Jesus: The First Communist

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: TheJourney

Jesus believed in helping others not legislating it.

Non-answer, as predicted...at least your non-answer was short, rather then a rant.

It's his answer. Your non-answer label is nothing more than an attempt to gain traction in this thread with debate.

The simple responses are all that this premise merits. If any response at all, that is.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: greencmp

But why don't current-day Christians voluntarily join together, give up their possessions and distribute them among the needy? Why don't they voluntarily live up to Jesus' example? Why don't they voluntarily live in a communal type environment? Why don't they voluntarily advocate living in such a way?

Originally they did. Read what the early Catholic Church did to them. They went through Europe terrorising and smashing up their communities to dominate Europe. Read what they did to the Cathars just as one example.

Even in the 20th century the Catholic Church has infiltrated Christian organisations to destroy them. If you start a truly Christian commune and it becomes popular and successful you will find one day that trouble makers come along and destroy it or make it as cynical as anything you see happening with the churches of the tele evangelists.

Christ was of course right when He said the world hated Him and anyone who followed Him truly.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: TheJourney

Jesus believed in helping others not legislating it.

Non-answer, as predicted...at least your non-answer was short, rather then a rant.

It's his answer. Your non-answer label is nothing more than an attempt to gain traction in this thread with debate.

The simple responses are all that this premise merits. If any response at all, that is.

So:
"Jesus believed in helping others not legislating it."
Is an answer to:
"Would you like to be a part of a community in which there was no private property and everything was shared equally among everyone?"

Not sure you understand the nature of the relationship between a question and an answer...

a reply to: TheJourney


You are obviously confusing communism with charity... the differences are vast. Just a guess, but the majority of donors reside on the right, and the majority of receivers reside on the left. I don't remember the part in the bible where Jesus says take.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: TheJourney


You are obviously confusing communism with charity... the differences are vast. Just a guess, but the majority of donors reside on the right, and the majority of receivers reside on the left. I don't remember the part in the bible where Jesus says take.

Yea, giving to charity is the same thing as saying 'none of my possessions are mine, and everything will be distributed among the whole community to meet everyone's needs.' Did you even read the verses?

a reply to: TheJourney

The right wingers may say, 'well they chose to, not the government.' Ok, well the disciples CHOSE something that you hate, and characterize as evil. If the direct disciples of the man you claim to worship as God chose to live in a way directly contrary to your beliefs, what does that say about you in relation to that man? You literally act as though the system Jesus and his disciples instituted is somehow evil...and yet you claim to be a follower of the religion?

Communism is the government taking (sometimes by force) wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor.

Jesus taught voluntary charity. None of the believers where forced to live in a christian community, but those that did choose to do so, understood what authority they were actively subjecting themselves to.

So explain to us again how any of that makes Jesus a communist.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Well, explain to me how Christians refusing to voluntarily give up all their possessions to live in a commune-type environment (the way Jesus did) makes them true Christians?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: greencmp

But why don't current-day Christians voluntarily join together, give up their possessions and distribute them among the needy? Why don't they voluntarily live up to Jesus' example? Why don't they voluntarily live in a communal type environment? Why don't they voluntarily advocate living in such a way?

I think the answer to this is simple: they don't feel like they have to nor do they want to because their penalty has already been paid for on the cross. They don't need to live what Jesus taught, they just need to believe he died for their sins.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I see, so they can commit all kinds of sins, like stealing, killing, lying, adultery, etc., as long as they say they believe Jesus died for their sins? Whoa - cool religion.

a reply to: onthedownlow

Just a guess, but the majority of donors reside on the right, and the majority of receivers reside on the left.

That would be a wrong guess. There have been many studies conducted on this issue and it's hard to actually come to a real consensus. Conservatives do give more money than liberals, but only if you include the money they give to their churches.

Liberals give more to secular charities and causes.

So you can say the Right gives more money away, but it is not to charities.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Well, explain to me how Christians refusing to voluntarily give up all their possessions to live in a commune-type environment (the way Jesus did) makes them true Christians?

Explain to me what gives you the right to judge their faith. To be born again, all one must DO is believe that Jesus died for our sins. To abide in Christ is to follow in His footsteps.

The believers that you referenced did not nullify their salvation. They simply failed to abide in Christ.

But again. That doesn't make Jesus a communist.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: TheJourney


You are obviously confusing communism with charity... the differences are vast. Just a guess, but the majority of donors reside on the right, and the majority of receivers reside on the left. I don't remember the part in the bible where Jesus says take.

Yea, giving to charity is the same thing as saying 'none of my possessions are mine, and everything will be distributed among the whole community to meet everyone's needs.' Did you even read the verses?

Yes, did you? The part where by their own free will sold there belongings and gave the monies to the apostles.

ETA: if you hurry you can still change the OP to better reflect your agenda

a reply to: TheJourney

A collectivism with a self-proclaimed godhead at the top? Sounds about right.

I think more Christians would be on board with the Socialist movement if you could somehow detach the economic goals from the so-called "social justice" goals.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TheJourney

This touches upon many misunderstandings.

I won't comment on the nature of Christ or Christianity other than to say that I always understood charitable giving of time and resources to be an exclusively voluntary act. His object was humans, each individual soul.

Socialism is an economic system which denies individual property rights and awards the state exclusive monopoly control over the means of production. Its object is humanity, not humans. Expressly soulless in nature.

Other than propagandized misunderstanding and false conflation, I can't imagine how those two belief systems could possibly coincide.

The exact quote was "no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own." And you say that Jesus couldn't have been communist, because...he was such a staunch supporter of private property rights?

Again, would you like to VOLUNTARILY join a community in which there was no private property and everything was shared equally among everyone?

No, that is actually a difficult conclusion to extract from my statement.

I simply mean that one of the crucial (no pun intended) elements of Christianity was the personal choice to follow his teachings, not to be compelled to do so.

One is a voluntary individual philosophical worldview and the other is a mandatory totalitarian government form.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Metallicus

But if people voluntarily gave the needy all that was necessary, it wouldn't have to be legislated.

There are plenty of Christians who have nice homes, nice furniture, and abundance of food, nice clothes, nice car.... and there are plenty of people in poverty with none of those things.

IT still doesn't need to be legislated. You are advocating theft from people and I am sure Jesus wasn't for theft, organized by a authoritarian government or otherwise.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: greencmp

But why don't current-day Christians voluntarily join together, give up their possessions and distribute them among the needy? Why don't they voluntarily live up to Jesus' example? Why don't they voluntarily live in a communal type environment? Why don't they voluntarily advocate living in such a way?

Why indeed?

I suspect that many do just that. Ironically, those would likely be considered cults and could potentially attract the ire of the state.

They don't form communes because they weren't communists. As far as I know, the jews had a more or less 'communist' tradition in their autarkic farms but, I don't know if that has ever extended into the Christian tradition.

If so his communism is only for Israel and not for the Gentiles.

Only the early Jews practiced selling all they had and gave it to the Apostles. They were all Jews not one of them was a Gentile and that is important.

While Paul teaches Christian Communication or Giving. He never said the church should have a common purse or things should be given to those who don't work equally with those who do.

Paul taught if you did not work you should not eat. and if they work to eat their own bread. A far cry from communism I would say

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

He said let those who stole steal no more but work with his own hands that he may have something to give. As in giving to those who had need but not a form of communism.

Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Paul also said for people to work

1Th 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;

When Rules of Properly studying the Bible are ignored then you can make the Chrisitans of today be the Jews of Christs' ministry time when they aren't.

First the command to study and then how to study "rightly divide the word of Truth" the Bible

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Israel and the Body of Christ today are not the same thing. Another rule violated is "things that are different are not the same."

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Metallicus

But if people voluntarily gave the needy all that was necessary, it wouldn't have to be legislated.

There are plenty of Christians who have nice homes, nice furniture, and abundance of food, nice clothes, nice car.... and there are plenty of people in poverty with none of those things.

IT still doesn't need to be legislated. You are advocating theft from people and I am sure Jesus wasn't for theft, organized by a authoritarian government or otherwise.

It's not theft for me personally. I'm happy to give up a portion of my money in taxes that will go to help others. I give it willingly and without malice. I wonder how Jesus would feel about taxes that went to aid the poor? I bet he would like that better than taxes that went to aid the rich, don't you?