Jesus. The Socialist

Dare I venture into this topic? I've got the OP written, it's just a matter of copy, paste and pushing the post button.

Sure, here goes.

Jesus. The Socialist

My father was an excommunicated Catholic because he loved my mother and married her. He met her in an army hospital in New Guinea during WWII where she was a W.A.C.

When they came home, he got a job, sometimes two and three at a time, to support their growing family while my mother stayed at home raising their children and caring for our home.

When we were young, my father, being an excommunicated Catholic, allowed my mother to choose a church in which to raise their children. She visited several church denominations in our town on recommendation from other women in our neighborhood.

She chose the local Congregationalist Church. She liked the sermons and the congregations simple faith in Christian principles. Principles like " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and the first and second commandments

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

These were the fundamental principles on which I was raised. 
Thank you mom. Thank you dad.

Somewhere along the way the Congregationalist Church merged with the United Church of Christ. This we saw as a good thing. Christians coming together, breaking down separatist dogmas and worshiping together. This seemed like something Jesus would like.

I was raised with the Good Samaritan as a role model and was asked to consider the lilies of the field. 

As I grew through high school I became aware that the church I attended also taught that not everyone would go to heaven.  I was taught that it would be very difficult for a rich man to get into heaven. When I asked why at youth services, the answer I received was that most rich people found it very hard to follow the first and second commandments and to do unto other as you would have them do unto you. This was because you cannot serve God and mammon.

As a teenage Christian, this was pretty simple. But the older I got, the more I came into contact with people holding vastly different concepts of Jesus. Through the years I watched more and more Christians who didn't like one thing or another about their churches,
split off and form their own denominations,  accenting diverse collections Biblical interpretations, emphasizing this difference and that difference. 

This evening I came across this article which reminded me of my youthful sense of how we might live our lives in brotherhood. In part it reads

But Paul points out that the New Testament primarily promotes what would nowadays be called socialism:

But to understand just how non-capitalistic Christianity is supposed to be we turn to the first chapter after the gospels, Acts, which describes the events of the early church. Chapters 2 and 4 state that all "the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need ... No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.... There were no needy persons among them. From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

The article suggests that some people in our modern society who call themselves Christian are, by descriptions of early Christian life, are not really Christian at all. 

I wonder.

(as you can see, I pushed the post button.)

Jesus (PBUH) was Muslim. He was never a capitalist or socialist.

reply to post by CalmLikeABOMB


Thanks for that.

Originally posted by CalmLikeABOMB
Jesus (PBUH) was Muslim. He was never a capitalist or socialist.

Jesus was muslim?

Are you insane?

Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God and Islam states that "God has no son".

MT 26:62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

MT 26:64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

It makes absolute sense that Jesus would be socialist. There's not anything wrong with socialism. Its actually preferable if it is understood. Socialism is ideal.

The negative connotations associated with socialism are derived from the failure of socialism due to the fact of corrupt people in power using the system for their own benefit and not for the benefit of everyone.

Socialism would be the way to go if people were perfect and were like Jesus. But people believe they can't be anything like Jesus and therefore perfection is nowhere in sight so socialism will never work.

Socialism is a perfect system for perfect people. If the people aren't perfect, then the system gets abused and the people get manipulated.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Smith.
Indeed. Socialism and capitalism when touted as "the way", are both victims of fallible human nature. Without worshiping either, understanding the true potentials of both might guide us in developing a system more suited to our further residence on this planet.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Smith.
Indeed. Socialism and capitalism when touted as "the way", are both victims of fallible human nature. Without worshiping either, understanding the true potentials of both might guide us in developing a system more suited to our further residence on this planet.

In times like these, this is what America needs to keep up the status quo. A whole new system.

reply to post by smithjustinb

In times like these, this is what America needs to keep up the status quo. A whole new system.

Even though I, and I'm sure many, would agree with this, we are so busy arguing with one another over outmoded ideologies, that we are allowing our future to be determined by those who will make sure that they will be the first beneficiaries of the new system. Biblically put, those who choose mammon. Those that do not do unto others.

I think you have charity confused with socialism.

Socialism ( /ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩/) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[2][3]

Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic inputs to satisfy economic demands and human needs (use value); accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labor-time.[4][5] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.[6]

WIKI

char·i·ty (chr-t)
n. pl. char·i·ties
1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.

Charity

Im sure Jesus would have been aware of the inherent corruption and inevitable failure, that comes with socialist government.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

Jesus. The Socialist

Makes sense. Socialism, communism, capitalism are all viable economic systems.

A teacher of mine once told us that no system of government works with over 12 people, and the same can be said of economic systems. He was of course illustrating the point that whenever too many people become involved corruption sets in.

Soviet Russia and China are often sited today as conclusive evidence that communism doesn't work. But Communism has never been tried without greed and the corruption which it makes possible. For that matter Capitalism and Socialism have never been tried without corruption. I wonder if in ten years the US will be sited as evidence that Capitalism doesn't work, and we need to go to Socialism?

Of course no one will mention we are going to try one of these the right way, the way Jesus would have it done, without the corruption and greed.

reply to post by Gravity215

I think you have charity confused with socialism.

Socialism ( /ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩/) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[2][3]

Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic inputs to satisfy economic demands and human needs (use value); accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labor-time.[4][5] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.[6]

WIKI

char·i·ty (chr-t)
n. pl. char·i·ties
1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.

Charity

Im sure Jesus would have been aware of the inherent corruption and inevitable failure, that comes with socialist government.

As you define socialism above it does not sound to me to be inconsistent with a practical application, or economic system developed upon, those precepts and suggested lifestyles of early Christianity. As you say" Im sure Jesus would have been aware of the inherent corruption and inevitable failure, that comes with socialist government", he would and was also aware of the inherent corruption and inevitable failure that comes with a capitalist government.

Charity from the description you offer sounds a lot like built in aspects of the socialism you describe, where as they take on the flavor of charity under a capitalist system.

I hold that the inherent corruption and inevitable failure of socialist government holds true for all governments due to the fact that so many folk do not live by the golden rule. Were this the case I would have no problem living under socialist or capitalist systems.

Unfortunately, today, if," do unto others "were not known to be the golden rule of Christianity, it would be guessed to have originated in the Communist Manifesto.

reply to post by Ittabena

A teacher of mine once told us that no system of government works with over 12 people, and the same can be said of economic systems. He was of course illustrating the point that whenever too many people become involved corruption sets in.

Actually, I was trying to find a way to say this in another reply. I truly wish I knew why this is the case. If I did I would bottle it.

It seems to me that the socialism that so many despise, or fear, is the invalid examples of failed socialist government they have been told were socialistic. Russia did not have a socialist or communist government. It had a totalitarian government. A dictatorship, carried out in the guise of socialism. Just as our present government is carried out in the guise of democracy.

I think you got the main drift of my OP. With out the golden rule we are toast. Were we all to live by it, my guess, and mind you it is just a guess, is that we would gravitate more to a true socialist society than a capitalist one.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by Gravity215

 

I think you have charity confused with socialism.

Socialism ( /ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩/) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[2][3]

Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic inputs to satisfy economic demands and human needs (use value); accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labor-time.[4][5] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.[6]

WIKI

char·i·ty (chr-t)
n. pl. char·i·ties
1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.

Charity

Im sure Jesus would have been aware of the inherent corruption and inevitable failure, that comes with socialist government.

As you define socialism above it does not sound to me to be inconsistent with a practical application, or economic system developed upon, those precepts and suggested lifestyles of early Christianity. As you say" Im sure Jesus would have been aware of the inherent corruption and inevitable failure, that comes with socialist government", he would and was also aware of the inherent corruption and inevitable failure that comes with a capitalist government.

Charity from the description you offer sounds a lot like built in aspects of the socialism you describe, where as they take on the flavor of charity under a capitalist system.

I hold that the inherent corruption and inevitable failure of socialist government holds true for all governments due to the fact that so many folk do not live by the golden rule. Were this the case I would have no problem living under socialist or capitalist systems.

Unfortunately, today, if," do unto others "were not known to be the golden rule of Christianity, it would be guessed to have originated in the Communist Manifesto.

Thanks for your response. I do not believe that Jesus is a socialist or a capitalist. He does recognize private property which eliminates the idea that he is a socialist.

He also suggests that we care for the poor, needy, and weak, this is not a capitalist ideal since capitalism is all about profit.

He was not talking about government in control forcing individuals to do anything. This is what socialism involves. He was saying that development of an ideal society is within mans hearts and those who choose to live a charitable life will be the most rewarded in the afterlife. If we are forced to be charitable, do we really deserve that reward?

reply to post by Gravity215


Gravity. You point out

He was not talking about government in control forcing individuals to do anything. This is what socialism involves. He was saying that development of an ideal society is within mans hearts and those who choose to live a charitable life will be the most rewarded in the afterlife. If we are forced to be charitable, do we really deserve that reward?

Now we have it. Jesus, as I was taught about him and as I still understand him today, was able to take the ridged eye for an eye religious laws that had governed his forefathers and refine them. He boiled them down to essential concepts by which the people might live more fulfilling lives and having lived more fully be accepting of eternal life.

His words are so powerful that they do indeed, when practiced, transform the lives of those who hold to them. They are words to live by, not establish religions and nations by. We can see by history what happens when we take something even as simple and life affirming as Jesus' words and shove them into a box and try to govern with it. We turn them into gargantuan monstrosities which sit astride the land in judgment of all who do not agree.

Yes, I agree with you. Jesus was not a socialist, he was socialist. In this way, I am not a Christian, I am christian. By being "a" anything, we allow ourselves to become a member of a certain mindset which demands that we follow along with the herd instead of taking responsibility for our own lives which I believe is also what Jesus had in mind. I'm sure there are those who will disagree with this but I just figure that they can have their Jesus while all I ask is that they leave me with mine.