely misunderstanding why Jesus came down - I'm no religious scholar but I don't think he came down to propose equal sharing of wealth among mankind, I think he came down to die for mankind and therefore absolve them of their sins with a side mission of showing, or inspiring in, man the way to God.

The material, I'd say, in his view was unimportant if not insignificant compared to the riches of knowing God.

You can quote the Bible but it should be accompanied by comprehension.

I am not saying that communist Marxism is substantially different from what Christ said, but they are totally different times and contexts, for Marx religion had become a bloated tool of capitalist oppression, Jesus was not religion, in fact he was the anti-orthodoxy against the Jewish religious dogmatism and hierarchy, but you cannot deny what Christ said: That a rich man cannot enter heaven, and will in fact go to hell.

I am not saying that communist Marxism is substantially different from what Christ said, but they are totally different times and contexts, for Marx religion had become a bloated tool of capitalist oppression, Jesus was not religion, in fact he was the anti-orthodoxy against the Jewish religious dogmatism and hierarchy, but you cannot deny what Christ said: That a rich man cannot enter heaven, and will in fact go to hell.

Sure, but because that rich man has placed wealth before love of God - not because he's exploited the poor.

Of course - we can get into Jesus as Son of God, in which case he was not a communist, or Jesus as the political agitator, the Ghandi of his times, in which case he may well have been a communist, if not most likely a communist in general terms.

I can see you haven't bothered reading through the thread, have you?
And I seem to remember a certain bonmot that it'll be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, or something to that effect...
"The eye of the needle," most scholars and theologians agree, was referring to the main gate of Jerusalem. It would be difficult for a camel to get in, but not impossible, and that's the point of the analogy: rich people are not all destined for hell, but it is harder for someone with many material possessions to give themselves fully to God, because that requires decrying material possessions. This also ties in with the question as to whether he was a communist; in fact, I think it answers it. Jesus was not concerned with fair distribution of wealth because wealth, or material goods of any kind, weren't important to him. Communism is an entirely materialistic form of government, almost unique in that respect.

"The eye of the needle," most scholars and theologians agree, was referring to the main gate of Jerusalem.

no, they don't. there is absolutely no evidence to back up that idea and it makes no fucking sense at all in context. also, the talmud contains a parallel construction involving elephants. is that some more differenter gate?

"The eye of the needle," most scholars and theologians agree, was referring to the main gate of Jerusalem. It would be difficult for a camel to get in, but not impossible, and that's the point of the analogy: rich people are not all destined for hell, but it is harder for someone with many material possessions to give themselves fully to God, because that requires decrying material possessions. This also ties in with the question as to whether he was a communist; in fact, I think it answers it. Jesus was not concerned with fair distribution of wealth because wealth, or material goods of any kind, weren't important to him. Communism is an entirely materialistic form of government, almost unique in that respect.

Nice revisionism their friend, from a standard read it's simply saying that rich wealthy individuals (capitalists) cannot enter heaven, full stop.

Actually I have been scanning my copy of the gospel (King James) and I believe I can respond to this, and that Jesus did not believe that equal communism was optional, and he certainly held (as Matthew 25:31-46 shows) that those who did not treat people equally would be judged accordingly on a national basis.

Acts 5:1-10:
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Notice how Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God for keeping part of their wealth for themselves and not sharing it equally?

Also:

He who does not work, neither shall he eat. - Vladimir Lenin

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. - Paul (II Thessalonians 3:10)

I would put that this indicates a pretty clear view that communism is compulsory for those claiming to follow His word.

They were struck dead because they lied about how much they gave,they said they gave all of it, they did not. If they had told the truth, that they gave only half of what they had, they would not have died.

Edit: Sorry, not half, but a portion.

Either that, or the more common belief that it's a reference to the individual's "world" ending, aka, dying.

true, though that is difficult to reconcile with the texts

They were struck dead because they lied about how much they gave,they said they gave all of it, they did not. If they had told the truth, that they gave only half of what they had, they would not have died.

why did they lie? what was the point?

why did they lie? what was the point?

Yes exactly, if anything it proves that God thinks contributing equally is not optional.

why did they lie? what was the point?

They wanted to appear "holy" and basically look good in the eyes of men while still keeping wealth.

They wanted to appear "holy" and basically look good in the eyes of men while still keeping wealth.

and therefore we can conclude that...?

Yes exactly, if anything it proves that God thinks contributing equally is not optional.

Remember the story of the woman who gave a penny and the rich man who gave alot? Jesus said that the woman was better. Not because he was rich and she was poor, but because she gave all she had with a giving spirit. It is whats in the heart, not the pocket, that matters to God.

but why did they lie? what was the point of lying if it didn't matter?
I don't know, I didn't know them personally :p
! I can only speculate...

My Guesses:
Guess 1) They knew that the price of admission to the group was to give the full value. They thought that was a baloney requirement, yet wanted in anyway (I don't know why they would still want in if they didn't agree with the requirement), so they lied.

Guess 2) They weren't 100% sure they wanted to make a permanent move away from their old lifestyle, so they decided to keep some "insurance" back, just in case they decided this sucked in some way.

Guess 3) They weren't convinced of the group's ability to provide for them if they didn't have any money of their own. This would be a big "lack of faith" kind of issue, and the Bible seems big on decrying a lack of faith. So there's a good chance this is what the writer was getting at.

and therefore we can conclude that...?

Therefore we can conclude that if they (a) really HAD given all their money or (b) been honest and said that they were only giving some of it to the church they would not have died.

Marxism is an ideology that arises directly out of the industrial age. It would be ridiculous to apply that label to a man living in a pre-industrial society. That being said many of Jesus' ideas and sentiments are similar to those espoused by many marxists, but as far as the political and economic ideology goes, Jesus was no marxist.