Thread: Was Jesus a Socialist?

Who cares?

The only political position one can draw from Christ is his support of a strong separation of church and state.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

Originally Posted by sangha

Many Socialists would have these decisions made through the democratic process

That does not make it any better or optional.

Originally Posted by Goshin

You've been too selective in your reading. Among most 1st century church fellowships, tithes and offerings were brought in and put under the management of the "shepherd" (pastor) and/or Deacons (Elders) in some cases.

So what? It doesn't prove that Jesus approved of that. If you want prove that Jesus wanted the clergy to oversee the process, you should provide a quote from Jesus.

It would tell me whether you have an honest spiritual concern for whether Christians are truly living up to Jesus' teachings, as a fellow-follower of Christ..... or whether you're simply another non-believer who thinks he's found something with which to poke Christendom in the eye.

If you want to attack my motives or intent, I suggest you take it to PM. My understanding is that such a discussion is against the rules. Let's discuss the issue, and not the posters.

If you are not a Christian.... why do YOU care what Jesus said about something? What makes you think you know more about this passage of scripture than hundreds of highly-educated theologians and scholars who have commented on it?

One doesn't have to be a christian in order to care (and respect) Jesus' teachings. And I did not see any requirement that I know more than highly educated theologians, etc in order to discuss this on DP, just as you need not be so educated either. We are both expressing our opinions on what the text means. Your argument by authority is inappropriate and discourages civil discussion IMO.

Originally Posted by sangha

That's because Jesus did not say that "God requires all rich people to give away ALL their wealth to the poor, or go to hell." and neither did I

For all intents and purposes you did, quibbling aside.

Right. And the wealthy today are making an idol of their wealth.

Ah, so you know the hearts of all men, do you? What's on Bill Gate's mind just now?

And millions have interpreted Jesus' teachings to mean that if they're rich, it's because God is rewarding them. But millions of other christians have interpreted to mean exactly what I said it meant. As I've said earlier in this thread, the Bible is like a jewel; its' true beauty can only be appreciated by looking at it from many angles

Do you believe in the Bible, Sangha? Do you believe in the God of the Bible? Since you're so concerned with this particular passage of scripture, are you equally concerned with "... ye must be born again. Except a man be born of water, and of spirit, he shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven"?

Or is this simply "let's see if we can put on over on the Christians by telling them Jesus is socialist" ?

Originally Posted by RStringfield

That does not make it any better or optional.

Yes it does, unless you're not too fond of democracy and the ideological justifications for democracy

Originally Posted by Goshin

For all intents and purposes you did, quibbling aside.

No, I did not. I said nothing about it being required

Ah, so you know the hearts of all men, do you? What's on Bill Gate's mind just now?

I did not say that I know the hearts of all men. I am not going to defend something I never said

Do you believe in the Bible, Sangha? Do you believe in the God of the Bible? Since you're so concerned with this particular passage of scripture, are you equally concerned with "... ye must be born again. Except a man be born of water, and of spirit, he shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven"?

Or is this simply "let's see if we can put on over on the Christians by telling them Jesus is socialist" ?

I am honestly discussing my opinions on what Jesus said. If you think that is in any way inappropriate, I know that you know what to do

Originally Posted by sangha

So what? It doesn't prove that Jesus approved of that. If you want prove that Jesus wanted the clergy to oversee the process, you should provide a quote from Jesus.




If you want to attack my motives or intent, I suggest you take it to PM. My understanding is that such a discussion is against the rules. Let's discuss the issue, and not the posters.




One doesn't have to be a christian in order to care (and respect) Jesus' teachings. And I did not see any requirement that I know more than highly educated theologians, etc in order to discuss this on DP, just as you need not be so educated either. We are both expressing our opinions on what the text means. Your argument by authority is inappropriate and discourages civil discussion IMO.

Not at all. I'm being entirely civil... I'm asking because knowing where you're coming from with this argument tells me a lot about your motives and concerns. I've noted a trend, among those who are not Christians, to try to use isolated passages out of context to give Christiandom a poke in the eye.

I'm also saying that on one side of the argument are millenia of educated theologians and bible-scholars and their opinions and interpretations. On the other side is... you, and your opinion about a religious teaching of a religion that, I strongly suspect, you neither believe in nor subscribe to.

Originally Posted by Goshin

Not at all. I'm being entirely civil... I'm asking because knowing where you're coming from with this argument tells me a lot about your motives and concerns. I've noted a trend, among those who are not Christians, to try to use isolated passages out of context to give Christiandom a poke in the eye.

My motive for discussing this are several. They include, but are not limited to

1) enjoyment
2) curiosity
3) education

I'm also saying that on one side of the argument are millenia of educated theologians and bible-scholars and their opinions and interpretations. On the other side is... you, and your opinion about a religious teaching of a religion that, I strongly suspect, you neither believe in nor subscribe to.

No, my position has just as much support from biblical scholars are yours does, and your suspicions are not the issue in this thread, so I will not be discussing them

Originally Posted by sangha

No, I did not. I said nothing about it being required

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

Originally Posted by sangha

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

Originally Posted by sangha

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sangha

I did not say that I know the hearts of all men. I am not going to defend something I never said

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 am honestly discussing my opinions on what Jesus said. If you think that is in any way inappropriate, I know that you know what to do

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.

Originally Posted by sangha

My motive for discussing this are several. They include, but are not limited to

1) enjoyment
2) curiosity
3) education

Very well.

No, my position has just as much support from biblical scholars are yours does, and your suspicions are not the issue in this thread, so I will not be discussing them

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