Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

I've seen this discussion brought up several times. I'm not a Christian, but I am somewhat knowledgeable on it and I still enjoy the debate. Before I begin, I have one neat fact to share: The author of the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy, was a Baptist and also a "Christian Socialist," believing that Jesus was a Socialist. He even once wrote a sermon specifically entitled, "Jesus the Socialist." That's where I got the name of this thread from.

I don't really care, either way, because even if I put forth a rational argument, it's doubtful I'd change anyone's minds regarding such things and in any case, it's silly to use a religious figure as a basis for your political beliefs. "Who would Jesus vote for?" is a stupid question.

Originally, I'd intended to lay out both arguments regarding whether Jesus was a Socialist or Socialist-leaning. But out of laziness, I realized that if I just posted my argument (my belief that he was fairly Socialist-leaning), then somebody else could put forth the rebuttal and, if they didn't include a certain point I'm aware of, I'd mention it in their defense.

So, here goes...

JESUS THE SOCIALIST

There's more than one interpretation of the Bible, so there's no such thing as a single "Christian" economic policy. It depends upon what type of Christian you are. Liberation Theologians, Christians in South America, tend to be Socialists because they emphasize Jesus's role as a liberator, a fighter of poverty, and a champion of social justice.

When Liberation Theology began, Pope John Paul II acknowledged the similarities between Christ's life and Socialist ethics. And despite the fact that Liberation Theologians were excommunicated and the doctrine (including Socialism as a whole) was formally denounced, the Pope still often gave speeches which appealed to their Christian Socialist ideals.

He said, for example:

Quote: "Power must never be used to protect the interests of one group to the detriment of the others... ...The persistence of injustice threatens the existence of society... ...This menace exists when the distribution of goods is grounded only in the economic laws of growth and a bigger profit, when the results of progress reach only superficially a huge layer of the population, when there persists a big gap between a minority of the rich on the one hand and the majority of those who live in want and misery on the other."

Quote: "Injustice reigns when within the same society some groups hold most of the wealth and power, while large strata of the population cannot decently provide for the livelihood of their families even through long hours of backbreaking labor in factories or in fields."

Quote: "The church will not hesitate to take up the cause of the poor and to become the voice of those who are not listened to when they speak up, not to demand charity, but to ask for justice."

And most famously of all:

Quote: "The needs from which [Socialism] had historically arisen were real and serious. The situation of exploitation to which an inhumane capitalism had subjected the proletariat since the beginning of industrialized society was indeed an evil...This, basically, was Marxism's kernel of truth which enabled it to present itself as an attractive reality to Western society."

The source for the above quotes and more on the Pope's statements regarding economics may be found here.

But back to the subject...

The Pope isn't just pulling his statements out of thin air as there are many examples of Biblical Socialism. I won't even get into historical Jewish examples (such as their communal barbeques and the Talmudic law which required fences to be built communally) because that's a whole 'nother can of worms and it's a topic I'm not as educated on.

The most prominent example of Socialism in the New Testament was when a wealthy, virtuous man asked Jesus what he needed to get into heaven. After confirming that he followed the 10 commandments, Jesus told him to give everything he had to charity. (Matthew 19:16-24, Mark 10:17-25, Luke 18:18-25)

Jesus repeatedly said that it would be "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle," than for a wealthy person to make it into heaven. (Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25, Luke 18:24-25) That metaphor appears to make no sense, but recent study suggests that the word "camel" actually meant "rope," at that time. So, that clarifies the metaphor it's "easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle," than for a wealthy person to make it into heaven. In other words, it's pretty much impossible.

In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus asserted that the poor would inherit the Earth and that the wealthy were evil.

Luke 6:20-36
Quote: And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

In Luke 1:49-53, Mary described the acts of God:
Quote: "For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble. HE HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS; And sent away the rich empty-handed.

At one point, Jesus chased money-lenders out of a Hebrew Temple, calling them "thieves." (Matthew 21:1-13, Mark 11:1-17, and John 2:12-16)

On another occasion, a poor widow donated to a Hebrew temple while Jesus was sermonizing there. She only gave a small amount, but Jesus said that the woman gave more than the entire treasury, because while everyone else gave their surplus, she gave what she didn't have (Mark 12:41-44), which would again be a Christian argument against a "flat tax," and support for taxation based upon "opportunity cost," which would mean progressive taxation.

Jesus also suggested that people should pay taxes without complaint. Some Pharisees tried to trick Jesus into making anti-Roman statements, so they asked him if it was wrong to pay the Romans' poll tax and he replied that Caesar's face was on their money, so they should, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25). Furthermore, for those Christians that object to governmental policies, the Bible says that Christians should obey all governments and that all governments are put in place by God (Romans 13:1).

In the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus identifies himself with the hungry, the poor, and the sick, saying that any evil done towards them would be an act of evil against him, specifically.

Jesus himself lived a life of abject poverty, through the Gospels, he essentially had no possessions and was buried in a borrowed tomb. There were no real exceptions to this rule, except perhaps one. At one point, a woman poured a bottle of perfume on Jesus and the Apostles objected, saying that the perfume could've been sold, then spent on charity, while Jesus disagreed with them, saying it was a good act (Matthew 26:6-13).

With regard to the lives of the Apostles, they lived similarly to Jesus, having communal ownership over all of their belongings and selling everything they could to charity (Acts 4:32-37, Acts 2:42-45). Because they continually gathered followers as they traveled and their followers, too, sold their property to the Apostles' cause, the Apostles eliminated poverty wherever they went (Acts 4:34-35). This also wasn't just entirely voluntary, either, because in Acts 5, a married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, became Christians and sold their property, giving the proceeds to the Apostles. Rather deceptively, they kept a small portion of the money they made from selling their land, rather than just giving it all to the Apostles. In response, God struck them both down dead (Acts 5:1-11).

And finally, left-wing Christians argue that God's commandment to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" (Matthew 5:43-44, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Mark 12:33, Luke 10:27) implies compulsory charity, at very least, that there is a strong obligation to God to be charitable towards others.

Now, one point I will concede (and there are several points to be made about the above statements) is that though charity in Christianity is essentially compulsory, there is no human authority nor does there ever need to be, as it defeats the purpose of the Christian God. In the above example, when the couple only gave some of their property to the Apostles, it was God that struck them down, not the Apostles themselves or any of their followers. In most examples in the Bible, including all examples regarding compulsory charity, if a person didn't meet their obligations, it was God himself which enacted authority. And so, the point is that Jesus and the Apostles could more appropriately be described as Pacifist Anarcho-Communists. Today, the term "Anarcho-Communist," doesn't fit particularly well partially because of the negative connotations, but also because Anarchists actively want to abolish the State. Jesus and the Apostles strongly supported non-intervention against the Romans and as said above, Jesus' statement that Christians should "render unto Caesar" suggests subservience even to tyrannical governments and Romans 13:1 suggests that all governments are put in place by God himself for a reason. And so, Jesus and the Apostles lived communally and considered it to be obligatory, but they left it up to God to actually enforce their ideals. That's what strongly distinguishes Jesus' Socialist ethics from modern Socialism.

However, regarding Marxist Communism specifically, many scholars have also noted that despite the fact that Marx was an Atheist, Marxism shares a large amount of similarities with Christian doctrine, including its voluntariness and its worldview.

For the Christian worldview, there were three main ages of importance: the fall of man and the history of the Jews (the First Covenant, the Old Testament), Jesus' resurrection, gift of salvation and the ensuing civilization (the Second Covenant, the New Testament), and the destruction of the world and the second coming of Christ, followed by a utopian kingdom (the "End Times").

This is strikingly similar to Marx's worldview of history. For Marx, there were again three main ages of importance: guild socialism and proto-capitalism which he saw as rather primitive, the development and history of industrial capitalism, and the ensuing collapse of capitalism into utopian Communism. In other words, comparably, in Marxism, extolling free trade is the original sin man committed. All of the ills associated with it is its punishment. In the age of industrial capitalism, Marxism is the means of salvation and Marx is the Communist Messiah. And the Socialist Revolution and ensuing Communism is the wondrous fruition of Marx's teachings. And so, the Revolution is Revelation.

Jesus and Marx also share the fact that (aside from Catholic theology) neither of them put forth any hierarchy of authority or theoretical political structure with which to implement either the Apocalypse or the Revolution. But rather, it was pretty much just assumed to be inevitable, that it wouldn't be necessary to suggest any particular political structure, because when the time came, it would take care of itself. And so, again, even though one could say that Christ emphasizes charity, but that it's entirely voluntary, a person could equally say the same of Marxism.

[LetsGetReal]

I would say a lot of that refers to the fact that the wealthy have a tougher time giving credit for what they achieved to God. And since a fundamental belief In christianity is that everything we have is given to us by God, to refuse giving him credit would be dastardly. Wealth back then was not usually achieved by just means, I would actually probably state it was achieved by cheating, lying, and stealing. All things condemned by the bible. For the other end of the spectrum the poor rely on God more because they need to, I would explain it but I'm sure you get it. I'm a classically liberal/objectivist/christian and I truly want to make a great deal of money but along with that I will be giving a ton of it away. I feel that some people are blessed with the abilities to achieve great wealth, but in return should give back to the community, and credit God for their achievements. Nathyn if he was a true socialist he would just take not ask. I'm not forced to give my tithes but I surely try to do so. People believe he is a socialist just based off the fact that he espouses a lifestyle of selflessness. I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist. I truly don't think he would force people to give money to the poor like our government does in an unconstitutional way, but thats another subject :wink:.

[airo]

LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty.

[cap'n queasy]

I don't that Y'shua ever said that the government should force people to adopt what you see as a "socialist" lifestyle.

That is quite different than the Socialist perspective of how society should be run.


If you want to live in a commune, go ahead, but quit trying to make it where everyone is forced to live how YOU think is best.

[cap'n queasy]

airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty.

I would say they are more popular among the well to do.

[wormwood]

Quote: I don't that Y'shua ever said that the government should force people to adopt what you see as a "socialist" lifestyle.
You're right Cap...JC, when asked about taxes, actually said, "render unto Caesar..." demonstrating that he had no desire to replace the government, just people's attitudes.

[LetsGetReal]

airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.

[airo]

LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor?

[LetsGetReal]

airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor? I dont know the statistics of the wealth distribution of his two billion followers, sorry :). Please don't leave it to a time of his physical presence on earth, because his words transcend time, and it would be stupid to put it in a time frame.

[airo]

LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor? I dont know the statistics of the wealth distribution of his two billion followers, sorry :). Please don't leave it to a time of his physical presence on earth, because his words transcend time, and it would be stupid to put it in a time frame. I wasn't talking about modern day times.

[cap'n queasy]

airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor?

Some of His followers were quite wealthy.

[LetsGetReal]

airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor? I dont know the statistics of the wealth distribution of his two billion followers, sorry :). Please don't leave it to a time of his physical presence on earth, because his words transcend time, and it would be stupid to put it in a time frame. I wasn't talking about modern day times. His teachings weren't for just a certain time period so that question is irrelavant...

[Darth Tiberius]

It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

[airo]

cap'n queasy wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor?

Some of His followers were quite wealthy.

Yes, they were. But i would say the majority of them, or at least the majority that we know from history, and from what the Bible has told us, were of the lower class.

[LetsGetReal]

airo wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor?

Some of His followers were quite wealthy.

Yes, they were. But i would say the majority of them, or at least the majority that we know from history, and from what the Bible has told us, were of the lower class. Was he preaching just to the poor tho?

[Todd D.]

People will try and pigeonhole Jesus's beliefs to fit whatever they want to. Republicans think that Jesus would ban gay marraige and enforce the Death Penalty. Socialists think Jesus was for Wealth Redistribution and abolition of private property. I've even heard homosexuals suggest that Jesus was gay and NRA members say that scripture supports gun ownership.

If Jesus meant to establish a political ideology, He would have overthrown the Roman Empire. It wasn't His purpose to establish such.

[cap'n queasy]

Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

[psholtz]

airo wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor?

Some of His followers were quite wealthy.

Yes, they were. But i would say the majority of them, or at least the majority that we know from history, and from what the Bible has told us, were of the lower class.
I would say most of his *important* followers were quite wealthy and well-to-do..

Joseph of Aramethea was certainly a very powerful businessman.. St. Peter owned large fishing operations on the Sea of Galilee and was very wealthy.. The sons of Zebedee came from a similar, very well-to-do fishing background. Matthew the tax collector? Immoral perhaps, but I'm sure he was quite well to do as well. St. Paul was extremely erudite and well educated, and certainly came from one of the upper classes of that culture in that time.

Christianity has nothing to do w/ socialism. As has already been pointed out, there's nothing in the Gospels that says "turn over all your wealth and property to the State, so that corrupt technocrats can redistribute wealth and make it more 'equal'".. In fact, under socialism, Christianity is impossible to practice, since Christianity calls on us to voluntarily share our property and wealth w/ those less fortunate. Under socialism, an individual owns no property... everything already belongs to the State, so you don't own anything that you could possibly share w/ anyone..

[John]

psholtz wrote: airo wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor?

Some of His followers were quite wealthy.

Yes, they were. But i would say the majority of them, or at least the majority that we know from history, and from what the Bible has told us, were of the lower class.
I would say most of his *important* followers were quite wealthy and well-to-do..

Joseph of Aramethea was certainly a very powerful businessman.. St. Peter owned large fishing operations on the Sea of Galilee and was very wealthy.. The sons of Zebedee came from a similar, very well-to-do fishing background. Matthew the tax collector? Immoral perhaps, but I'm sure he was quite well to do as well. St. Paul was extremely erudite and well educated, and certainly came from one of the upper classes of that culture in that time.

Christianity has nothing to do w/ socialism. As has already been pointed out, there's nothing in the Gospels that says "turn over all your wealth and property to the State, so that corrupt technocrats can redistribute wealth and make it more 'equal'".. In fact, under socialism, Christianity is impossible to practice, since Christianity calls on us to voluntarily share our property and wealth w/ those less fortunate. Under socialism, an individual owns no property... everything already belongs to the State, so you don't own anything that you could possibly share w/ anyone..

Not bad...psholtz. :-D

[LetsGetReal]

John wrote: psholtz wrote: airo wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor?

Some of His followers were quite wealthy.

Yes, they were. But i would say the majority of them, or at least the majority that we know from history, and from what the Bible has told us, were of the lower class.
I would say most of his *important* followers were quite wealthy and well-to-do..

Joseph of Aramethea was certainly a very powerful businessman.. St. Peter owned large fishing operations on the Sea of Galilee and was very wealthy.. The sons of Zebedee came from a similar, very well-to-do fishing background. Matthew the tax collector? Immoral perhaps, but I'm sure he was quite well to do as well. St. Paul was extremely erudite and well educated, and certainly came from one of the upper classes of that culture in that time.

Christianity has nothing to do w/ socialism. As has already been pointed out, there's nothing in the Gospels that says "turn over all your wealth and property to the State, so that corrupt technocrats can redistribute wealth and make it more 'equal'".. In fact, under socialism, Christianity is impossible to practice, since Christianity calls on us to voluntarily share our property and wealth w/ those less fortunate. Under socialism, an individual owns no property... everything already belongs to the State, so you don't own anything that you could possibly share w/ anyone..

Not bad...psholtz. :-D Don't encourage him...:lol: