Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's easy to be a socialist when your means of production are miracles. Everyone can have a loaf of bread and a fish when there's no end to them.

All out of wine? The Son of God can take care of that.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I assume the Church has some kind of checking to prevent freeloaders from grabbing all the alms.

There is another question of what needing money or alms means in modern society. For example, is a cooker an essential of life, a cooker, a TV, a car?

Not much more than asking the individual questions about search for jobs, bills, etc. I love the church that I get together with, but sometimes we just give money when the person probably needs something different (counseling, food (as opposed to just cash)). I get the feeling that some churches give money instead of spending time with a person or actually serving them (watching kids, preparing meals, just hanging out) as a way to put on a good face without actually getting to close to the issues.

For example, a friend of mine loses his girlfriend to a missile in Afghanistan. The church was going to send him some gift certificates for restaurants, but me and a friend thought "boy, I bet he would rather hang out and talk about this gak instead of eating out alone." It seemed like a cop out to me, a way to look like service while ignoring the true issues.

Da Boss wrote:Hahahahah!
Must be a slow day at the office Fraz, you're making work for yourself, are you?

Not slow but this is an interesting topic to me.

Unless I've totally missed something, Jesus preached charity, not socialism. Socialism is a form of government/economics, and Jesus has said maddeningly little about politics. He did famously say "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," implying to me at least that his followers were to still obey the laws of man.

Socialism works by taking, by force or threat of force, wealth from some people and transfers it to others. Nearly all governments now are somewhat socialist, even our own. Modern day socialist states, including western europe, tend to emphasize "cradle to grave" support, so that a person can always count on a place to live and food to eat.

That's just not what Jesus preached. He preached charity, the helping of the poor by the rich, and he linked aid to the poor to holy works "whatsoever you do to the least, that you do unto me," but Jesus never said "take what the poor need from the rich."

Most attempts to peg Jesus into any sort of politics ends poorly. He simply wasn't overly interested in groups of people and how they act. Even for the church, all he really did was appoint Peter the "rock" of the church, but that seemed to come with no real authority.

As for the early churches, they were meant to represent large families, not small nation states. It's not socialism when Dad buys Junior a coat or Mom give him a meal. Same thing with a wealthy church member giving the same to a poor member.

Well, I tried to read the original post, but stopped after this:

Christian property rights were not and are not the same thing as socialist property rights were a man has no claim to material possessions, and the needy have claim on the possessions of others.

Right off the bat:
1) Socialism neither denies individual property rights, nor provides a claim for the needy to the possession of others.
2) There is no such thing as 'Christian property rights'. The Bible speaks to the defense of what one has, but never explicitly discusses what is legitimate possession.

I expect the rest was more of a thinly disguised rage against socialism, rather than an argument that Jesus was not a socialist.

Really the whole thing is kind of silly.

Jesus was not a socialist, because Jesus was about faith, and socialism has nothing to do with faith. The most the J-man has to say about politics and the economy is, as Polonius said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." But that isn't an endorsement of the state so much as it is a reminder to coexist with laws other than those of God (in the event that they do not offend God, and his laws, under certain interpretations).

Envy89 wrote:But there is a fundamental difference in a church taking in donations and deciding on who NEEDS the help... I.E. the guy who just lost his job, and needs help while he is out of work and looking for a new job.

and a governmental system that takes your money, and gives it out to those who claim they need help... yes, the guy you just lost his job and is looking for a new one will still get some help... but so will the guy who has been "unemployed" for 5 years.

And?

I mean, I could get into relative percentages of abuse, but I don't feel like digging up the statistics at the moment. Suffice it to say 'abuse' has very little to do with the problems we're having with welfare.

Also, I'm pretty sure someone who has been 'unemployed' for 5 years can't collect unemployment.

Envy89 wrote:
You know... the people who go to wal-mart and pull out a massive wad of cash to buy video games, movies, smokes, and booze... then a city-link card to buy food with. Something I have seen more then a few times.

So, because they shop at wal-mart with massive wads of cash they must be unemployed?

The gist of what I got from the article was that while not advocating socialism in a modern sense, he would much rather approve of us all simply living to acquire more worldly assets and wealth to hoard or squander.

Remember, Jesus says that contributing to a social program so that unemployed folks, their dependents, or those who have had their insurance claims denied for ridiculous reasons,might be granted the most basic health care coverage is bad!! /sarcasm

Envy89 wrote:
Now in the context of our day and time, Jesus would not endorse social/government medicine. Jesus endorsed a system of giving that was administered by the church and which is fundamentally different from the government social program that universal health care requires. A simple answer to a very complex issue. Hopefully any believers reading this will be able to encompass some of my ideas and use them to elaborate on that answer. And for non believers, I hope that you can at least understand that Christians are not, are not required to be, and in most ways are opposed to socialists and social programs. You may obviously disagree, but I challenge you to see a difference in disagreeing with underlying assumptions about the world that make you disagree with Christianity in general, and disagreeing with the conclusion that the underlying Christian assumptions do not support socialism. I think many of the disagreements on the topic are actually people angry with the underlying assumptions and beliefs of Christianity more than people struggling with why Christians are opposed to social programs.

He never told anyone how to pool their money. He stated that a person giving all they had to the temple to devote themselves to God was a good thing.

He simplified the commandments into two very simple commandments.

1. One should love Yahweh with one's entire heart, soul, mind, and strength
2. One should love one's neighbor as one would love oneself

Neither of these can be seen as an explicit rejection of socialism (like capitalism a concept which would not arise until two millennium had passed).

As a Christian of the Canadian Anglican persuasion I explicitly reject the main theses of the overlong somewhat verbose tripe that was presented:
1. Not all Christians reject Socialized medicine or public forms of welfare. Many Christians believe that social programs of various natures are good things. The founder of Canadian medicare Tommy Douglas was a Baptist preacher.
2. Jesus who was born at a time and place very different from our own and did not ever endorse an economic model, nor did His Church.

Further to that, capitalism would, without a doubt, present an equal number of challenges to justify.

Edit to remove unneeded jokes and say more seriously. I don't think Jesus was a socialist or a capitalist. He opposed greed, which really is the underlying theme of capitalism as it's practiced today. My personal belief as a Christian is that He does not want people to starve or die in agony, and so that is why I as a Christian am in favour of Social programs.

Polonius wrote:Unless I've totally missed something, Jesus preached charity, not socialism. Socialism is a form of government/economics, and Jesus has said maddeningly little about politics. He did famously say "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," implying to me at least that his followers were to still obey the laws of man.

Socialism works by taking, by force or threat of force, wealth from some people and transfers it to others. Nearly all governments now are somewhat socialist, even our own. Modern day socialist states, including western europe, tend to emphasize "cradle to grave" support, so that a person can always count on a place to live and food to eat.

That's just not what Jesus preached. He preached charity, the helping of the poor by the rich, and he linked aid to the poor to holy works "whatsoever you do to the least, that you do unto me," but Jesus never said "take what the poor need from the rich."

Most attempts to peg Jesus into any sort of politics ends poorly. He simply wasn't overly interested in groups of people and how they act. Even for the church, all he really did was appoint Peter the "rock" of the church, but that seemed to come with no real authority.

As for the early churches, they were meant to represent large families, not small nation states. It's not socialism when Dad buys Junior a coat or Mom give him a meal. Same thing with a wealthy church member giving the same to a poor member.

I have quoted this post, written by another person, to show that I also believe it to be true.

Some think that charity means personal charity, others think that if one has some say over the system int is than a moral imperative to make the system more charitable. This really isn't that complicated.

Besides we all know Jesus was an environmentalist member of the Green Party.

efarrer wrote:I don't think Jesus was a socialist or a capitalist. He opposed greed, which really is the underlying theme of capitalism as it's practiced today.

The desire for more material things is the underlying theme for any economic system though, isn't it?

I think Jesus would be in opposition to any preoccupation with economics. You can't take wealth into heaven, no matter how you recieve it.

The OP was very interesting. I think that if we could ask Jesus about socialism, he would tell us how unimportant the subject is in regards to eternaty. This is of course my personal opinion, I am in no way claiming to know what an omniscient being thinks. Although from what I know of Karl Marx, He and Jesus would not get along.

Also, what I believe Jesus meant by "give unto Caesar what is caesar's" is simply pay your taxes, I think God wants us to follow any laws of man that are both ethical and fair, but any laws that don't fall into this category should be disregarded.

Finally just to lighten the mood, Jesus was a libertarian, like all great men.

I'm going to have to agree with Polonius here. If he did exist : )

In addition, he was the worlds first Jewish Zombie... (except for Lazarus maybe?)

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Polonius here. If he did exist : )

In addition, he was the worlds first Jewish Zombie... (except for Lazarus maybe?)

Well I've heard theres more evidence to Jesus's existance than Juius Caesar. Not sure on the source though. Whether you believe he was the messiah or not, it's hard to deny some dude named Jesus existed at some point. Even muslims, among other religious groups agree that Jesus was a real person.

I know there's more evidence for Old King Cole's existence than King Arthur's.

(That's not too surprising though. It's not like Old King Cole is a particularly strange character.)

Wasn't he just a merry old soul? and a merry old soul was he? I don't know much else about him.

Norwulf wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Polonius here. If he did exist : )

In addition, he was the worlds first Jewish Zombie... (except for Lazarus maybe?)

Well I've heard theres more evidence to Jesus's existance than Juius Caesar. Not sure on the source though. Whether you believe he was the messiah or not, it's hard to deny some dude named Jesus existed at some point. Even muslims, among other religious groups agree that Jesus was a real person.

I will resist the thoughts/Urge of taking this OT : )

I was simply saying how I agreed with him

I don't think any respected academic has ever denied the reality of a man named Jesus. It is usually fringe 'historians' like ones that are holocaust deniers.

Norwulf wrote:Wasn't he just a merry old soul? and a merry old soul was he? I don't know much else about him.

He smoked a pipe.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Norwulf wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Polonius here. If he did exist : )

In addition, he was the worlds first Jewish Zombie... (except for Lazarus maybe?)

Well I've heard theres more evidence to Jesus's existance than Juius Caesar. Not sure on the source though. Whether you believe he was the messiah or not, it's hard to deny some dude named Jesus existed at some point. Even muslims, among other religious groups agree that Jesus was a real person.

I will resist the thoughts/Urge of taking this OT : )

I was simply saying how I agreed with him

Oh okay, you meant if Polonius existed, gotchya. *giggle*

And yes, I for the most part, think Polonius got this one right. I kinda-sorta disagree slightly about the ginving unto caesar bit, thats it.

I answer the topic...
Jeus is a socilist basturd and KILLED MANY NAVTIVE AMERICANS
I am sorry, but I would rather die than belive Jeus
Ha HA HAHAHAHA, I CAN'T GO TO HELL AHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i spell his deathly name wrong...he shall not receive proper spelling!

Polonius basically nailed the issue. Socialism is a view of economic structures and the role of government. Christianity is guide to how an individual should lead his life. It’s frankly nonsense to proscribe economic views to any historical figures before Smith, people simply didn’t address those issues in anything like modern terms. Even Marx is hard to properly consider in modern economic terms, as the field still was very new at that time (indeed, he was creating much of it).

Envy89, I will tell you that your understanding of socialism is very limited. I can go through your post and point out the errors, but it would take a while and I’m not certain you’d be that receptive. If you’re genuinely interested I’ll do it.

Norwulf wrote:Well I've heard theres more evidence to Jesus's existance than Juius Caesar. Not sure on the source though. Whether you believe he was the messiah or not, it's hard to deny some dude named Jesus existed at some point. Even muslims, among other religious groups agree that Jesus was a real person.

Yeah, umm, that’s just wrong. When you say ‘even muslims’ you’re missing a whole lot of context. Islam came out of the religious tradition of Abraham, and shares much in common in terms of early religious figures. This includes Jesus.

There is simply no material proof Jesus existed. Nor should any be expected, we’ve got large historical blackspots over entire kingdoms and their rulers, it shouldn’t be a surprise a rabbi with a small following wouldn’t leave a lot of evidence after his passing.

We do know a lot about the time, and the story of a rabbi travelling the countryside, building a following while arguing subversive politics is certainly very plausible. But in terms of actual evidence, there’s none.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think any respected academic has ever denied the reality of a man named Jesus. It is usually fringe 'historians' like ones that are holocaust deniers.

I don't think there's any respected work going in to the issue, one way or the other. How would you disprove the existance of a rabbi 2,000 years ago? And if you wanted to prove it, what sort of evidence would such a person leave behind?

It's an historical non-issue.

Well, I think the analogy would be that we don't spend a lot of time questioning figures mentioned in ancient histories written decades or centuries after the events they describe. The gospels themselves are full of some pretty mystical stuff, but it's not that out of control compared to some of the stuff written about figures in the ancient world.

Seeing as we live in a world where we apparently aren't sure where a person born 50 years ago was actually born, reality can sometimes feel more malleable than we like.

As for my reality, well, if I were fictional I'd be far more interesting, I would imagine.

I'm well aware of how Islam got it's start, what I'm saying is this: Muslims dont believe Jesus was the son of God, but they do believe he was a real person.

Your right though, as far as I know there is no physical proof of Jesus's existance. IDK if they still have any roman census records from that period, (that's the best piece of evidence I imagine could be found). My point was that it is highly likely, a jewish guy from Nazereth named Jesus did infact exist, and most people whether they believe he was the messiah or not, agree that he probably existed.

The part about Caesar was just something I heard, like I said I don't know the source. I wasn't claiming it to be a fact. I was told there is little physical evidence of Julius Caesar existing, I still believe he did in fact rule Rome at one time though. I also believe that England once had a king named Arthur at some point, whether or not he hung out with a wizard and had had a sword named excalibur.

I heard that the Romans had a record of his execution, actually, but I don't know from where.

Humans are socialists. Many of us are just very, very bad socialists.

Well, Muslims believe that Jesus was a holy person, or a prophet of sorts. It's not shocking that they'd believe he existed, as he's a relatively major figure in their theology, similar to say Isiah is to Christians.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Humans are socialists. Many of us are just very, very bad socialists.

Humans are fascists. Many of us are just very, very bad fascists.

Humans are Muslims. Many of us are just very, very bad Muslims.

Humans are X. Many of us are just very, very bad X.

Polonius wrote:Well, Muslims believe that Jesus was a holy person, or a prophet of sorts. It's not shocking that they'd believe he existed, as he's a relatively major figure in their theology, similar to say Isiah is to Christians.

I've heard they view him as a prophet as well. I had a muslim boss at my last job and asked her after work at some point on what she thought of Jesus, she said she viewed him more as a philosopher and valued the way he said to treat people. She didn't believe him to be divine in any way though.

Honestly, before this thread. I had never heard of Jesus being a socialist.

Norwulf wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, Muslims believe that Jesus was a holy person, or a prophet of sorts. It's not shocking that they'd believe he existed, as he's a relatively major figure in their theology, similar to say Isiah is to Christians.

I've heard they view him as a prophet as well. I had a muslim boss at my last job and asked her after work at some point on what she thought of Jesus, she said she viewed him more as a philosopher and valued the way he said to treat people. She didn't believe him to be divine in any way though.

Honestly, before this thread. I had never heard of Jesus being a socialist.

Pretty much. He's respected for helping to spread monotheism and for preaching humility towards god, the idea that salvation comes only through divine grace.

sebster wrote:There is simply no material proof Jesus existed. Nor should any be expected, we’ve got large historical black spots over entire kingdoms and their rulers, it shouldn’t be a surprise a rabbi with a small following wouldn’t leave a lot of evidence after his passing.

We do know a lot about the time, and the story of a rabbi traveling the countryside, building a following while arguing subversive politics is certainly very plausible. But in terms of actual evidence, there’s none.

And the mention of Christ in Flavius Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" doesn't count because?

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think any respected academic has ever denied the reality of a man named Jesus. It is usually fringe 'historians' like ones that are holocaust deniers.

I don't think there's any respected work going in to the issue, one way or the other. How would you disprove the existence of a rabbi 2,000 years ago? And if you wanted to prove it, what sort of evidence would such a person leave behind?

It's an historical non-issue.

I personally consider it to be a major issue. There is arguably no one who has had a greater impact on world history. Whether or not he existed would seem to be a major historical sticking point, and as Ahtman said, few historians would doubt the existence of the man named Jesus of Nazareth.