Was Jesus a Socialist?

[StillBallin75]

Socialists are strongly atheistic, like Marx, Stalin, Lenin, ect etc.

Jesus was religious Jew.

case closed.

You're describing Marxists/Communists. Socialism, generally speaking, and religiosity are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is an inherent component of Marxist doctrine, but being a socialist does not prevent one from being religious.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

How do you then explain Luke 8:22?

 

[DarkWizard12]

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.

 

[BDBoop]

Jesus was telling a rich man to be charitable, independent of any form of government or market system.

"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.

 

[Jetboogieman]

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!

 

[StillBallin75]

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!

LMFAO hahahaha

How you been bro?

 

[Paschendale]

"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.

My point wasn't that Jesus didn't believe in socialist values. He clearly did. My point was that a populist governmental system that doesn't rely on an aristocracy, theocracy, or military rule wasn't an idea that was really part of his teachings. Granted, if we all took his message to heart, we wouldn't need a socialist system, as we would just all take care of each other all the time, without relying on a government to ensure this. But in reality, we do not all work to overcome our fear, cowardice, and selfishness. Plus the logistics of private funding and control over, say, a highway system, are kind of insane. Centralized oversight is a necessity to create anything other than a clusterf**k with a population this size.

 

[DarkWizard12]

"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.

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.

 

[Paschendale]

How do you then explain Luke 8:22?

Crossing a lake in a boat during a storm?

 

[BDBoop]

Crossing a lake in a boat during a storm?

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.

 

[Fiddytree]

Either that or Jesus was a liberal.

But no, Christ transcended the political.

 

[Goshin]

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.

From the referenced article:

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.

/thread

 

[Paschendale]

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.

Jesus is pointing out the moral imperative to give excessive wealth to others. I make that same claim quite often. Even if it is less efficient financially to do so (which, of course, it isn't) it is still morally superior to give what you do not need to those who do need it.

 

[Paschendale]

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.

 

[DarkWizard12]

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.

Taxes isn't giving to the poor, it's giving to the government. If the government, the "middle man", is honest, he will use it to give charity and do good works as well, but that is still a lower form of charity

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.

...and there is still the problem of "honesty" and "wisdom" issue, which the government lacks.

 

[Goshin]

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.

 

[Paschendale]

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.

 

[Goshin]

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.

 

[Paschendale]

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?

 

[Goshin]

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.

 

[Paschendale]

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.

 

[Goshin]

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.

 

[Canell]

Socialist or communist, not sure. eace

 

[Paschendale]

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.

How does welfare discourage marriage and family? Unless you're taking the position that people who could live comfortably and work choose not to in order to abuse welfare. A position that has been discussed, at length, and revealed to be a load of bull. The vast majority of welfare recipients are impoverished children, and most of the rest obtain welfare benefits for less than a year before returning to the workforce. Or at least, this was so before the recession. I don't know the numbers post-2008, but the basic tenets of human morality have not drastically altered in the last three years. A tiny minority are welfare queens. And the benefit reaped from those programs far outweighs the cost of a few freeloaders. I contend that these programs don't do enough. They only help a person regain what they had lost. Those in poverty still remain in poverty, because we do not have adequate education. We have far too many teachers using antiquated equipment. And then, even if a poor child obtains a decent education, we have no means to get that person into a job. Comprehensive education and job placement programs will grow the middle class and keep it stable.

The problem is that our programs are underfunded and unfocused. They are not powerful enough to tackle the problems they are tasked with. Our social support systems only go far enough to help a person maintain what they have, which isn't enough for many Americans who are trapped in poverty.

As for our deficit... we do have the lowest tax rate in the industrialized world. Why is it surprising that we don't get much bang for our buck? We gear our whole economic system towards personal gain, with a zero-sum outcome, and then call those who do not succeed in this system failures and immoral. As opposed to the reality where most of one's success is based on where one started out. Our programs do not cure poverty because they are not designed to. They are designed to maintain poverty, but prevent starvation. If we want people to actually escape poverty, they need more than food stamps. They need jobs. The current system of "go out and find a job" is inefficient and clearly not working. We need a system to place people with work, effectively. We need those jobs to pay a wage that will get people out of poverty. And we need to educate people so they can do those jobs. And we need to not make those people take on a lifetime of debt in order to do it.

Results absolutely matter. And the results from half-assed programs that don't accomplish their goals and self-centered private charity are in. They fail at their aims. We need a better system.

 

[U.S. Socialist.]

These two verses from Acts sound very socialist to me. The first is Acts 2:44-45: "All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." The second is from Acts 4:34-37 "There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet."