Socialists are strongly atheistic, like Marx, Stalin, Lenin, ect etc.
Jesus was religious Jew.
case closed.
No. Jesus was not a socialist. Socialism was still more than a thousand years in the making, and much of the philosophy that informs socialism had yet to come to be. Jesus was a religious fundamentalist. He preached strict adherence to Jewish law. He did, however, recognize that greed and hoarding of wealth are immoral.
Jesus was telling a rich man to be charitable, independent of any form of government or market system.How do you then explain Luke 8:22?
Jesus was telling a rich man to be charitable, independent of any form of government or market system.
My favorite line from liberals.
Basically, confirmation?
Well I mean ****, he could have made a killing opening up a fish restaurant, he'd have barely any overhead costs.
How very un - patriotic of him to just hand out fish for free, doesn't he know he's creating liberal free loaders!
"Selling all that you have" goes well beyond being charitable. He was saying "it all goes." Sell all that you have, and give to the poor.
Funny how everybody blows past this verse in their race to point the finger at gays.
No, it's just a higher form of charity that we, in a society run by greed, is not used to. Jesus, would have known this not as "charity", but "tzedakah". Tzedakah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"Selling all that you have" goes well beyond being charitable. He was saying "it all goes." Sell all that you have, and give to the poor.
How do you then explain Luke 8:22?
Crossing a lake in a boat during a storm?
No, it's just a higher form of charity that we, in a society run by greed, is not used to. Jesus, would have known this not as "charity", but "tzedakah". Tzedakah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and again, it's independent of any form of government. He didn't say "give all your positions to the poor, unless you are a socialist, then just wait for the tax man with a 90% tax rate."
You are supposed to be charitable, regardless of what form of government you believe in. even If you believe in a 99% tax rate, government universities/stores/water parks/rent/etc for everyone, you still have the obligation to give to charity.
Tzedakah or Ṣ'daqah in Classical Hebrew (Hebrew: צדקה; Arabic: صدقة) is a Hebrew word commonly translated as charity, though it is based on the Hebrew word (צדק, tzedek) meaning righteousness, fairness or justice. In Judaism, tzedakah refers to the religious obligation to perform charity, and philanthropic acts, which Judaism emphasises are important parts of living a spiritual life; Maimonides says that, while the second highest form of tzedakah is to anonymously give donations to unknown recipients, the highest form is to give a gift, loan, or partnership that will result in the recipient supporting himself instead of living upon others. Unlike philanthropy, which is completely voluntary, tzedakah is seen as a religious obligation, which must be performed regardless of financial standing, and must even be performed by poor people; tzedakah is considered to be one of the three main acts that can annul a less than favorable heavenly decree.
Dammit, did I grab the wrong ch:vs for the right quote?
****. Luke 18:22.
/whew No, it was right in the original post. I just dropped the '1' further down.
Goshin's above quotations, which I will not repeat.
Sounds to me like a progressive tax system that helps people obtain education, health care, and the basic needs so that they can work and contribute to society. The goal of all of those social programs is to help people live as independently as possible, to help them move out of the trap of poverty and become a stable member of the middle class.
...and there is still the problem of "honesty" and "wisdom" issue, which the government lacks.Giving tzedakah anonymously to an unknown recipient via a person (or public fund) which is trustworthy, wise, and can perform acts of tzedakah with your money in a most impeccable fashion.
Sounds to me like a progressive tax system that helps people obtain education, health care, and the basic needs so that they can work and contribute to society. The goal of all of those social programs is to help people live as independently as possible, to help them move out of the trap of poverty and become a stable member of the middle class.
Those are rarely the results of the social programs we currently have... instead generation after generation still on welfare is the rule, actual financial independence the exception.
Well, if our results don't match our goals, then we need to find a better way to do that. I would suggest instead of the inefficient system we have, a great emphasis on education and job placement. Some would disagree, but I really don't think that people who can earn a living would prefer to remain on welfare. The thing we must offer is a real living, not the minimum wage existence where one can barely make their rent, and won't be able to if they get sick or injured.
Fine, but those are political views... Jesus never taught that we should institute a political system of socialism, or indeed advocated any particular political system at all. Socialism, as we consider it today, didn't exist in his era.
I know. That was my point two pages ago. However, I maintain that the best way to follow the moral precepts (or at least the one which we are discussing) he advocated would be a socialist system. Personal, voluntary charity is noble, but it is ineffective at combating systemic problems. We are all meant to be charitable and to give what we have to help others. Why not use the most effective system to make that happen?
For the same reason I would never advocate the spread of Christianity "by the sword" (ie convert or die). It takes away choice; it makes the rightousness of charity something the government does in your stead, automatically, whether you will or not, and to whom you will or not. It makes the rightousness of charity compulsory and automatic, and the individual never gets to demonstrate what he would do if left to his own choice. Or else he is left with his conscience left wanting, feeling that the government's socialism with that portion of his pay that they've taken is no proper spiritual equivalent; perhaps he will feel compelled to do further charity even though the taxation of socialism may have left him with little to begin with.
As with communism, the problem I have with socialism is the coercive part. That, and the creation of special dependency classes, the loss of independent spirit in segments of the populace, and the tendency of social programs to grow until they bankrupt the nation.... as ours are doing.
That makes a lot of sense. However, which is more important, the warm and fuzzy feeling from doing a good deed, or actually alleviating suffering? Would not the more righteous position be the one that does the most to help others? In fact, sacrificing the personal gain of feeling good about charity to make it more effective, seems more charitable. You gain nothing, and others gain more. That sounds pretty in line with the Christian notions of self-sacrifice. What we have instead with this notion of voluntariness is a whole class of people suffering so that others can feel good about offering them token support. It doesn't actually solve anything if you do it that way.
And theoretically, one could eliminate the coercive part of socialism, as you put it, simply by voting in favor of it. Suddenly, it's not coercive anymore. You agreed to it. Instead of giving a little bit every Christmas, you and everyone else collectively agree to give whatever it takes to fix problems like illiteracy and poverty. And, in fact, according to the way we do things in the US, it's not even coercive if you don't vote for it. So long as it is a democratically enacted policy, it's not coercive. Unless you take the position that a government that does things that other people vote for is coercive, but people who say that aren't really supporting democracy. They're supporting totalitarian rule by themselves.
There's really nothing inherently more moral about an individual doing something positive than a group doing it. In fact, we are a group minded species. We are tribal. We act together as part of our nature. It seems rather short sighted that a person cannot support a good system and feel good about it, and gain spiritual satisfaction from it. To do so takes the mentality that inaction is not a choice. To sit idly by and do nothing is just as much of a choice as the one to take action. I cannot see how there is no spiritual fulfillment in knowing that the fruits of your labor assist in the collective effort to improve the lives of millions of others.
How is that actually working out for us, Paschendale? We have generational dependency, loss of family cohesion due to welfare policies that discourage marriage and permanent partnering, and the creation of a permanent underclass that always clamors for more bennies but never seems to rise above their dependency or poverty, as a whole. If we, as a society, had programs that demonstrated large-scale positive results in getting people out of poverty and dependency and into the self-supporting class, I might feel rather differently about it. If the nation weren't on the verge of bankruptcy and if more than half the deficit wasn't a result of social programs, it might seem more viable. If socialism actually helped produce a larger independent middle-class instead of a larger dependent class.... well you get the picture.
Intentions are all very well and good, but results matter too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?