• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Was Jesus a Socialist?

Well... let's back up a couple of pages...


Like I said... quibbling aside....

None of the quotes you posted has me saying that Jesus said it was required. Jesus was clear that the choice to obey Gods Will was a matter of free will, and that salvation required a person to freely accept it.



Well, earlier you said "and the rich today are making idols of their wealth"... you don't know what might be an idol to a man until you know him rather well, unless you read minds... or make broad assumptions based on limited data.

I do not need to know the mind of every rich person to make a generalization.

It was a simple question.... you don't have to answer if you don't want to. Of course, a refusal to answer is an answer of sorts in itself.

No, it's not. But you can think whatever you want for whatever reasons you want. There is no requirement that posters restrict their opinions to reasonable ones.
 
Very well.

"Liberation theology", I assume? That isn't exactly mainstream.

No, Catholicism, which puts an emphasis on the Social Gospel. Last time I looked, it was (one of the?) largest group of christians in the US
 
No, Catholicism, which puts an emphasis on the Social Gospel. Last time I looked, it was (one of the?) largest group of christians in the US


Okay. Does the Catholic church, today, teach (as established doctrine) the following:

Jesus advocated for much more than simple charity. He proposed that the rich sell EVERYTHING they owned. It was a warning about accumulating material wealth when others were going without the basic necessities


According to Jesus, if you didn't sell off your excess wealth and give it to the poor, you would be damned to Hell. That sounds pretty coercive to me.
 
None of the quotes you posted has me saying that Jesus said it was required. Jesus was clear that the choice to obey Gods Will was a matter of free will, and that salvation required a person to freely accept it.

Very well.







I do not need to know the mind of every rich person to make a generalization.


But I assume you are aware that generalizations are often stereotypes, and rarely without exception?



No, it's not. But you can think whatever you want for whatever reasons you want. There is no requirement that posters restrict their opinions to reasonable ones.

:shrug: As you wish. It's simply that I've never known anyone who was a follower of Christ who was not quick to say "Yes I am!" when asked. It's kind of a commandment, you know: public confession of faith. But, you need not answer if you do not wish to.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Does the Catholic church, today, teach (as established doctrine) the following:

Some do, some don't

As I've said before, different people can have different views on what Jesus' teaching meant. They are like a jewel, their true beauty can only be seen when viewed from many angles. \
 
Yes it does, unless you're not too fond of democracy and the ideological justifications for democracy

I am fond of democracy. People make choices as individuals not as a collectives. Christ never gave any indication that people should put all decisions concerning personal faith to a vote.
 
Very well.


But I assume you are aware that generalizations are often stereotypes, and rarely without exception?

There are many exceptions. Generalizations are often true. Humans have two legs and two feet. Not all do, but the statement is generally true. I can make an unlimited # of such generalizations that are generally true






:shrug: As you wish. It's simply that I've never known anyone who was a follower of Christ who was not quick to say "Yes I am!" when asked. It's kind of a commandment, you know: public confession of faith. But, you need not answer if you do not wish to.
[/QUOTE]

Your experiences are anecdotes. Anecdotes are not representative of the diversity of belief that exists. There are those who takes Jesus' admonition to express ones' belief in private (ex pray in your closet) more seriously than others. Some prefer to let their actions speak for their christianity instead of merely asserting it
 
Some do, some don't

As I've said before, different people can have different views on what Jesus' teaching meant. They are like a jewel, their true beauty can only be seen when viewed from many angles. \


It would appear that the current Pope is not overly fond of political Marxism, or using Jesus as a means of promoting socialism.

Reaction within the Catholic ChurchIn 1984, it was reported that a meeting occurred between Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the CELAM bishops, during which a rift developed between Ratzinger and some of the bishops.[21] As mentioned above, Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) issued official condemnations of certain elements of liberation theology in 1984 and 1986.[25][26]

After this, and throughout the 1990s, Ratzinger, as prefect of the CDF, continued to condemn these elements in liberation theology, and prohibited dissident priests from teaching such doctrines in the Catholic Church's name. Leonardo Boff was suspended and others were censured. Tissa Balasuriya, in Sri Lanka, was excommunicated. Sebastian Kappen, an Indian theologian, was also censured for his book Jesus and Freedom.[30] Under Cardinal Ratzinger's influence, theological formation schools were forbidden from using the Catholic Church's organization and grounds to teach liberation theology in the sense of theology using unacceptable Marxist ideas, not in the broader sense.

In August, 1984 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated that liberation theology has a major flaw in that it attempts to apply Christ's teaching on the sermon on the mount regarding the poor to present social situations.[15] Ratzinger believes that Christ's teaching on the poor means that we will be judged when we die, and at the final judgment, with particular attention to how we personally have treated the poor.

Another aberration in liberation theology, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, is that the spiritual concept of the Church as "People of God" is transformed into a "Marxist myth." In liberation theology, the "people is the antithesis of the hierarchy, the antithesis of all institutions, which are seen as oppressive powers. Ultimately anyone who participates in the class struggle is a member of the "people"; the "Church of the people" becomes the antagonist of the hierarchical Church."[15]


Liberation theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I am fond of democracy. People make choices as individuals not as a collectives. Christ never gave any indication that people should put all decisions concerning personal faith to a vote.

In a democracy, individuals make some choices collectively though the democratic process. And I did not say that Jesus said anything about politics, at least, not in this thread.
 
There are many exceptions. Generalizations are often true. Humans have two legs and two feet. Not all do, but the statement is generally true. I can make an unlimited # of such generalizations that are generally true


Perhaps so. However, knowing whether someone makes an idol of their wealth is a much more tricky business, as it involves their mental state, emotional attachments, spiritual state and other things that are far less obvious.



Your experiences are anecdotes. Anecdotes are not representative of the diversity of belief that exists. There are those who takes Jesus' admonition to express ones' belief in private (ex pray in your closet) more seriously than others. Some prefer to let their actions speak for their christianity instead of merely asserting it

Jesus did indeed condemn excessive public religiosity, where it was "done for show" to win the approval of men. He said of such people "verily, they have their reward" (the approval of the public; but not the approval of God). Congratulations, you do know some scripture.

I don't know of anyone, however, who interprets that to mean "refuse to answer whether you are a Christian, when asked by someone during a discussion about Christian theology." Many theologians believe a Christian is obligated to confess Christ publically when asked... "if you deny me before men, I will deny you before my Heavenly Father", and so forth. As I said, though, I am no longer asking, simply clarifying a point of theology.
 
Socialism is not Marxism

Debateable. Marx, IIRC, saw socialism as a stepping-stone towards full communism.

At any rate, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) appeared to express disapproval of taking Jesus' teachings on personal responsibilities and trying to apply them to systems of government.
 
Last edited:
Debateable. Marx, IIRC, saw socialism as a stepping-stone towards full communism.

At any rate, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) appeared to express disapproval of taking Jesus' teachings on personal responsibilities and trying to apply them to systems of government.

Careful. Marx also saw capitalism as one of the 'stepping stones towards full communism', too.
 
Careful. Marx also saw capitalism as one of the 'stepping stones towards full communism', too.

:lol: Well, regardless, this is my "stepping stone" towards leaving DP in favor of dinner. Have fun y'all. ;)
 
Perhaps so. However, knowing whether someone makes an idol of their wealth is a much more tricky business, as it involves their mental state, emotional attachments, spiritual state and other things that are far less obvious.

Possibly, but in this case, I think their actions, as a group, speak loudly enough. I think we have enough fruit to judge that tree

Jesus did indeed condemn excessive public religiosity, where it was "done for show" to win the approval of men. He said of such people "verily, they have their reward" (the approval of the public; but not the approval of God). Congratulations, you do know some scripture.

I don't know of anyone, however, who interprets that to mean "refuse to answer whether you are a Christian, when asked by someone during a discussion about Christian theology." Many theologians believe a Christian is obligated to confess Christ publically when asked... "if you deny me before men, I will deny you before my Heavenly Father", and so forth. As I said, though, I am no longer asking, simply clarifying a point of theology.

My reading of the Bible, incomplete though it may be, suggests that we should each decide for ourselves the best way to express our spirituality and devotion to God. And I have not denied God in this thread or on DP. There is a difference between acknowledging ones' religion, and acknowledging Gods Love.
 
Debateable. Marx, IIRC, saw socialism as a stepping-stone towards full communism.

At any rate, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) appeared to express disapproval of taking Jesus' teachings on personal responsibilities and trying to apply them to systems of government.

Yes, Marx saw socialism as a stepping stone. That doesn't mean that socialism = Marxism. It doesn't even mean that communism = Marxism.

And since I'm not a Catholic, I do not feel beholden to his approval
 
In a democracy, individuals make some choices collectively though the democratic process. And I did not say that Jesus said anything about politics, at least, not in this thread.

They don't. In the US the only choice made democratically is on representatives. Occassionally, there are referendums. In the Republican form, democracy is strictly limited in scope and is only intended to demonstrate choices concerning those areas rightfully delegated to the government.

I am not fond of totalitarianism, whether it claims to be democratic or not.
 
They don't. In the US the only choice made democratically is on representatives. Occassionally, there are referendums. In the Republican form, democracy is strictly limited in scope and is only intended to demonstrate choices concerning those areas rightfully delegated to the government.

I am not fond of totalitarianism, whether it claims to be democratic or not.

Actually, many states have referendums, and Congress is the way we express our choices. It's not a perfect representation, but it's the best we've come up with so far. If and when we come up with something better, we can change the Constitution through the democratic process.
 
Actually, many states have referendums, and Congress is the way we express our choices.

I noted referendums. We can choose our reps. That's it. Congress' choices are no more our indivdiual choices than Assad's choices are those of the Syrian people.

It's not a perfect representation, but it's the best we've come up with so far. If and when we come up with something better, we can change the Constitution through the democratic process.

It's the best we have come up with because it is limited. It should be more limited.

We can't change the constitution through a simple majority. That is by design and a good design at that.
 
I noted referendums. We can choose our reps. That's it. Congress' choices are no more our indivdiual choices than Assad's choices are those of the Syrian people.



It's the best we have come up with because it is limited. It should be more limited.

We can't change the constitution through a simple majority. That is by design and a good design at that.

No, that's not it. We have periodic elections, and if enough people support it, there are also recalls and impeachment. Your portrayal of the process was simplistic.

It is also simplistic and facile to consider our democracy the same as Syrias', and your displeasure with democracy does not change the fact that our representatives are an expression of our political desires, even if it is an imperfect one.
 
Back
Top Bottom