What if ... If Jesus Was So Smart, Why Was He A Socialist?

Edited: 26 days ago
9/24/11
Posts: 3156

Jesus fed bread and fish to hungry people without taking money from them, that's no better than a welfare hand out.  Jesus cured workshy paupers who didn't even have to buy private insurance policies fro him, allowing no exclusive rights for anyone and queering the normal market forces.  Jesus routed the bankers from the temple in the of an Occupy Wall Street Protest.  Jesus said that being rich would bias against one's getting into heaven.  The list goes on.

 

There's a word for a man with those kind of views and actions.  Communist. 

26 days ago
10/19/14
Posts: 1192
salligori -

Jesus fed bread and fish to hungry people without taking money from them, that's no better than a welfare hand out.  Jesus cured workshy paupers who didn't even have to buy private insurance policies fro him, allowing no exclusive rights for anyone and queering the normal market forces.  Jesus routed the bankers from the temple in the of an Occupy Wall Street Protest.  Jesus said that being rich would bias against one's getting into heaven.  The list goes on.

 

There's a word for a man with those kind of views and actions.  Communist. 

This may be the dumbest post I've read in a long long time. You either do not understand what socialism is or you're....well yeah that's probably the only real option here.

26 days ago
2/14/14
Posts: 8822

WFA

26 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 16082

Encouraging people to be charitable and giving is not equal to advocating for forcefully taking everything from people except the chosen few

26 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 15959

Jesus was not a government. He was an individual. No one has ever said people can't feed others. People is against governments doing so while taking individual freedom

Edited: 25 days ago
10/11/18
Posts: 1853
Got to love how people who claim to not believe in God or Jesus love to interpret everything he said or did to support their agenda.
26 days ago
11/16/09
Posts: 4586

First, if Jesus was an actual historical person, and there is no actual real evidence to support this, he absolutely would have been a socialist in a modern sense. That doesn't necessarily mean communist. It can mean just a very strong social safety net. 

Although, you could probably make a case that, based on his alleged teachings and what the bible and scripture said about what he said/believed, he very well could have been a communist, not a Lenin/Stalin totalitarian, but more of a true governmentless communist. He may also have been pragmatic enough to realize that would never work, and so while ideally he may have wanted that sort of society, he would know it couldn't work and would just lead to worse suffering. So yea, you'd end up with some sort of centralized governing authority overseeing a very strong social safety net. He would absolutely not support capitalism for greed sake, which is the primary motivator of capitalism. Capitalism would be a tool, if it was permitted at all under a Jesus government, to support the social safety net.

I'm not even religious, and apparently I know more about the alleged teachings and beliefs Jesus than people that will profess to be Jesus lovers.

Edited: 26 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 16086
Osbot - 

First, if Jesus was an actual historical person, and there is no actual real evidence to support this, he absolutely would have been a socialist in a modern sense. That doesn't necessarily mean communist. It can mean just a very strong social safety net. 

Although, you could probably make a case that, based on his alleged teachings and what the bible and scripture said about what he said/believed, he very well could have been a communist, not a Lenin/Stalin totalitarian, but more of a true governmentless communist. He may also have been pragmatic enough to realize that would never work, and so while ideally he may have wanted that sort of society, he would know it couldn't work and would just lead to worse suffering. So yea, you'd end up with some sort of centralized governing authority overseeing a very strong social safety net. He would absolutely not support capitalism for greed sake, which is the primary motivator of capitalism. Capitalism would be a tool, if it was permitted at all under a Jesus government, to support the social safety net.

I'm not even religious, and apparently I know more about the alleged teachings and beliefs Jesus than people that will profess to be Jesus lovers.


There is a lot of historical evidence to support that Jesus existed. Your facts are wrong. Also, Jesus encouraged charity. Socialism is the opposite of charity because it is mandated and there is no spirit of charitable giving. It is taking by the government. There is no charitable spirit in mandated confiscation. Catholic (and other) charities do more for people (probably) every year by leaps and bounds when compared to government programs. Government programs steal money from people and misappropriate it. That's not charity, its stealing from the oppressed.
26 days ago
7/27/06
Posts: 7632
buddie - 
Osbot - 

First, if Jesus was an actual historical person, and there is no actual real evidence to support this, he absolutely would have been a socialist in a modern sense. That doesn't necessarily mean communist. It can mean just a very strong social safety net. 

Although, you could probably make a case that, based on his alleged teachings and what the bible and scripture said about what he said/believed, he very well could have been a communist, not a Lenin/Stalin totalitarian, but more of a true governmentless communist. He may also have been pragmatic enough to realize that would never work, and so while ideally he may have wanted that sort of society, he would know it couldn't work and would just lead to worse suffering. So yea, you'd end up with some sort of centralized governing authority overseeing a very strong social safety net. He would absolutely not support capitalism for greed sake, which is the primary motivator of capitalism. Capitalism would be a tool, if it was permitted at all under a Jesus government, to support the social safety net.

I'm not even religious, and apparently I know more about the alleged teachings and beliefs Jesus than people that will profess to be Jesus lovers.


There is a lot of historical evidence to support that Jesus existed. Your facts are wrong. Also, Jesus encouraged charity. Socialism is the opposite of charity because it is mandated and there is no spirit of charitable giving. It is taking by the government. There is no charitable spirit in mandated confiscation. Catholic (and other) charities do more for people (probably) every year by leaps and bounds when compared to government programs. Government programs steal money from people and misappropriate it. That's not charity, its stealing from the oppressed.

Bart Ehrman supports the historicity of Jesus' existence and he is the most vocal biblical scholar and critic out there.

He is also an Agnostic and Atheist. But he yields to the likelihood that Jesus did, in fact, exist.
26 days ago
5/18/10
Posts: 13061

Private charity and socialism are not the same. They're polar opposites 

 

Jesus would have abhorred socialism.

 

It breaks at least two of the ten commandments: don't steal, don't covet.

 

Second, he never advocated a State to do your charitable duty for you. The exact opposite in fact:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's"

Charity is the role of each individual.

 

That's why lefties give far less to the less fortunate than Righties even controlling for incomes. Lefties are interested in forcing others to help, Righties actually help.

25 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 65702
Jesus was pretty much a social anarchist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

Sure, he wasn't for forcibly confiscating wealth, but he also said you should pursue the good of your fellow man over wealth and if you were wealthy you were probably going to hell.
25 days ago
6/9/16
Posts: 7977

Jesus GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

25 days ago
5/18/10
Posts: 13062
Tomato Can - Jesus was pretty much a social anarchist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

Sure, he wasn't for forcibly confiscating wealth, but he also said you should pursue the good of your fellow man over wealth and if you were wealthy you were probably going to hell.

That was before economic growth when the only way to get rich was to take someone else's piece of the pie. The pie grows now.

25 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 65703
ryans - 
Tomato Can - Jesus was pretty much a social anarchist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

Sure, he wasn't for forcibly confiscating wealth, but he also said you should pursue the good of your fellow man over wealth and if you were wealthy you were probably going to hell.

That was before economic growth when the only way to get rich was to take someone else's piece of the pie. The pie grows now.


Whatever knots you have to twist yourself into to believe that Jesus's socioeconomic philosophy is in any way compatible with modern conservatism.
25 days ago
12/9/02
Posts: 13486
Osbot -

First, if Jesus was an actual historical person, and there is no actual real evidence to support this, he absolutely would have been a socialist in a modern sense. That doesn't necessarily mean communist. It can mean just a very strong social safety net. 

Although, you could probably make a case that, based on his alleged teachings and what the bible and scripture said about what he said/believed, he very well could have been a communist, not a Lenin/Stalin totalitarian, but more of a true governmentless communist. He may also have been pragmatic enough to realize that would never work, and so while ideally he may have wanted that sort of society, he would know it couldn't work and would just lead to worse suffering. So yea, you'd end up with some sort of centralized governing authority overseeing a very strong social safety net. He would absolutely not support capitalism for greed sake, which is the primary motivator of capitalism. Capitalism would be a tool, if it was permitted at all under a Jesus government, to support the social safety net.

I'm not even religious, and apparently I know more about the alleged teachings and beliefs Jesus than people that will profess to be Jesus lovers.

lol

25 days ago
10/11/18
Posts: 1855
Tomato Can - 
ryans - 
Tomato Can - Jesus was pretty much a social anarchist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

Sure, he wasn't for forcibly confiscating wealth, but he also said you should pursue the good of your fellow man over wealth and if you were wealthy you were probably going to hell.

That was before economic growth when the only way to get rich was to take someone else's piece of the pie. The pie grows now.


Whatever knots you have to twist yourself into to believe that Jesus's socioeconomic philosophy is in any way compatible with modern conservatism.

You certainly have to twist alot more knots to say its compatible with modern Leftism/Progressivism. What part of "render onto Caesar what is Caesar's" aka pay your taxes is leftist?
25 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 65704
I have no idea what you are trying to ask.
25 days ago
10/11/18
Posts: 1856
Tomato Can - Jesus was pretty much a social anarchist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

Sure, he wasn't for forcibly confiscating wealth, but he also said you should pursue the good of your fellow man over wealth and if you were wealthy you were probably going to hell.

"Sure, he wasn't for forcibly confiscating wealth."

You just destroyed your own argument. You just admitted that he wouldn't be a Socialist/Communist. Confiscation/Redistribution of wealth is a core of Socialism/Communism. That's how they get gullible to vote for them. Make them think that the govt will make them rich by taking money off someone else.
25 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 65705
I didn't say he was a socialist. I said he was a social anarchist. It's right there the post you quoted. You seem confused.
25 days ago
5/18/10
Posts: 13064
Tomato Can - I didn't say he was a socialist. I said he was a social anarchist. It's right there the post you quoted. You seem confused.

You spelled charitable Libertarian wrong

25 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 65706
No, I didn't.
25 days ago
9/22/11
Posts: 7842
buddie -
Osbot - 

First, if Jesus was an actual historical person, and there is no actual real evidence to support this, he absolutely would have been a socialist in a modern sense. That doesn't necessarily mean communist. It can mean just a very strong social safety net. 

Although, you could probably make a case that, based on his alleged teachings and what the bible and scripture said about what he said/believed, he very well could have been a communist, not a Lenin/Stalin totalitarian, but more of a true governmentless communist. He may also have been pragmatic enough to realize that would never work, and so while ideally he may have wanted that sort of society, he would know it couldn't work and would just lead to worse suffering. So yea, you'd end up with some sort of centralized governing authority overseeing a very strong social safety net. He would absolutely not support capitalism for greed sake, which is the primary motivator of capitalism. Capitalism would be a tool, if it was permitted at all under a Jesus government, to support the social safety net.

I'm not even religious, and apparently I know more about the alleged teachings and beliefs Jesus than people that will profess to be Jesus lovers.


There is a lot of historical evidence to support that Jesus existed. Your facts are wrong. Also, Jesus encouraged charity. Socialism is the opposite of charity because it is mandated and there is no spirit of charitable giving. It is taking by the government. There is no charitable spirit in mandated confiscation. Catholic (and other) charities do more for people (probably) every year by leaps and bounds when compared to government programs. Government programs steal money from people and misappropriate it. That's not charity, its stealing from the oppressed.

I think so too even if written a while after his death. 

Josephus has a pretty good record as an historian and despite what atheists say he does mention jesus of Nazareth a couple of times in his writings. 

Having existed and being thought of as a descendant of a diety are two different things.

21 days ago
9/24/11
Posts: 3162
buddie - 

Encouraging people to be charitable and giving is not equal to advocating for forcefully taking everything from people except the chosen few


For a man who is second to the leader of the biggest Government on not only Earth but the entire Universe to undercut market rates for medical care is undoubtedly socialism.
21 days ago
9/24/11
Posts: 3163
kungfugrip - 

Jesus was not a government. He was an individual. No one has ever said people can't feed others. People is against governments doing so while taking individual freedom


He was second in command of the Royal family that runs the Universe.

You're right of course, no one has ever made it illegal in the USA to feed someone else, merely illegal to provide them medical care. Trump would have slapped down Jesus-Care by executive order just as he did with Obama's massively watered down version.
21 days ago
9/24/11
Posts: 3164
Out of curiosity, would anyone seriously argue that Jesus would deny American citizens universal healthcare?