Why Do People Try To Claim Jesus Was Socialist?
Shigyrl but outspoken on my future
2012/04/02 06:29:52
|
|
|||||
|
8 votes
|
|
12% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
3% | |||
|
59 votes
|
|
86% | |||
I have seen several polls quoting verses attributed to Jesus. That many try to claim support their position Jesus was a socialist. Shoot even our president uses Jesus to promote is spread the wealth philosophy. Let's not forget the liberal christians that skew the gospel. Omit some key teachings of christ. Guess what folks Jesus wasn't a socialist. He never expected people to give up their wealth by force or over taxation. He never taught life was supposed to be fair. He did teach people the following. Pay close attention to what he says about the poor. These verses come from the gospel of Mark ch. 14 verses 3-7
3 When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, b a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil,costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.
4 There were some who were indignant. “Why has there been this waste of perfumed oil?
5 It could have been sold for more than three hundred days’wages and the money given to the poor.” They were infuriated with her.
6 Jesus said,“Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me.
7 The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them,but you will not always have me.
8 She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial.
9 Amen,I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world,what she has done will be told in memory of her.”
3 When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, b a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil,costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.
4 There were some who were indignant. “Why has there been this waste of perfumed oil?
5 It could have been sold for more than three hundred days’wages and the money given to the poor.” They were infuriated with her.
6 Jesus said,“Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me.
7 The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them,but you will not always have me.
8 She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial.
9 Amen,I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world,what she has done will be told in memory of her.”
Top Opinion
-
This is what I think.+10Socialism is government mandated "charity". But, charity is love and you don't love someone when you are forced to help and have no other connection to the poor then money missing from your paycheck. In addition, government "charity" is fraught with abuses which further frustrates the "givers" when it is so obvious. What Jesus advocated was individuals choosing to do the right thing in considering the plight of the poor and helping them of our own free will. He did not advocate governmental mandates that force us to be "charitable"! In Acts, the early church had "all things common". Again, this was because of the agape love the Christians had one toward another, not because it qwas mandated that they do so. Again this is not Socialism because it was of their own free will. Ananias and his wife Saffira died because they attempted to lie to the Holy Spirit of God by claiming to give all of the price of the land which they sold when they only gave a portion of the price. Peter said, Act 5: 4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." The sin was not in keeping part of the money, which was within their power, but in claiming to give all when they didn't. Jesus was not a Socialist, but a free market advocate of giving to the needy out of love for them!


















BUT, Republicans claim to be Christian. Which means they should love HIS BROTHER, which means they should love EVERYONE. Including Democrats and those he is "forced to pay."
Pretty much the Marxist dream idea that sounds so Utopian and pretty.
Except that it doesn't have anything to do with government. It just boils down to being a decent human being and having minimalist expectations about your living standards. There are *lots* of threads in the NT that support this view of approaching life.
This one ("The poor you will always have with you") seems to recognize that people will not go back to living in accordance with God's Will.
The poor only exist in "civilized" societies where someone has locked up the food and rigged the system to force everyone else to actually work to earn it.
The basis is that we in the middle have enough of those resources that we're scared enough of the poor to support the system without resenting the rich enough to join with the poor to revolt and overturn the system.
Society is about perpetuating the poor for the benefit of the rich. The natural state of humanity is exactly the same as the natural state of all other animals: we're all pretty much equal. I shouldn't need to scrounge through dumpsters to search for half-eaten food.
We are shattered as a species into all sorts of us vs. them false dichotomies. Protestant vs. Catholic. White vs. Black. Irish vs. Italian. Republican vs. Democrat.
All a bunch of crap so that we ignore Rich vs. Poor.
Don't get me wrong. I intend to get rich so I don't have to worry about this. The system is what it is, and I will play its games to get what I want. This will not stop me from protesting that the system is wrong.
I will not make a big deal on a public forum about the time and money I've donated to food kitchens. That is between me and them.
I'll advocate certain charities to which I've contributed and worked for (I think "Save the Children" is a *really* good one), but I'm not going to tweak my horn by making a big deal about contributing to them when I could.
I'm also not going to make a big deal out of just buying meals for people who were hungry when they asked for help. Or the time I gave that crack junkie a ride to her next John after breakfast so she could get her fix. (She just got kicked out of the restaurant, and I didn't want to watch her stumble around in the snow).
People are what we are. I'm not gonna pass judgment on anyone else.
I *totally* agree that charity quits being charity when it's forced.
I'm an arrogant SOB. I don't deny that. I try to be humble, because I consider that a virtue. And braggarts just strike me as pathetic people who are trying to compensate for their own lacks by telling everyone around them how wonderful they are instead of just being wonderful. We all have our flaws.
I don't really believe in sin, and I'm pretty fuzzy on morals. I have my own standards of morality for me. I'm not going to try to impose them on anyone else. I don't allow junkies into my life, but I will help them get what they need when the alternatives are worse.
I have helped people get to rehab when they were ready to go. I know from painful experience that it will not do any good before the addict is ready. Maybe I'm a bad person because I'm willing to let people make their own decisions about their lives. Personally, I believe that makes me a much better person than those who try to make decisions for others.
According to Matthew, a certain rich young guy comes to Jesus and asks what he has to do to have eternal life. Jesus says it's simple: keep the commandments. The young man asks which particular commandments and Jesus says the ones about not murdering, stealing, lying, or committing adultery; honoring your mother and father and loving your neighbor as much as you love yourself — those commandments. The kid persists and says that he has always done those things, even when he was a child; there must be something else he needs to do. Jesus says, "Okay, I'll tell you what: if you want to be perfect, sell what you have, give the proceeds to the poor and come follow me." This is thought to be a suggestion that the rich young man was kidding himself if he thought he had kept the law perfectly. Odds are, like ...
According to Matthew, a certain rich young guy comes to Jesus and asks what he has to do to have eternal life. Jesus says it's simple: keep the commandments. The young man asks which particular commandments and Jesus says the ones about not murdering, stealing, lying, or committing adultery; honoring your mother and father and loving your neighbor as much as you love yourself — those commandments. The kid persists and says that he has always done those things, even when he was a child; there must be something else he needs to do. Jesus says, "Okay, I'll tell you what: if you want to be perfect, sell what you have, give the proceeds to the poor and come follow me." This is thought to be a suggestion that the rich young man was kidding himself if he thought he had kept the law perfectly. Odds are, like most of us, he loved himself a little bit better than he loved his neighbor.
Anyway, the kid hears that and goes away sadly, "for he had great possessions" (Matthew 19:22). Then Jesus utters the famous line (Matthew 19:24) about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Next, the history and archaeology. The notion your Baptist friend has picked up apparently comes from a single ninth-century commentary asserting that in first-century Jerusalem there was a gate called the Needle's Eye which a camel could only get through on its knees. (Sort of like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: "only the penitent man will pass …") A cute allegory, but there's no archaeological or historical evidence for the existence of such a gate.
There's a good brief discussion in the article on "kamelos" in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, pp. 592-594 (one of the standard works on New Testament language). TDNT, and other commentators with an interest in history, point out several parallels in later rabbinic language about the impossibility of getting an elephant through the eye of a needle: it's a way of describing something so difficult it's grotesque.
So the "Gate of the Needle's Eye" notion has no firm historical basis. It looks like a way of getting around the plain (but inconvenient) meaning of the text.
Setting the text in the whole New Testament context, wealth is consistently presented as problematic. I suspect the modern notion owes less to the Bible than to the Puritan notion that success in economic life was a sign of God's blessing.
Now, the theology. The message was viewed by the disciples as pretty bleak. In 19:25 — just after Jesus uses the comparison — the disciples respond, "Then who can be saved?" "By human power, it is impossible," says Jesus. Then he offers a glimmer of hope: "With God, anything is possible." Even the salvation of the rich. As a miracle.
On the other hand, it would be equally dangerous to argue "I'm poor, so I'm okay." The words of Jesus aren't intended to give anybody a false sense of security. My friend the pastor adds, "Apart from the mercy of God, we're all done for."
Why are you alwasy trying to shove your religious views down the throats of everyone?
Second, there never has been any words attributed to Jesus as not a single word was ever recorded during his life time. Every single word was made up at least 30 years AFTER his death.
2. There are huge amounts of YOUR opinions in the post here and a very long rant that goes along with that.
3. I do not care what the topic is, just put it in the correct place.Opinions are NOT news.
4. The only false understanding here is those who are willing to believe in superstitions, fantasies, talking snakes, apples with magical powers and fictional characters with super powers.
If Jesus wanted everyone to be equal in the sight of God what is it, it certainly is not captialism. Also the states that rule by communism see themselves as the supreme leaders. That is not what I meant.
Sometime on here so many people castigate the poor when many times the rich are getting away with murder.
With respect I disagree with you.