Jesus is the most popular communist ever. Why are so many blind to this?

One of Fidel Castro's famous quotes was that"Jesus Christ was the first Communist" Basically all great religious leaders in all religions promoted the idear that everything belongs to God and by sharing what you have with those who have not much you are redistributing God's bounty not your personel wealth or possessions. In other worh words act as much as possible from a point of egolessness as we personelly do not own any thing and we are here by God's Grace and therefore the act of giving is a reflection of this.

jesus a communist? close, but not the cigar.

behold:

communism = religion is the opium of the people (marx)

thus, although jesus may have held some practices in key, he was not a communist, or so as history has known what a communist is. period.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
What's wrong? Man is not a complacent creature. People desire things for themselves, and their families. Some people like to be the best. None of these things are allowed in a communist society. By denying these things, you are denying human nature.

But you are going against the preachings of Jesus now. Jesus preached against earthly belongings. The best is not going to get you into heaven. He wanted people to deny human nature, which is greed; more, more, more! Also, the idea of communism by Jesus would allow religion, his religion. Everyone would practice it, work, share food, no greed, no need for what is not provided to them. Of course it would be nearly impossible to achieve this on a large scale, but communities could be set up with people who are willing to achieve this state. If you want, don't call it communism, since it seems to be a misleading term to you. However, what Jesus teaches is similar to the ideas of communism, just in a very peaceful way.

But you are going against the preachings of Jesus now. Jesus preached against earthly belongings. The best is not going to get you into heaven.

That is completely debatable. The bible is pretty ambiguous about what gets you into heaven, mainly because there are many paths a person can take.

But that doesn't matter. God gave free will to man. He did not give it to man so a government can force people to live how they see fit. God gives people the choice of being good and evil. Jesus would not have been for forcing people to give charity. That was never what he taught.

Everyone would practice it, work, share food, no greed, no need for what is not provided to them. Of course it would be nearly impossible to achieve this on a large scale, but communities could be set up with people who are willing to achieve this state. If you want, don't call it communism, since it seems to be a misleading term to you. However, what Jesus teaches is similar to the ideas of communism, just in a very peaceful way.

In a capitalist society, any group of people could live that way if they chose. It is not the other way around in a communist society. In a capitalist society, you can live and do whatever you want. You are almost completely free. Jesus, above all else, would have wanted people to choose their own path.

Simply because communism works on a small scale.

Also, communism is a political ideal, and Jesus was FAR from politics. Communism simply doesn't work (in a political and economic sense) because it:

A) Makes a central power TOO powerful
B) Makes everyone EQUALLY POOR.

Nations cannot function in this state. Their economies would collapse.

Now, was Jesus running a nation? No. Was he running an economy? No.

He may have been, he may not have been. Either way, the facts stand: Communism does NOT work in the long-term.

Christianity works because it makes people HAPPY. Communism doesn't because it makes people MISERABLE, SAD, and POOR.

Why we are comparing a religion to a political ideal is beyond me, but there you have it. End of story.

-wD

You all are looking at it all wrong. His ideal would not be a government. It would be a way of life. It wouldn't be forced, people would choose to do it. As for economy collapsing, you are looking at that all wrong. Why have economics? There is enough food in this world for everyone to eat. There are enough resources in this world for everyone to have housing and clothing. Economics would be obsolete in such a way of life. Everyone does what is neccessary to provide goods for themselves and others.

Of course, this will never work, since people need to have more. And then separate communities would start wars over who gets more grain, and so on, and so on. But, if the Bible is correct and this new city that is waiting for the chosen ones after Revelations comes about, do you think there will be capitalism?

NO!!! It will be this "communist" utopia that we are trying to explain here.

Why have economics?

As I'm about to show, they are a fact of life.

There is enough food in this world for everyone to eat. There are enough resources in this world for everyone to have housing and clothing.

Without the advances brought on by advanced civillizations, you wouldn't have enough food for everyone. You wouldn't have anywhere near our level of technology. Society would not have developed beyond huts and small tribes.

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by jlc163
In christinity, you give as you can handle giving, to those who need help, as they need it....this is not where you force everyone to be on the same level.

But jlc, it says "Love your neighbour as yourself". Wouldn't that mean that mean that everyone SHOULD be on the same level? As in, don't try to get extra for yourself while your pal out on the street is going hungry.

Yes, you give people what they need, not making yourselves the same over and over. There is a huge diffrence. There's also scrptures that tell you to take care of YOUR OWN. That is, you don't take away form your child's future to give it to the man on the corner....which means you have to work out jsut what is justified at that point. Also read the end of Proverbs and look at the good housewife, she makes a PROFIT off of what she does at home. If the majority have nothing at all, and you have everything, yuo help, yes, but not to the point where everything you have that was meant to support your children if you suddenly die was taken away from them, leaving them in the same or even worse condition than the poor that are around you. And again, if you cannot part with the money willingly, it does you no good to give it away...for it does YOU no good. You are supposed to get some good out of giving.

All of this is just my opinion nothing more.

Of course communism could never work on a large scale because there are too many bad apples in the gene pool. The only time we may ever use it on a large scale effort is in colonizing space. And of some one wanted to set up a large scale commune style society to make it more appealing to the mass person another word should be substituted for commune and ocommunism.

There is a relativly new book about a seemingly utopia communist society called The Giver by Lois Lowry. The problem with that society besides their people being zombies to the system is there was no love and no lovers, all children were concieved by a select group of 'birth' mothers, marriages were and families were arranged and the people had no concept of death. The book to me shows how black and white a utopia could be.

Capitalism works great and social darwinism because of it is a good lesson of the way things are and it makes most people find away to get ahead or go broke and struggle. It gives those born into wealth a big advantage and while there is not anything wrong with that it does cause resentment among the lower classes to those lucky people.

As for the way religion is viewed my most religious I have to disagree with one thing, the belief in heaven and the afterlife. I think more emphasis needs to be put on the here and now and not on going to heaven, the suicide bombers believe there are going to heaven/nirvana/whatever the arab word is for what they do, in many Sunday schools the children are told they will go to heaven if they are good and hell if they are bad, and in many congregations there is a lot of talk about the afterlife and I just cannot agree with it, at best it is irrelevant. Here is something that Einstein said on religion that I absolutly agree with:

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

[edit on 25-3-2005 by jrod]

Originally posted by jlc163
Yes, you give people what they need, not making yourselves the same over and over. There is a huge diffrence.

It doesn't work like that, friend. "Love your neighbour as yourself" doesn't tell you that you just give people what they need, it says whatever you make for yourself, you should be willing to share with your neighbours.

Also, I don't understand why people keep bringing "Restriction of Free will" into this. By it's very definition, religion is a restriction on free will. You have the free will to do good and bad, but if you do bad, you will go to hell.

Only if someone believes in hell. I believe I've already mentioned the story where Jesus himself says there isn't a hell.

Yes, you mentioned it, but the source is rather dubious. "A story left out of the Bible"? Where did you get it from, then?
Are you a christian? Do you believe Christ died on the cross to save you? If you do believe that, then what was he supposed to save you from if there is no hell? How does Christ getting himself killed make you "Lead a better life"?

Yes, you mentioned it, but the source is rather dubious. "A story left out of the Bible"? Where did you get it from, then?

There are 14 books not in the bible. The books were either left out when the bible was first put together, or simply taken out later. I can't remember all the details.

As for the existance of hell, this site does a good job of explaining the situation:

www.tentmaker.org...

Hell is rarely mentioned. There is really no hard evidence it exists even in the bible.

Are you a christian? Do you believe Christ died on the cross to save you? If you do believe that, then what was he supposed to save you from if there is no hell? How does Christ getting himself killed make you "Lead a better life"?

I explained my idea of heaven and hell a while ago. They are states of mind. Jesus simply wanted to show people how to live.

how many here reject the notion. Communist, liberal, socialist..Jesus therefore God preached to feed the poor-leave no one behind. He DEFINITELY was not a capitalist.

All one has to do is READ HIS WORDS, and please TRY to block out the tainted teachings of man and the church.

"A" for effort on who started the post. A very low grade for the naysayers for they have given up the freedom of thought and instead listen to what others have to say instead of following the holy spirit within.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Without the advances brought on by advanced civillizations, you wouldn't have enough food for everyone. You wouldn't have anywhere near our level of technology. Society would not have developed beyond huts and small tribes.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that without the motivation to be weathier, more esteemed, or happier than everyone else, a civilization cannot or will not become technologically advanced?

Are we really such a greedy and pride-driven species, that we are unable to find any nonselfish reasons to better our lives?

Why would we lack the desire to create and invent advanced technologies, because everyone got to benefit from them, rather than just the ones who could afford them?

It seems to me that, while they have often been hijacked by those in power, the most significant advances of our time, have been fueled by individuals who wanted to benefit mankind, not just themselves. People used to try and find new, better and faster ways of doing things, solely because they wanted to show the world what was possible.

The inspiration behind mankind's greatest achievements wasn't born from the desire for power, fortune and fame; nor will it ever be.

The best baseball players don't play for the money, but for the love of the game, and they would still play if admission was free, and all they got out of it was room & board.

The Wright brothers weren't thinking about how much money they could make, when they built their plane. They just wanted to show the world it was possible for man to fly.

I realize that I am an idealist, and that mankind will probably never develop the selfless qualities necessary for a truly "communistic" civilization to succeed. I think the reason for that, however, is not because we can't but because we won't.

originally by WeBDevil
Why we are comparing a religion to a political ideal is beyond me, but there you have it...

It is true that Jesus was not a politician. He was an idealist, and true"communism" is a philosophical ideal, not just a political one. During his time, Jesus' ideaology did not have a label, but the concepts he taught, today, would be termed "communistic".

Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

[edit on 13-4-2005 by jezebel]

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
how many here reject the notion. Communist, liberal, socialist..Jesus therefore God preached to feed the poor-leave no one behind. He DEFINITELY was not a capitalist.

He was also definitly not a communist or socialist or anything like that. HE didn't advocate that the workers seize the modes of production, he didn't call for a dictatorship of the proletariat, or any of that.

He was 'charitable', charity doesn't mean communism. And of course, communism advocates the destruction of all religion, and jesus certainly didn't.

Capitalist? Of course not, he didn't argue that the best way to increase economic growth is to allow capital to accumulate and be spent in order to increase production, nor did he argue for free market economics or anything like 'laissex-faireism'.

He didn't do any of that becahse he'd never heard of capitalism or communism, the terms didn't exist, the concepts are as anachronistic as a clock in shakespeares julius caesar. THere was no concept of capital in the ancient slave driven economy, nor was there anything like communism. There were 'communal groups' who shared stuff and lived ascetically, but thats not communism, any more than selling somethign makes one a capitalist.

Originally posted by Nygdan
And of course, communism advocates the destruction of all religion, and jesus certainly didn't.

Aha! There was the distinction I was looking for. I couldn't place my finger on it earlier, nor can I quote any sources other than theory I've been taught.

Originally posted by Nygdan
There were 'communal groups' who shared stuff and lived ascetically, but thats not communism,

Isn't that along the path of socialism though? I don't think I have a lot of in-depth education and research in this area to really know the distinction.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by babloyi
Yes, you mentioned it, but the source is rather dubious. "A story left out of the Bible"? Where did you get it from, then?
Are you a christian? Do you believe Christ died on the cross to save you? If you do believe that, then what was he supposed to save you from if there is no hell? How does Christ getting himself killed make you "Lead a better life"?

Perhaps Jesus "died" on the cross to protect one from the false teachings of man? That is hell in itself. I personally am tired of "Christians" not being able to interpret the words of Christ. So very simple. Man puts the twist in it, and much of what Jesus stated is turned around.

Example: Prayer in schools. Read what Jesus said in Matthew about prayer, and then defend the "Christian" agenda of trying to get prayer back in schools, and functions. There is no defense. "They will get their reward".

Originally posted by saint4God
Isn't that along the path of socialism though?

Communal'ism' is certainly part of it, but then again, its part of fascism and libertarianism. Infact, i can't think of any politicla group, outside of objectionists, that reject community, and lots of groups on either side of the spectrum advocate group ownership. For communism, its owned by the people thru the state, for fascism, its owned for the people by the state. In a sense anyway.