No, Jesus Wasn't a Socialist

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,045
except pure communism has been tried even if it does not quite exist today
pure capitalism has never been tried

note how I'm simply promoting the idea of actually putting it to the test, my own expectations can be wildly off target, but at least it would then be dispelled with evidence instead of theory
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,920
Christianity being individualistic my foot. The whole one man dying for everybody else's sins alleviates a person from taking personal responsibility which eventually leads to crazy Karen's screaming they are covered by Christ's blood so she can do the fukk what she wants to with no ramifications.
I don't know what religion you're talking about but it certainly isn't Christianity, because you're leaving out critically important and indispensible elements of metanoia, as the Christian sacred scriptures make clear:
* Knowing what you did was wrong (ie sinful).
* Heartfelt sorrow and regret for the sin.
* Actually admitting that you sinned (ie enumerating that particular and all other sins that conscience prompts after a thorough examination of conscience).
* An authentic contrition, which includes a firm resolve not to sin again.
* Making good any wrong you have done to another insofar as you are capable.

Without these, forgiveness doesn't "take". You just compound your sin by adding magical thinking and perhaps even sacrilege.
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
Christianity being individualistic my foot. The whole one man dying for everybody else's sins alleviates a person from taking personal responsibility which eventually leads to crazy Karen's screaming they are covered by Christ's blood so she can do the fukk what she wants to with no ramifications.
Not sure if that is exactly how it works, I'm not a Christian.

But as far as forgiveness is concerned, I doubt this is a collectivist trait :) I reckon the only time a collectivist will "forgive" is if you conform to their ideology and stay there (and it be forever held against you) or owe them something, which probably isn't truly forgiveness.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
16,688
I don't know what religion you're talking about but it certainly isn't Christianity, because you're leaving out critically important and indispensible elements of metanoia, as the Christian sacred scriptures make clear:
* Knowing what you did was wrong (ie sinful).
* Heartfelt sorrow and regret for the sin.
* Actually admitting that you sinned (ie enumerating that particular and all other sins that conscience prompts after a thorough examination of conscience).
* An authentic contrition, which includes a firm resolve not to sin again.
* Making good any wrong you have done to another insofar as you are capable.

Without these, forgiveness doesn't "take". You just compound your sin by adding magical thinking and perhaps even sacrilege.
"Christ died for your sins, so all you have to do is accept Christ in your heart and you will go to heaven" I've heard that or something similar by hundreds of Christians.

BTW

*Knowing that you did wrong because people are collectively sinful because of the original sin of Adam stealing a fruit
*Have heart felt and sorrow and regret for the sin that all humans are collectively guilty of because of one man stealing a fruit
*Actually admit you have sinned because of being a group descended from a person who committed the original sin
*Resolve the sin by accepting Christ as the saviour of the collective that is humanity
*Making good by recruiting more people into the Christ collective.

Admittedly the last one is a stretch by Christianity and all Abrahamic religions are collectivist from the core.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
"Christ died for your sins, so all you have to do is accept Christ in your heart and you will go to heaven" I've heard that or something similar by hundreds of Christians.

BTW

*Knowing that you did wrong because people are collectively sinful because of the original sin of Adam stealing a fruit
*Have heart felt and sorrow and regret for the sin that all humans are collectively guilty of because of one man stealing a fruit
*Actually admit you have sinned because of being a group descended from a person who committed the original sin
*Resolve the sin by accepting Christ as the saviour of the collective that is humanity
*Making good by recruiting more people into the Christ collective.

Admittedly the last one is a stretch by Christianity and all Abrahamic religions are collectivist from the core.
I would say we are all born into sin regardless of how the bible portrays or symbolizes it. Our natural needs force us to commit degrees of immorality to survive. Through killing other animals/life for our own sustenance, to fighting over limited resources to claiming and overrunning territory for our own uses. Some might say that's just nature, but it is ingrained and thus we're born into it - there's no escaping it.

In that sense perhaps the Bible tries to symbolize the path to mitigating this as much as possible?

Recruitment seems like a strong term though, I think a lot of them try to "save" or enlighten or awaken others. There's no Christian aggression in this process so to speak and there's no coercion going on (at least from what I can tell). It is all solicited. Under Christianity every human has a soul, is thus sovereign, and is not in a position to command anyone. Judgement is reserved for God alone.

I guess one could make a case of oppression against Christianity, and I would urge others to refer to the Bible itself and not any denomination or groups like Roman Catholic or Methodist or Born Again practices to defend that case. But we'd need to weigh that against non-aggression principle to decide to what extent morality is being twisted.

Concepts of heaven, hell and even churches have all likely been twisted and misinterpreted through the ages. I suspect symbolically there's a lot more going on in the Bible historically vs. the behaviors we observe from some "Christians".

I also personally suspect you get collectivist and individualist Christians. Two very different sorts of people. Some still using their belief as a rod to others. But as a whole I still see more individualist tendencies in it, which is why they tend to be more "politically conservative".

Remember that individualism and collectivism doesn't concern groups. Both can have groups. It only concerns the moral practices of groups/people unto others. Groups constitute individuals anyway. And tenets of the Bible such do unto others..., love thy neighbor... and the 10 commandments - are of particular interest/curiosity to me.
 
Last edited:

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,988
Ah okay. Fair question! :)

I think being part of a community or nation, rather than a country, could still mitigate that. So bad people and outlaws can buggeroff to their own lands lol.
lol it's indeed a paradox. Who to keep in, who to chuck out? I agree that outlaws and "bad people" should buggeroff. Reminds me of the Paradox of Tolerance.

Karl Popper's Paradox

Christianity being individualistic my foot. The whole one man dying for everybody else's sins alleviates a person from taking personal responsibility which eventually leads to crazy Karen's screaming they are covered by Christ's blood so she can do the fukk what she wants to with no ramifications.
Thank you! Right on both points. Christians and Muslims (theists) don't have any individualism. Maybe nobody else does either, but they certainly don't.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
lol it's indeed a paradox. Who to keep in, who to chuck out? I agree that outlaws and "bad people" should buggeroff. Reminds me of the Paradox of Tolerance.

Karl Popper's Paradox
Technically you can't chuck bad people out anywhere anyway. Seems every square inch of land is owned by a government. So you'd just be making them someone else's problem which isn't very nice :p
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,761
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."/snip
Bit of a farked up contradiction when it comes to this parable:

In his Parable of the Talents, Jesus talks about a man who entrusts his wealth to three servants for a time. When the man returns, he learns that one of the servants safeguarded his share by burying it, the second put his share to work and multiplied it, and the third invested his and generated the greatest return of all. Who’s the hero in the parable? The wealth-creating third man. "
 

Idiosyncratic

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
2,333
Bit of a farked up contradiction when it comes to this parable:

In his Parable of the Talents, Jesus talks about a man who entrusts his wealth to three servants for a time. When the man returns, he learns that one of the servants safeguarded his share by burying it, the second put his share to work and multiplied it, and the third invested his and generated the greatest return of all. Who’s the hero in the parable? The wealth-creating third man. "
And this is why many theists and atheists struggle to have constructive discussions - a lack of empathy and a lack of understanding of the others side's viewpoint. ghoti quoted a verse out of context and now you both ran with it without doing any real due diligence.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible;
but with God all things are possible.

---
In Christian belief it is taught that good works don't lead to salvation, but it is a work of God in any case. So this seems like a nonissue. But...


20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.


Verse 21 is clearly not a command to all as it was addressed to a single man. One can conclude various things from this, but I think it seems reasonable to believe that the young man valued wealth and possessions over the riches of the heart (so to speak). It's the proverbial "there's no ATM in heaven" concept. It's certainly no one size fits all solution, but for this young man it provided an effective litmus test to really evaluate the substance of his heart. One can discuss this all day long, but I don't think that's really waranted.

My 2c?
Now, while I'm not religious (but not so closed minded as to not recognize any utility in religion), I do believe it was very much the spread of Christianity that popularized (whether intentionally or unintentionally) the concept of individualism. You teach people who spent generations in a class system of lord and serf that all men are equal before God, and you slowly end up destroying a belief that many held for centuries. It requires a major paradigm shift for the servant to view himself as equal man to a king when he (and his ancestors) were taught that one is born into serfdom and that is your lot to accept in life. Hence the role that prominent Christians played in ending slavery (yes, this is in spite of the fact that many used religion to encourage it) - individualism was somewhat of a disease that ate away at the minds of men. It wouldn't change the views held by the masses overnight, but given generations of Christianity being somewhat twisted and turned to make it fit into the culture of large people groups, and the change does eventually occur. As a minimum, Christianity provided theological grounds for this way of thinking. Personal responsibility for your actions before God, accountability, "stewardship" (as Christians love to call it), all these concepts encourage greater autonomy in the individual.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,761
And this is why many theists and atheists struggle to have constructive discussions - a lack of empathy and a lack of understanding of the others side's viewpoint. ghoti quoted a verse out of context and now you both ran with it without doing any real due diligence.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible;
but with God all things are possible.

---
In Christian belief it is taught that good works don't lead to salvation, but it is a work of God in any case. So this seems like a nonissue. But...


20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.


Verse 21 is clearly not a command to all as it was addressed to a single man. One can conclude various things from this, but I think it seems reasonable to believe that the young man valued wealth and possessions over the riches of the heart (so to speak). It's the proverbial "there's no ATM in heaven" concept. It's certainly no one size fits all solution, but for this young man it provided an effective litmus test to really evaluate the substance of his heart. One can discuss this all day long, but I don't think that's really waranted.

My 2c?
Now, while I'm not religious (but not so closed minded as to not recognize any utility in religion), I do believe it was very much the spread of Christianity that popularized (whether intentionally or unintentionally) the concept of individualism. You teach people who spent generations in a class system of lord and serf that all men are equal before God, and you slowly end up destroying a belief that many held for centuries. It requires a major paradigm shift for the servant to view himself as equal man to a king when he (and his ancestors) were taught that one is born into serfdom and that is your lot to accept in life. Hence the role that prominent Christians played in ending slavery (yes, this is in spite of the fact that many used religion to encourage it) - individualism was somewhat of a disease that ate away at the minds of men. It wouldn't change the views held by the masses overnight, but given generations of Christianity being somewhat twisted and turned to make it fit into the culture of large people groups, and the change does eventually occur. As a minimum, Christianity provided theological grounds for this way of thinking. Personal responsibility for your actions before God, accountability, "stewardship" (as Christians love to call it), all these concepts encourage greater autonomy in the individual.
tl;dr
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,988
It's pointless quoting bible verses to prove anything.

1) “It's the job that's never started as takes longest to finish.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

2) “All's well that ends better.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

3) “I want to be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

My point? The Bible is just a book, kinda like Lord of the Rings.

In Christian belief it is taught that good works don't lead to salvation, but it is a work of God in any case.
Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity#Jehovah's_Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The United Pentecostal Church, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, etc all have different way of achieving "salvation".
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
46,138
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. " Luke 6:20-21 (NIV)

“Sell your possessions and give to the poor." Luke 12:33-34 (NIV)

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. Matthew 6

"And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in; it chokes the Word, which becomes unfruitful" – Mark 4:19.

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn 2:15).

"This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God" (Lk 12.21).



Wiki stuff

In the Parable of the Wedding Feast, it is "the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame" who become God’s honored guests, while others reject the invitation because of their earthly cares and possessions (Lk 14.7–14).
Jesus and Zacchaeus (Lk 19.1–10) is an example of storing up heavenly treasure, and being rich toward God. The repentant tax collector Zacchaeus not only welcomes Jesus into his house but joyfully promises to give half of his possessions to the poor, and to rebate overpayments four times over if he defrauded anyone (Lk 19.8).
In the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus exhorts his hearers to sell their earthly goods and give to the poor, and so provide themselves with "a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys" (Lk 12.33); and he adds "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Lk 12.34).
Jesus explicitly condemns excessive love of wealth as an intrinsic evil in various passages in the Gospels, especially in Luke (Luke 16:10–15 being an especially clear example). He also consistently warns of the danger of riches as a hindrance to favor with God; as in the Parable of the Sower, where it is said:

"And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in; it chokes the Word, which becomes unfruitful" – Mark 4:19.
Jesus makes Mammon a personification of riches, one in opposition to God, and which claims a person's service and loyalty as God does. But Jesus rejects the possibility of dual service on our part: for, he says, no one can serve both God and Mammon.
 
Last edited:

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,930
I must mention that the communists at one point attempted to call everyone even vaguely possible a communist, including a fair amount of figures that either did hate or would have hated the system. The "gay movement" does the same.

I find it odd that people would attempt to make Jesus either a capitalist or a socialist given His repeated statements that His kingdom is "not of this world" which makes His association with any material political or economic system impossible.

The parable of the investors was brought up for example..... it has nothing actually to do with money, it's all about responsibility and the ability to manage. The one that had the coin taken away from him had proved his unwillingness to take care of anything so he ended up having nothing to take care of, the others received funds according to their ability to manage those funds.... it was not reward but a doling out of duties and they themselves received no personal possessions.
 

Idiosyncratic

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
2,333
It's pointless quoting bible verses to prove anything.


My point? The Bible is just a book, kinda like Lord of the Rings.
Well, yes, that's the bloody thing, one can't just yank out any old sentence from any book and say "hey, look here, this proves x or y is nonsense!"

Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity#Jehovah's_Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The United Pentecostal Church, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, etc all have different way of achieving "salvation".
Of course, and the term "Christian" is a broad one and covers many groups, including many that don't cling to sola scriptura. I think to try and engage in discussion about beliefs from groups that don't hold on to sola scriptura is a shortcut into a bog of quicksand though, and hence my statement.

Now at risk of doing the very thing I just complained about, let me quote two verses. That's not to say anyone here is arguing that sola scriptura is "the right way" to look at christianity, but I never quite see the point in debating a group (particularly when taking out the texts in question) when their views conflict with that of the "holy texts" they hold as authoritative.

Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
 
Top