Was Jesus Christ a Socialist?

[Razor]

Jesus Christ argued for a few things. Outlined here:

Romans 10:12

“… There is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same Lord is over all who call on Him”

Hey guys. Minorities are cool.

Matt 5:44-45

… I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Do not give into the Hate shown to you by others. Do not express that same Hate toward your fellow man. Love everyone.

Luke 10:30-37

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

The Good Samaritan parable. It was important for a few reasons.

1. Jews hated Samaritans, as did the Samaritans hate the Jews. This parable showed that everyone was your neighbor, and so the teaching "Love thy Neighbor" means to love everyone and help everyone.
2. It's the classic "Help everyone" philosophy that is one of the central cornerstones of the Christian faith.

Now What Does Glenn Beck Have To Say?

Simon Greer, the chief executive of a group named Jewish Funds for Justice, said this:

"Government makes our country function," Greer wrote. "To put God first is to put humankind first, and to put humankind first is to put the common good first."

Simply put, we should help each other.

So what did Glenn Beck say? Wait. I'll let you guess.

Done guessing?

"This leads to death camps," Beck said on May 28. "A Jew, of all people, should know that. This is exactly the kind of talk that led to the death camps in Germany — put humankind and the common good first."

First of all, obvious troll is obvious.

Secondly, this is just the latest in a long line of stupid stuff Glenn Beck has said. If he's not claiming a divine inspiration for some plan he's supposed to tell everyone at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, he's saying that Jesus didn't really want us to go forth and preform "social justice," or feed the poor and help the sick.

Because, as Glenn Beck argues, that's socialism. We shouldn't be helping the poor in a free society, in a capitalist society. To do so

From here: ABC News

"I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site," he said. "If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. ... Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If they're going to Jeremiah Wright's church, yes!

"If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish," he said. "Go alert your bishop and tell them, 'Excuse me, are you down with this whole social justice thing?' If it's my church, I'm alerting the church authorities: 'Excuse me, what's this social justice thing?' And if they say, 'Yeah, we're all in on this social justice thing,' I am in the wrong place."

Later, Beck held up a picture of a swastika and one of a hammer and sickle, declaring again that "social justice" has the same philosophy as the Nazis and communists and that the phrase is a code word for both.

Stu Burguiere, executive producer at "The Glenn Beck Radio Program," sought to clarify Beck's comments today.

Or, we can go here:

Here's my definition of social justice: Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice.

From Glenn Beck himself.

Only, he didn't say that on his radio show. His chief producer had to say that for him after the initial radio broadcast.

But, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Sure. Whatever. Crazy as hell Glenn Beck.

Question to consider:

Was Jesus Christ a socialist?

He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, argue that one should in anyway actually limit the amount of aid they give to the homeless/needy.

Could one look at Jesus' teaching and interpret it as a teaching to completely give themselves to helping others? Isn't that what he says anyway?

Look at holy men. They are not rich by any means. They redirect their moneys to helping the poor and giving to social causes.

Look at Jesus Christ himself. He is one poor rabbi. A poor rabbi that makes his living traveling through Rome, preaching and helping the sick.

So, which is it? Stake your claim.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

I believe, that while you have certainly given enough evidence to suggest Jesus was a socialist, there is also evidence of Jesus' political tendecies, millenia before these political parties were being formed. You see, it is easy to pick and choose what you wish from Jesus' teachings and parables, and while The Good Samaritan parable may seem like a very clear concept of equality and egalitarianism, I can assure you, it is not. Jesus was more than likely referring to the need for a country to expand their sphere of influence, and end previous tendencies towards isolationism. It is a shame that Truman had not read the bible earlier, or his Doctrine would have been conceived far earlier. It is clear that any intervention or interference into international affairs by the USA is now purely the work of The Good Samaritan.

However, does my tirade of truth end here? Oh no, no no. You see, Razor, Jesus was clearly a republican, and he believed strongly in economic policy similar to the present day Republican Party. Laissez-Faire Economics with the right of the individual reigning supreme? Clearly Jesus was signalling towards a right-wing government stance. I need no further evidence than Jesus' parables of the Farmer sowing his seeds. And I quote:

The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended. And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, 19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

What he is basically outlining is four major outcomes. Obviously, Jesus was referring not to seeds, but money and wealth. Lets delve deeper shall we?

Some seeds fall off to the side and are taken away by birds.

The birds here obviously are a reference to the welfare system constantly attacking an individuals hard earned money. Also, I'm quite sure Bill O'Reilly called homeless people "fucking animals" once. Don't quote me on that.

Some fall onto stony ground, grow quickly, but then die just as quickly when things turn bad.

Obviously, leaving the seeds to market forces makes some of them die off. This is to be expected, and is perfectly ok. Jesus hated stimulus packages.

Some fall among thorns and grow a bit, but then are choked off by the vines.

I shouldn't need to tell you "vines" was a racial slur in Jerusalem. Jesus wasn't a fan of affirmative action.

Some fall onto fertile ground and deliver a massive return to the sower of the seeds.

The sower is a republican. You can make the correlation yourself.

So you see, you were right Razor. Jesus Christ's teachings can be interpreted and directed in any way, shape or form that you might wish. Did I not just bullshit that up on the spot? Although the message behind the scripture is always good, you will always have people trying to miscontrue the words to fit their agenda.

 

[RockFan89]

There is one significant difference between socialism and Jesus' message, FORCE.

Jesus never forced anyone to give to the poor, clothe the naked, feed the hungry etc. He never took from one person to give to another.

Socialism is the government forcibly taking from one person and giving to another person they deem as more deserving.

Jesus never complained that Caesar wasn't doing enough to take care of the poor, that is a duty he put on the individual. Don't look at others to do this, YOU take care of them.

The term "Social Justice" also suggests that those who are poor are so because they are being oppressed by the rich. It implies that people who are poor are victims of their circumstances and not of their own choices (I know there are many who are poor because of things outside of their control, but lets be honest, most are poor because of their own choices with drugs, getting pregnant, dropping out of school, going to jail.) I think that is why Beck objects to the term. "Social Justice" causes people to think of class warfare.

 

[Барбоса]

Jesus of Nazareth was not a socialist; certainly not in a modern, political sense if only because he had no political agenda of any sort. This was why the Romans had such a problem trying and then executing him; he had not broken the law. Even his supposed claim to be King of the Jews was not enough for him to be crucified.

He was the ultimate pacifist humanitarian for he preached unconditional love for all and refused to overtly criticise those who did not follow his lead.

Pontius Pilate himself recognised that this man before him was had done nothing wrong and was extremely reluctant to find him guilty of anything. Only Jewish interference forced the Prefect to act against his own reluctance

 

[FromTheSouth]

Glen Beck is right. Forcing charity on people is a violation of property rights. It's my money, damn it. It's not yours. It's not a homeless guy's. It's mine. If I choose to help the destitute, then I will. If not, fuck your opinion, I won't.

Now, let's take on the classic arguments.

1. Some people are born into circumstances that [insert bullshit here.]

There is opportunity for everyone. Some people have to work harder to get to the same place, but, um, I don't care. The opportunity is there for everyone to succeed. If it takes a poor black child more work to get somewhere than a wealthy white child, that isn't my problem. Slavery ended 150 years ago. Three generations of minorities have benefited from the Civil Rights Act. At this point, someone has to have chosen to live in poverty to do so.

2. Social Justice is a euphemism for socialist.

There are several definition of justice, and the one liberals like Razor like to point to is fairness. That is not quite the definition that most people associate with justice. There are components of reciprocity (getting what one deserves) that are far more important than fairness. Life isn't fair, but for whatever reason, the left seems to leave out the parts about getting what one deserves and emphasizes the parts about everyone getting the same. That is pure bullshit. There is no way some crack mother with nine kids and no jobs deserves to live a life a comfortable as mine. She should suffer, because that is what she deserves. If her kids don't want to suffer, they should avoid crack and work harder - not take what they want from the coffers of the driven, ambitious, and successful.

3. Some people don't have to work to be rich.

Good for them. Stop being petty and get your own fucking money. It's funny how the left is so bitter about inheritances, yet dreams about winning the lottery.


Basically, this idea that social justice is a good thing is pure crap. Glen Beck is 100% right. The Nazi Party and the Commies were all about social justice - for their constituency - not for the ruling class. Social justice is nothing more than an excuse for cronyism and oligarchy. Social justice empowers no one, and keeps everyone down. Why work hard when all that means is that you have to give more away.

And finally, Jesus would not have been a socialist. He would have been a hippie. He would have endorsed communes. That is the only way his preaching comes close to applying to America or the world today. His principles for treating another individual still work, but his ideas for society at large do not apply in the lease. Let's take a look at successful Communist countries......and we're done.

 

[Барбоса]

Have to agree with FTS to a certain extent. Charity, like religion, should be a personal choice rather than something that is foisted upon you. If it is not a choice then it is not charity; it is a tax.

 

[antfarm612]

There is one significant difference between socialism and Jesus' message, FORCE..

This is exactly what I was going to post. I would think Jesus would want people to give out of the kindness of their heart, not because they're afraid of an audit.

 

[Gregor_Samsa]

Jesus being a socialist? Don't know, don't care. However it's clear to me that Socialism is the most Christian form of government.

The sentiment is the key, the motivation. Certainly using force in the name of social justice is um...sucky. But the motivation is coming from a genuine, sympathetic place.
Capitalism is the antithesis of what is believed to be Christian sentiment. Capitalism is painfully anti-Christian. Capitalism, modern capitalism at least, is fueled by greed. The idea of "fuck everyone else, this shit is mine!" It's something a horrible kid would say. The kid that hogged all the toys and bitched whenever another kid asked for an action figure. It really does bring out the worst in humanity.

 

[xmulderx]

There is one significant difference between socialism and Jesus' message, FORCE.

Jesus never forced anyone to give to the poor, clothe the naked, feed the hungry etc. He never took from one person to give to another.

Socialism is the government forcibly taking from one person and giving to another person they deem as more deserving.

That's levelling the playing field, nae deciding who is more or less deserving.
In fact, I'd argue that the way the government act today discriminates about who they think is most deserving - VAT is higher than proportional tax, so rich and poor both pay the same amount of tax on food etc. So the rich 'deserve' it more - or are allowed access to it more... or whatever way you want to swing it. Redistribution of wealth makes everyone equal.

 

[One to Remember]

Glen Beck is right. Forcing charity on people is a violation of property rights. It's my money, damn it. It's not yours. It's not a homeless guy's. It's mine. If I choose to help the destitute, then I will. If not, fuck your opinion, I won't.

Now, let's take on the classic arguments.
1. Some people are born into circumstances that [insert bullshit here.]

There is opportunity for everyone. Some people have to work harder to get to the same place, but, um, I don't care. The opportunity is there for everyone to succeed. If it takes a poor black child more work to get somewhere than a wealthy white child, that isn't my problem. Slavery ended 150 years ago. Three generations of minorities have benefited from the Civil Rights Act. At this point, someone has to have chosen to live in poverty to do so.

If someone has to work harder for something then there are (in the context of how things are in this country) a counter-force issue or an environmental/external issue. I mean after all according to you everyone is working hard just some hard so someone working could in theory not be at fault.

What does slavery have to do with this discussion the least bit? Was this thread an all too convenient excuse to air your gripes about affirmitive action, reverse racism, and other things you feel are unfair to you these days?!

When slavery ended they installed shortly there after polling taxes, grandfather clauses, black codes, and the rediculous Plessy vs. Ferguson court ruling, one of the worst in the history of the judiciary!

Civil Rights Act of 1866, the first Civil Rights act outlined what was illegal but provided NO legal penalties what so ever. Probably the most self undermining law in the history of the western world! A rottweiler without teeth. Oh and legs, and eyes..

Civil Rights Act of 1875, the forerunner to the 1965 Act was found deemed unconstitutional. It made no difference because no local law enforcement agency. It took federal military forces to enforce it.

Civil Rights Act of 1957, ineffective and altered beyond its original context so badly by Senator Eastland by its passing few Blacks actually were voting..

If slavery ended in 1865 and everything became peachy why did it take til 1965, a CENTURY aftr the great emancipation to insure the rights of Blacks? And how does that law change the attitudes of the people its trying to hold accountable or at the least in line/legally compliant? You would have to wait until the next generation begin to phase them out. So we are looking at the people who were thirty somethings between 1975 and 1980 even get the wheels of progress turning. My parents were born in 1967 and 1968 respectively.
Add to the fact that in this country wealth is transferred through hard work and almost as much through inheritance. Then the fact that studies have shown have non White names does your application no favors.

Then the fact that mobility was so destroyed in the Black community ones own grandparents couldn't leave the ghetto, the fact their parents were too broke to move, and the fact tat their kids remain. Then their are the sub par schools inner city and urban children are stuck with. A kid shouldn't have to fight social battles when his adult teeth haven't even came in yet.

These kids aint benefited from shit. No one chooses to be broke.

2. Social Justice is a euphemism for socialist.

your screen name is euphemism for White POWER!

There are several definition of justice, and the one liberals like Razor like to point to is fairness. That is not quite the definition that most people associate with justice. There are components of reciprocity (getting what one deserves) that are far more important than fairness. Life isn't fair, but for whatever reason, the left seems to leave out the parts about getting what one deserves and emphasizes the parts about everyone getting the same. That is pure bullshit. There is no way some crack mother with nine kids and no jobs deserves to live a life a comfortable as mine. She should suffer, because that is what she deserves. If her kids don't want to suffer, they should avoid crack and work harder - not take what they want from the coffers of the driven, ambitious, and successful.

Her entitlement to fairness extends to sentencing discrepancies in regards to her back ground and other variations of her drug of choice, and began and ended when she was born until the first time she sucked on pipe. You get the same as long as you remain lawful. It is also important to insure the viability of remaining lawful as a means to survival in the civilized world. No one has encouraged anarchy or outlawism but you in a scare tactic have alluded to it.

3. Some people don't have to work to be rich.

Good for them. Stop being petty and get your own fucking money. It's funny how the left is so bitter about inheritances, yet dreams about winning the lottery.

What are the origins of your funds and what has allowed you easier access to them is an issue. If a man buys a stolen dirt bike for 4 hundred dollars the police will absolutely return the dirt bike to the stolen party but will try their hardest to get your 400 dollars back. That is the difference between the system and justice. You can not use your claim of buying it to over rule is original ownership. Your hiding behind the misconduct of others yet benefitting from it through proxy.

And finally, Jesus would not have been a socialist. He would have been a hippie. He would have endorsed communes. That is the only way his preaching comes close to applying to America or the world today.

he is above politics and beyond politics. Thee is no ideology ever that could use him to their own means and not have taken him out of context at some pint to misconstrue something.

Let's take a look at successful Communist countries......and we're done.

What countries? There has never been a communist country. Oh are you going to make references to the Stalinist U.S.S.R., or the unorthodox People's Republic of China, North Korea, Albania, Yugoslavia, Cuba, North Vietnam, etc?

""Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism."
In the best interests of the broader society. So in your crack feign momma dynamic communism would merely call for her striping of parental rights and her exile or imprisonment. A communist state has no General Secretary, President of the Presidium, First Secretary, Premiers, or whatever bozo office title you can think of. Even Cuba has Fidel and now baby Fidel, Cuba can't be communist.

Most Soviet Leaders had cults of personality and lead to them trying to whitewash, critique, or modify ideological orthodoxy. In otherwords Lenin was a Leninist, Stalin was a Stalinist, Tito was a Titoist, Mao Zedong was a Maoist, etc. The governments not only ever dissolved themselves butthe belief in a vanguard which was promoted bythe likes of Lenin was not even universally accepted.

"Leninism comprises political and socialist economic theories, developed from Marxism, and Lenin's interpretations of Marxist theory within the agrarian Russian Empire of the early 20th century. Leninism reversed Marx’s order of economics over politics, allowing for a political revolution led by a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries rather than a spontaneous uprising of the working class as predicted by Karl Marx"

The reason why I do not attempt to give my two cents o the various "communist states" as we knew them as is because of the earliar references to past imperialism and nationalism.

Why I have expressed condemnation of all aspects of Soviet life and ideology I know that getting into a left vs right war is no good because the czar and the parliamentary regime that succeeded it and preceded the Bolsheviks had committed great injustices withen Russian society. I also know that internationally the U.S. is to the right and that that could in some ways associate the American right to atrocities in pre-Soviet Russia.

It is hard to analyze and comment on the issue because of the dangers of following into reactionary or counter-revolutionary camps. An ignorant man wil not understand the above sentence.

Had the U.S. not supported the French North Vietnam would had lost ground to South vIETNAM BEFORE the war had begun. Had the Serbs not strong armed Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, and Albanians in Yugoslavia and the Great Powers not had turned a blind eye in effect committing neocolonialism Yugoslavia would not had fallen to the Partisans.

Why are you making references with no legitimate point of reference? I don't likethe communist countries but i understand they gained momentum do to things we see in our everyday society taken to medieval extremes.

Jesus would not be a Communist or a Republican. He believes in the laws of the bible. The bible is not devoid of discipline or a pecking order. Jesus would be a Federalist..

 

[smokinglizard]

The problem with your original post is that it entirely begs the question.

You're using the term "socialist" in place of the word "altruist." But that's not the definition of a socialist. An altruist is a person who does good for his fellow man, which Jesus of Nazareth definitely was. A socialist, on the other hand, is a person who either a) believes that the state (i.e., the government) should own and operate all or at least most forms of production or b) a person who believes that the government should be organizing itself and the society to "advance" to true Communism as outlined by Marx and Lenin.

Jesus was neither of those things. That's the problem with this argument and line of thinking. People who favor socialist policy try to confuse people by making the inference that socialist = do good for your fellow man when, in reality, that isn't the case.

 

[Milkyway!]

I've had this debate with several people, as I'm the only Christian in my "group" of friends. The only answer, is honestly, quite simple for me. Capitalism, Democrats, Republicans, Communist, and Socialism are modern terms.

Jesus was none of them.

What/Who Jesus was, and his morals are all based off the Word of God, and the information Jesus got from following his Father's word. Nothing else mattered to Jesus.

 

[Furyof5]

Jesus Christ wasnt a socialist, he wanted those to give via their own charity not the government taking from people whom earned their money only to give it to others whom havent.

taxation and redistribution is by many people considered stealing, the only reason we dont say it in the public square is because its "government" and its their job to tax us, which is utter bullshit. If the founders inteded taxation of the masses they would have put it as a government power in the constitution, rather than the tarrifs which were originally set in place. But back to Jesus.

Jesus was not involved in the government nor did he ever say "this is how it should be run" or that "The government should take of those whom have money and give it to those whom dont". Christ asked for charitable donations, from peoples own hearts, not from a government agency.

One of the whole points of the "Give unto me what is mine and give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is to say that God and government are not the same and that he did not want to get involved in government. This is in total contradiction of the distortion of the bible of liberation theology that Liberation Theology Churches have taught throughout south america and "Black" Churches.

Just ask the Pope(Im not even a member of the Catholic sect) whom said "It is demonic not devine", or read the bible yourself, without things taken out of context. You will see that Liberation Theology is a false telling of Christianity, and that Jesus is and was no socialist.

 

[One to Remember]

Jesus Christ wasnt a socialist, he wanted those to give via their own charity not the government taking from people whom earned their money only to give it to others whom havent.

Jesus was not involved in the government nor did he ever say "this is how it should be run" or that "The government should take of those whom have money and give it to those whom dont". Christ asked for charitable donations, from peoples own hearts, not from a government agency.

This is in total contradiction of the distortion of the bible of liberation theology that Liberation Theology Churches have taught throughout south america and "Black" Churches.

What about the whole ten percent of your income thing?

I believe the bible also says respect the laws of the land.

What are you even talking about by Liberation Theology? You sound like Sean Hannity during the Rev. Wright controversy.. What does liberation theology mean and how is it taught in Black churchs? Most Black Christians naturaly lean to the right anyways.