Jesus was a Socialist (1 Viewer)

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The point is not that "oh, it's voluntary, I don't have to." The point is that having wealth, pursuing it, and hoarding it are elements of a sinful person. Most people who have wealth hurt other people in order to get it, and in keeping their wealth and not sharing it with others, they do more harm. That harm sends you to hell. That's the message. Very simply.

Hoarding is sinful, but how is pursuit of wealth is inherently harmful toward others?

 

[Guy Incognito]

No, he said money had a good chance of sending you to Hell.

Yeah, exactly the same chance that a camel won't fit through the eye of a needle, i.e., it's a certainty.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Hoarding is sinful, but how is pursuit of wealth is inherently harmful toward others?

Because pursuing wealth necessarily puts oneself in front of others. There is no way of pursuing wealth without being selfish, hence it is sinful.

 

[MsTatianna2U]

The gospel of Jesus Christ is, at its core, one of voluntary virtue. Being forced at gunpoint to support others is not virtue at all — it is unabashed theft. Very simply.

 

[MsTatianna2U]

He also taught, “Thou shalt not steal.” Interestingly, contemporary liberals and socialists break one of His laws in order to fulfill another. They justify theft in the name of charity — ironically rendering charity obsolete in the process.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Because pursuing wealth necessarily puts oneself in front of others. There is no way of pursuing wealth without being selfish, hence it is sinful.

If I sell a million widgets, I make a lot of money, and people who buy the product are made happier by my product. Capitalism may have selfish intent, but utilitarian benefit. Now if I hoard all of my money, that's one thing, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation wasn't exactly founded by a pauper. Remember, Jesus was preaching at a time when much of the upper crust's wealth came from taxes, a burden mostly shouldered by the poor.

 

[Guy Incognito]

If I sell a million widgets, I make a lot of money, and people who buy the product are made happier by my product. Capitalism may have selfish intent, but utilitarian benefit. Now if I hoard all of my money, that's one thing, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation wasn't exactly founded by a pauper. Remember, Jesus was preaching at a time when much of the upper crust's wealth came from taxes, a burden mostly shouldered by the poor.

Jesus said to give up everything you own and follow Him, not just a percentage of your enormous wealth but everything. He was pretty clear about it, there isn't room for debate. That's too hard for most people. Virtue is difficult, sin is easy.

Everybody tries to rationalize their sin, but Jesus wasn't a utilitarian. The man who sells a million widgets may make a million people happy, but until he gives up his wealth entirely he'll never enter the Kingdom. That's just the way it is.

 

[Harshaw]

Didn't ever say could never enter the Kingdom. Only said it was hard to do so.

There's a simple reason for that. I suggest you reflect harder and see if you can come up with what. Hint: it's addressed in the Catholic Act of Contrition.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Didn't ever say could never enter the Kingdom. Only said it was hard to do so.

Yes, it is harder than a camel fitting through the eye of a needle. You may not be aware, but that is impossible. Have you ever see a camel? Have you ever seen the eye of a needle?

There's a simple reason for that. I suggest you reflect harder and see if you can come up with what. Hint: it's addressed in the Catholic Act of Contrition.

Penance only works if you truly resolve to cease the sinful act in the future. Confessing your greed with the firm intent of holding onto your wealth accomplishes nothing.

 

[SheWolf]

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, it is harder than a camel fitting through the eye of a needle. You may not be aware, but that is impossible. Have you ever see a camel? Have you ever seen the eye of a needle?

That's a mistranslation; the actual original word was "rope." Hard, not impossible. The point remains the same.

Penance only works if you truly resolve to cease the sinful act in the future. Confessing your greed with the firm intent of holding onto your wealth accomplishes nothing.

I wasn't referring to penance.

You need to study up.

 

[Guy Incognito]

That's a mistranslation; the actual original word was "rope." Hard, not impossible. The point remains the same.

Not at all. τρήματος βελόνης is literally "eye of a needle." Feel free to look it up.

I wasn't referring to penance.

You need to study up.

Perhaps I should study up, but penance is inextricable from contrition. True contrition requires penance and the firm will to sin no more. If you intend to keep your wealth you have the first element of contrition but not the second.

 

[Harshaw]

Not at all. τρήματος βελόνης is literally "eye of a needle." Feel free to look it up.

:roll:

"Rope," as in, not "camel." Good grief. Do I really have to explain everything?

Perhaps I should study up, but penance is inextricable from contrition. True contrition requires penance and the firm will to sin no more.

No, champ. I said the idea behind why it's difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom is contained with the Catholic Act of Contrition, a prayer.

If you intend to keep your wealth you have the first element of contrition but not the second.

No, it is entirely possible to have wealth and not sin. Wealth in and of itself is not sin.

The reason why it's difficult is, well . . . see if you can figure it out. But it really is, quite literally, third grade catechism stuff.

 

[SheWolf]

what language is that?

 

[Guy Incognito]

:roll:

"Rope," as in, not "camel." Good grief. Do I really have to explain everything?

The Koine word κάμηλον, or "camelon" is pretty well understood to mean camel. The argument that it means rope is fatuous.

No, it is entirely possible to have wealth and not sin. Wealth in and of itself is not sin.

Let's not equivocate. Money itself isn't a sin, it is an inanimate object. It is the possession of money to the exclusion of others in need it that is the sin. Possessing wealth necessarily means denying another person, and this is the sin.

 

[Guy Incognito]

what language is that?

Koine Greek.

 

[WeAreReborn]

He also taught, “Thou shalt not steal.” Interestingly, contemporary liberals and socialists break one of His laws in order to fulfill another. They justify theft in the name of charity — ironically rendering charity obsolete in the process.

Your ignorance of Socialism is apparent. Anyways, what is more worthy of being labeled theft then making million/billions off of the labor of others?

 

[Harshaw]

The Koine word κάμηλον, or "camelon" is pretty well understood to mean camel. The argument that it means rope is fatuous.

Hardly. The text is different between different gospels, and as these things were not written by their "authors" but handed down, later texts have the word "kamêlos" -- rope or cable -- instead. This makes much more sense and pretty easy to see how, after being passed down orally, it could be mistranslated.

And the "needle" in question was generally understood to be a six-inch carpet needle.

But that's neither here nor there -- the point is, it's difficult, but not impossible.

Let's not equivocate. Money itself isn't a sin, it is an inanimate object. It is the possession of money to the exclusion of others in need it that is the sin. Possessing wealth necessarily means denying another person, and this is the sin.

You keep using the word "equivocate" in ways that signal 1) you don't really know what it means, and 2) you're about to equivocate yourself. It only pops up when you want to claim you weren't actually saying what you just said, just as you do here.

But, as you're not bothering to go find this out by yourself (big surprise), the whole point is that being wealthy will subject you to great temptation, and it's very, very hard not to give in to great temptation. The richer you are, the more you'll probably give in. As I said, the last line of the Act of Contrition contains a promise to "avoid the near occasion of sin" -- temptation -- as the best way to avoid sin.

It's not about simply having the wealth. (By that standard, by New Testament standards, you're fabulously wealthy, so you probably shouldn't be so self-righteous about it, anyway . . . )

Like I said, third grade catechism stuff. There are 8 year-olds who understand this lesson.

 

[ksu_aviator]

LOL, I just read the definition of libertarian socialism (because it sounded made up to me) and on the surface it sounds like the philosophy of Jesus. However, this tread was started based on the word socialist and only the word socialist...so the OP was intentionally misleading. It seems that the OP was intended to challenge conservative values by creating a tenuous connection between Jesus and socialism. That is not accurate.

The term is actually a made up term. At its root, libertarian socialism is a Utopian state of anarchy. It is not a branch of socialism or libertarianism. It is an anarchical state in which everyone gets along. Even Jesus never expected everyone to get along...not on this Earth any way. It also presupposes that there is no form of government. Jesus never once said that there should not be government.

I'm sorry, but I have no affinity for made up terms referring to fantastical dreams with no chance of realism.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Hardly. The text is different between different gospels, and as these things were not written by their "authors" but handed down, later texts have the word "kamêlos" -- rope or cable -- instead. This makes much more sense and pretty easy to see how, after being passed down orally, it could be mistranslated.

Incorrect on all counts. Luke, for instance, was almost certainly written by a single author. Luke ( κάμηλον διὰ τρήματος βελόνης ) and Matthew (κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος) use precisely the same language for the word "camel."

You are also wrong with respect to the words "camlos" and "camelon" having different meanings. You may recall that Greek is a declined language. The word "camelos" is the nominative and the word "camelon" is the accusative of the same word, which means camel and not rope. Furthermore, the expression "like a camel/elephant passing through the eye of a needle" to refer to something that was impossible was a common colloquialism in that region and era in history. There is simply no dispute on this point.

And the "needle" in question was generally understood to be a six-inch carpet needle.

I'd like to see your evidence for this. Regardless, I don't see how a camel is going to fit through a six inch carpet needle either.

You keep using the word "equivocate" in ways that signal 1) you don't really know what it means, and 2) you're about to equivocate yourself. It only pops up when you want to claim you weren't actually saying what you just said, just as you do here.

Allow me to explain; I was indeed equivocating as to the meaning of "wealth" being sinful. As I have explained, wealth in and of itself is not sinful, but possession of wealth is. You and I were both equivocating, using wealth to mean both the item and the possession of that item.

 

[Kali]

Jesus was a Peaceful Hippie Revolutionist

 

[ksu_aviator]

Jesus said to give up everything you own and follow Him, not just a percentage of your enormous wealth but everything. He was pretty clear about it, there isn't room for debate. That's too hard for most people. Virtue is difficult, sin is easy.

Everybody tries to rationalize their sin, but Jesus wasn't a utilitarian. The man who sells a million widgets may make a million people happy, but until he gives up his wealth entirely he'll never enter the Kingdom. That's just the way it is.

That is so wrong. Jesus did say to follow him, but he never told everyone to give up everything. He chose one man and asked him to give up everything to spread the word of God, and the man could not part with his possesions. It was not a command for everyone to give up everything, but an example of not putting God above everything. For crying out loud, if everyone gave up everything, we'd all be sitting around naked in a field.

 

[Guy Incognito]

That is so wrong. Jesus did say to follow him, but he never told everyone to give up everything. He chose one man and asked him to give up everything to spread the word of God, and the man could not part with his possesions. It was not a command for everyone to give up everything, but an example of not putting God above everything. For crying out loud, if everyone gave up everything, we'd all be sitting around naked in a field.

I'm sad to see people going through such complex mental gymnastics to avoid to plain meaning of Jesus's teachings. Jesus didn't just tell one man to give up everything he owned, he told everybody the same thing. He told his disciples that if they were robbed to give up their cloaks, too. He said that when you get slapped you should turn the other cheek for them to slap too. Jesus was quite radical, and he was no utilitarian. You might very well be right about sitting naked in a field, frankly it's idle speculation what would happen if we all lived up to Jesus's teachings. The fact is that He taught what He taught: radical compassion. People who don't like what is entailed by this radical compassion often try to reinterpret His teachings, in order rationalize their sin. But they should really question whether or not they are actually Christians.

 

[joe six-pack]

While I've heard some arguments against this on the website I can refute them. Of course he was not a statist Marxist but he was definitely a libertarian socialist.

Christs beliefs were complex. You could certainly make the argument for Libertarian, but I think it's more complex than that.

- Christ was pro taxes. In response to whether or not taxes were fair, he said, "Render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, render onto God what is God's"

- On weath, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Mat 19:21)

I suppose you could make the argument for a Libertarian Socialist, Christ sort of was an anarchist--in terms of anti-esstablishment. But then there is this...

1 Peter 2:18

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Would a Libertarian Socialist make that argument?