Was Jesus a Socialist?

"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,"

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor."

"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." When the righteous answered that they didn't recall doing any of these things, he said, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven"

Of course.

He sure wasn't a capitalist anyways.

"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,"

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor."

"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." When the righteous answered that they didn't recall doing any of these things, he said, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

SpartanNapoleon

It's always assumed that capitalists would sooner spit on you than help you in your time of need, that they only want to take and not give while socialists are the opposite of that. This isn't true, otherwise nonprofit organizations wouldn't exist and neither would many privately sponsered charities. Christ believed in helping those in need and doing your duty. His apostle also wrote that no man should eat if he does not work. Socialism isn't the only generous ideology friend, it's just the most popular today, and since marx was born long after christ was crucified the ideologies don't sync chronologically.

Ok, well he didn't have a political view...and those appear to have been taken out of context..

Of course.

Engrish_Major

I have to admit, this made me laugh.

Ok, well he didn't have a political view...and those appear to have been taken out of context..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

essentially this, since he told both the pharisees who were the equivalent of Jewish conservatives, and sadduces who were the euivalent of jewish liberals in priestdom that they were wrong in what they believed. His stance was that of god's, not of man.

A lot of right wingers wouldn't like him and his rhetoric, but I wouldn't call him a socialist.

A lot of right wingers wouldn't like him and his rhetoric, but I wouldn't call him a socialist.

SgtKevali

Oh? And why wouldn't we? We love our neighbors, donate to charities and help those in need just like the left. We don't falunt what we give because jesus also said to give in silence and to not boast about your generosity, but I think everyone would do with a bit of his teachings.

Nope. Socialism means the government controls the economy and Jesus didn't get into economics very much. I would say he was a communist, though.

Nope. Socialism means the government controls the economy and Jesus didn't get into economics very much. I would say he was a communist, though.

theone86

You have that backwards, communism is when governments control the businesses. The economy can't be genuinely controlled, but there are two seperate thoughts as to wether or not it can be regulated. Socialism endeavors to regulate private enterprize and redistribute wealth for good will endeavors.

Not really. His focus was on an individuals behavior amongst a community, not the political actions of the community with one another. Also, "caring for the poor" doesn't mean sharing wealth equally.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Nope. Socialism means the government controls the economy and Jesus didn't get into economics very much. I would say he was a communist, though.

buldog300

You have that backwards, communism is when governments control the businesses. The economy can't be genuinely controlled, but there are two seperate thoughts as to wether or not it can be regulated. Socialism endeavors to regulate private enterprize and redistribute wealth for good will endeavors.

Saying I have that backwards really isn't correct either then, the correction should simply be that in socialism government controls private industry. The point still stands that socialism is different from communism, and I still assert that Jesus was a communist and not a socialist.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

A lot of right wingers wouldn't like him and his rhetoric, but I wouldn't call him a socialist.

buldog300

Oh? And why wouldn't we? We love our neighbors, donate to charities and help those in need just like the left. We don't falunt what we give because jesus also said to give in silence and to not boast about your generosity, but I think everyone would do with a bit of his teachings.

The RW loves to "judge" people. For example, a lot (not all) always judge the gays for being gay.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Nope. Socialism means the government controls the economy and Jesus didn't get into economics very much. I would say he was a communist, though.

theone86

You have that backwards, communism is when governments control the businesses. The economy can't be genuinely controlled, but there are two seperate thoughts as to wether or not it can be regulated. Socialism endeavors to regulate private enterprize and redistribute wealth for good will endeavors.

Saying I have that backwards really isn't correct either then, the correction should simply be that in socialism government controls private industry. The point still stands that socialism is different from communism, and I still assert that Jesus was a communist and not a socialist.

Jesus wouldn't have been a communist still. Back then there wasn't industry, people didn't mass produce anything because they lacked the technology. Therefore there was no business, and barely a government to make one given that the roman empire controlled everything. Assuming at the time christ did have to means to form a business and mass produce things, do you really think he would have the government that he set out to ammend control the people that he set out to save? No, Christ wasn't a communist. You could argue that he was an anarchist, but then I'd have to refute that too.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Nope. Socialism means the government controls the economy and Jesus didn't get into economics very much. I would say he was a communist, though.

buldog300

You have that backwards, communism is when governments control the businesses. The economy can't be genuinely controlled, but there are two seperate thoughts as to wether or not it can be regulated. Socialism endeavors to regulate private enterprize and redistribute wealth for good will endeavors.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (Merriam Webster)

That doesn't sound like what you described. What you described is simply the twisted, RW distortion on what socialism is.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

A lot of right wingers wouldn't like him and his rhetoric, but I wouldn't call him a socialist.

SgtKevali

Oh? And why wouldn't we? We love our neighbors, donate to charities and help those in need just like the left. We don't falunt what we give because jesus also said to give in silence and to not boast about your generosity, but I think everyone would do with a bit of his teachings.

The RW loves to "judge" people. For example, a lot (not all) always judge the gays for being gay.

Again I say we don't. Indeed we stand against same sex marraige because we don't feel it's moral, but to say we are judemental of homosexuals would be as ignorant as calling us gay bashers' and bigots. I will admit that television loves depicting us as angry border patrol guards throwing beer cans at gay pride marches, but to say that we judge people is to say that people judge us, they asume that we do as much.

Take this bread as it represents my body. Now take this wine as it represents my blood. Now you owe me $5.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

A lot of right wingers wouldn't like him and his rhetoric, but I wouldn't call him a socialist.

SgtKevali

Oh? And why wouldn't we? We love our neighbors, donate to charities and help those in need just like the left. We don't falunt what we give because jesus also said to give in silence and to not boast about your generosity, but I think everyone would do with a bit of his teachings.

The RW loves to "judge" people. For example, a lot (not all) always judge the gays for being gay.

Yeah, don't think Jesus would be for attacking homosexuals, don't think he'd particularly like big business, certainly don't think he'd be on board with all the anti-tax rhetoric, don't think he'd be pleased with church involvement in politics, don't think he'd want people twisting cirriculi to fit religious agendas, don't think he'd like any of the ad homenim attacks, don't think he'd like rampant pollution of the world, don't think he'd like lobbying or corporate political donations, I think he'd absolutely detest Scalia as a person, don't think he'd like all the politicians taking money, basing their political decisions on who's giving them money, and then turning around and throwing out accusations of corruption at others.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

Oh? And why wouldn't we? We love our neighbors, donate to charities and help those in need just like the left. We don't falunt what we give because jesus also said to give in silence and to not boast about your generosity, but I think everyone would do with a bit of his teachings.

buldog300

The RW loves to "judge" people. For example, a lot (not all) always judge the gays for being gay.

Again I say we don't. Indeed we stand against same sex marraige because we don't feel it's moral, but to say we are judemental of homosexuals would be as ignorant as calling us gay bashers' and bigots. I will admit that television loves depicting us as angry border patrol guards throwing beer cans at gay pride marches, but to say that we judge people is to say that people judge us, they asume that we do as much.

As I said, not all do, but from what I see, a lot certainly do.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Nope. Socialism means the government controls the economy and Jesus didn't get into economics very much. I would say he was a communist, though.

SgtKevali

You have that backwards, communism is when governments control the businesses. The economy can't be genuinely controlled, but there are two seperate thoughts as to wether or not it can be regulated. Socialism endeavors to regulate private enterprize and redistribute wealth for good will endeavors.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (Merriam Webster)

That doesn't sound like what you described. What you described is simply the twisted, RW distortion on what socialism is.

You control and own things by regulating them friend. give someone a pie and then tell them that they can only cut it into squares, they can't add toppings because it might offend other pie afficionados and then tell them that the crust is your property so he has to pay to eat that portion, and what have you just done? The difference between socialism and communism is that one heavily regulates, the other just goes for the jugular and gets rid of the upper class and private enterprizes.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

The RW loves to "judge" people. For example, a lot (not all) always judge the gays for being gay.

SgtKevali

Again I say we don't. Indeed we stand against same sex marraige because we don't feel it's moral, but to say we are judemental of homosexuals would be as ignorant as calling us gay bashers' and bigots. I will admit that television loves depicting us as angry border patrol guards throwing beer cans at gay pride marches, but to say that we judge people is to say that people judge us, they asume that we do as much.

As I said, not all do, but from what I see, a lot certainly do.

And tell me, where do you see them?

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

Oh? And why wouldn't we? We love our neighbors, donate to charities and help those in need just like the left. We don't falunt what we give because jesus also said to give in silence and to not boast about your generosity, but I think everyone would do with a bit of his teachings.

theone86

The RW loves to "judge" people. For example, a lot (not all) always judge the gays for being gay.

Yeah, don't think Jesus would be for attacking homosexuals, don't think he'd particularly like big business, certainly don't think he'd be on board with all the anti-tax rhetoric, don't think he'd be pleased with church involvement in politics, don't think he'd want people twisting cirriculi to fit religious agendas, don't think he'd like any of the ad homenim attacks, don't think he'd like rampant pollution of the world, don't think he'd like lobbying or corporate political donations, I think he'd absolutely detest Scalia as a person, don't think he'd like all the politicians taking money, basing their political decisions on who's giving them money, and then turning around and throwing out accusations of corruption at others.

Jesus made a whip and drove out the merchants that were selling goods in his temple. He told people that were about to stone him many times that they were hippocrits. Jesus wasn't afraid to tell people when what they were doing was wrong. And he already knew that we would kill our own planet, both the opld and new testaments make claims that humanity would leave this rock desolate.

Of course.

Engrish_Major

It's ok, conservopedia is rewriting the bible to make Jesus more conservative.Acemaster27

It's ok, conservopedia is rewriting the bible to make Jesus more conservative.Acemaster27

don't worry, I'm sure congress will make a law telling everyone that if jesus would support them then they are slandeing and thus have to pa the government heavy fines in compensation. People will always make jesus more like what they are so that they can relate to him better, and thus get more out of his teachings.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

You have that backwards, communism is when governments control the businesses. The economy can't be genuinely controlled, but there are two seperate thoughts as to wether or not it can be regulated. Socialism endeavors to regulate private enterprize and redistribute wealth for good will endeavors.

buldog300

Saying I have that backwards really isn't correct either then, the correction should simply be that in socialism government controls private industry. The point still stands that socialism is different from communism, and I still assert that Jesus was a communist and not a socialist.

Jesus wouldn't have been a communist still. Back then there wasn't industry, people didn't mass produce anything because they lacked the technology. Therefore there was no business, and barely a government to make one given that the roman empire controlled everything. Assuming at the time christ did have to means to form a business and mass produce things, do you really think he would have the government that he set out to ammend control the people that he set out to save? No, Christ wasn't a communist. You could argue that he was an anarchist, but then I'd have to refute that too.

Fallacy number one, assuming the goal of communism is simply to control people. Arrogant and corrupt individuals might use communism to control people, but the same is true of capitalism. The goal of communism is to care for the needy, and I think Jesus would have supported that goal.

Two, I think Jesus would have viewed mass production as an abomination, especially with the motive of creating profit for a few avarice-driven individuals at the expense of the general public. I think Jesus would only have advocated for mass production to get necessary goods to people who needed them.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

You have that backwards, communism is when governments control the businesses. The economy can't be genuinely controlled, but there are two seperate thoughts as to wether or not it can be regulated. Socialism endeavors to regulate private enterprize and redistribute wealth for good will endeavors.

buldog300

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (Merriam Webster)

That doesn't sound like what you described. What you described is simply the twisted, RW distortion on what socialism is.

You control and own things by regulating them friend. give someone a pie and then tell them that they can only cut it into squares, they can't add toppings because it might offend other pie afficionados and then tell them that the crust is your property so he has to pay to eat that portion, and what have you just done? The difference between socialism and communism is that one heavily regulates, the other just goes for the jugular and gets rid of the upper class and private enterprizes.

How is heavy regulation "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

The RW loves to "judge" people. For example, a lot (not all) always judge the gays for being gay.

buldog300

Yeah, don't think Jesus would be for attacking homosexuals, don't think he'd particularly like big business, certainly don't think he'd be on board with all the anti-tax rhetoric, don't think he'd be pleased with church involvement in politics, don't think he'd want people twisting cirriculi to fit religious agendas, don't think he'd like any of the ad homenim attacks, don't think he'd like rampant pollution of the world, don't think he'd like lobbying or corporate political donations, I think he'd absolutely detest Scalia as a person, don't think he'd like all the politicians taking money, basing their political decisions on who's giving them money, and then turning around and throwing out accusations of corruption at others.

Jesus made a whip and drove out the merchants that were selling goods in his temple. He told people that were about to stone him many times that they were hippocrits. Jesus wasn't afraid to tell people when what they were doing was wrong. And he already knew that we would kill our own planet, both the opld and new testaments make claims that humanity would leave this rock desolate.

But Jesus wouldn't have advocated for the persecution of individuals based on different beliefs. He may have told his followers not to accept homosexuality within their own ranks, but I don't believe he'd ever advocate imposing political discrimination upon them.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Saying I have that backwards really isn't correct either then, the correction should simply be that in socialism government controls private industry. The point still stands that socialism is different from communism, and I still assert that Jesus was a communist and not a socialist.

theone86

Jesus wouldn't have been a communist still. Back then there wasn't industry, people didn't mass produce anything because they lacked the technology. Therefore there was no business, and barely a government to make one given that the roman empire controlled everything. Assuming at the time christ did have to means to form a business and mass produce things, do you really think he would have the government that he set out to ammend control the people that he set out to save? No, Christ wasn't a communist. You could argue that he was an anarchist, but then I'd have to refute that too.

Fallacy number one, assuming the goal of communism is simply to control people. Arrogant and corrupt individuals might use communism to control people, but the same is true of capitalism. The goal of communism is to care for the needy, and I think Jesus would have supported that goal.

Two, I think Jesus would have viewed mass production as an abomination, especially with the motive of creating profit for a few avarice-driven individuals at the expense of the general public. I think Jesus would only have advocated for mass production to get necessary goods to people who needed them.

Everyone seeks control. Power is nothing without control, and everyone seeks power, communists included. The goal of communism isn't to help the needy it's to create a state where everyone is 'equal' by eliminating class. Essentially to bring everyone down (or up) to the same level in society.

Mass production is the reason you are talking to me now friend, and it's the second reason the bible is the most produced book in the world. Don't put words in christ's mouth, that's called heresy.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yeah, don't think Jesus would be for attacking homosexuals, don't think he'd particularly like big business, certainly don't think he'd be on board with all the anti-tax rhetoric, don't think he'd be pleased with church involvement in politics, don't think he'd want people twisting cirriculi to fit religious agendas, don't think he'd like any of the ad homenim attacks, don't think he'd like rampant pollution of the world, don't think he'd like lobbying or corporate political donations, I think he'd absolutely detest Scalia as a person, don't think he'd like all the politicians taking money, basing their political decisions on who's giving them money, and then turning around and throwing out accusations of corruption at others.

theone86

Jesus made a whip and drove out the merchants that were selling goods in his temple. He told people that were about to stone him many times that they were hippocrits. Jesus wasn't afraid to tell people when what they were doing was wrong. And he already knew that we would kill our own planet, both the opld and new testaments make claims that humanity would leave this rock desolate.

But Jesus wouldn't have advocated for the persecution of individuals based on different beliefs. He may have told his followers not to accept homosexuality within their own ranks, but I don't believe he'd ever advocate imposing political discrimination upon them.

Friend, you have a right to your beleifs, but I have a right to mine. I believe Jesus would tell them that what they were doing is wrong. He told the most 'holy' priests in the world that they were hippocrits, liars, greedy and malevolent sinners. If he didn't excuse the righteous, why wouls he excuse the sinners? Acceptance and tolerance isn't the same thing, bear that in mind.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

You have that backwards, communism is when governments control the businesses. The economy can't be genuinely controlled, but there are two seperate thoughts as to wether or not it can be regulated. Socialism endeavors to regulate private enterprize and redistribute wealth for good will endeavors.

buldog300

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (Merriam Webster)

That doesn't sound like what you described. What you described is simply the twisted, RW distortion on what socialism is.

You control and own things by regulating them friend. give someone a pie and then tell them that they can only cut it into squares, they can't add toppings because it might offend other pie afficionados and then tell them that the crust is your property so he has to pay to eat that portion, and what have you just done? The difference between socialism and communism is that one heavily regulates, the other just goes for the jugular and gets rid of the upper class and private enterprizes.

Cimmunism is a wide range of social thinking that at its base incorporates a few basic ideals, namely some sort of economic equality, equality in shaping the affairs of the state and business, and equality in terms of education and other needs it considers basic. That can range anywhere from the complete abolition of property to something as simple as a worker's union, just as capitalism can range anywhere from a total free market to one where government intervenes but does not seize individual business.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

Jesus made a whip and drove out the merchants that were selling goods in his temple. He told people that were about to stone him many times that they were hippocrits. Jesus wasn't afraid to tell people when what they were doing was wrong. And he already knew that we would kill our own planet, both the opld and new testaments make claims that humanity would leave this rock desolate.

theone86

But Jesus wouldn't have advocated for the persecution of individuals based on different beliefs. He may have told his followers not to accept homosexuality within their own ranks, but I don't believe he'd ever advocate imposing political discrimination upon them.

He that is without sin, let them cast the first stone. Jesus

Everyone seeks control. Power is nothing without control, and everyone seeks power, communists included. The goal of communism isn't to help the needy it's to create a state where everyone is 'equal' by eliminating class. Essentially to bring everyone down (or up) to the same level in society.

Mass production is the reason you are talking to me now friend, and it's the second reason the bible is the most produced book in the world. Don't put words in christ's mouth, that's called heresy.

buldog300

Not everyone seeks control, Jesus didn't seek control. I already explained how communism doesn't necessarily mean complete elimination of private property. As for heresy, it's a claim that means nothing to me seeing as how I don't believe in god, but it does seem to me that you're the one who's putting words in Jesus' mouth.

Friend, you have a right to your beleifs, but I have a right to mine. I believe Jesus would tell them that what they were doing is wrong. He told the most 'holy' priests in the world that they were hippocrits, liars, greedy and malevolent sinners. If he didn't excuse the righteous, why wouls he excuse the sinners? Acceptance and tolerance isn't the same thing, bear that in mind.

buldog300

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of record. In the Bible, in addition to religious beliefs Jesus preached tolerance of people with different beliefs and even admonished others for spreading the word of god in a way that didn't accurately represent god's loving nature. I love how it's gotten to the point where the religious are willing to ignore parts of their own holy text in order to suppor their own prejudices, just shows how ingrained this idea of revisionism really is in the neo-con movement.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

But Jesus wouldn't have advocated for the persecution of individuals based on different beliefs. He may have told his followers not to accept homosexuality within their own ranks, but I don't believe he'd ever advocate imposing political discrimination upon them.

racer8dan

He that is without sin, let them cast the first stone. Jesus

wow, way to quote the most taken out of context saying that jesus ever spoke. When jesus said this he wasn't saying that we can all be happy sinners and worship false idols and have sex with whatever we felt was prudent and steal and kill and lie and slander and blashphem. There was a woman who was being accused of adultery, and the pharisees were trying to use her as a trap for jesus with an ultimatum. they said 'should we stone her now?'. If he said yes then they could have fouled him because he associated with sinners (tax collectors, prostitutes, samaritans) and if he said 'no' they would ahve said 'if he was so righteous then why wouldn't he bring an adulteres to justice?'. Therfore he said what you quoted, and got out of their snare. Don't think that that quote invalidates humanities duties, not by a long shot.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

But Jesus wouldn't have advocated for the persecution of individuals based on different beliefs. He may have told his followers not to accept homosexuality within their own ranks, but I don't believe he'd ever advocate imposing political discrimination upon them.

racer8dan

He that is without sin, let them cast the first stone. Jesus

Yup, and if Jesus were still alive he'd be casting a lot of stones at the people who are currently casting stones and then acting as if they're doing his work.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (Merriam Webster)

That doesn't sound like what you described. What you described is simply the twisted, RW distortion on what socialism is.

theone86

You control and own things by regulating them friend. give someone a pie and then tell them that they can only cut it into squares, they can't add toppings because it might offend other pie afficionados and then tell them that the crust is your property so he has to pay to eat that portion, and what have you just done? The difference between socialism and communism is that one heavily regulates, the other just goes for the jugular and gets rid of the upper class and private enterprizes.

Cimmunism is a wide range of social thinking that at its base incorporates a few basic ideals, namely some sort of economic equality, equality in shaping the affairs of the state and business, and equality in terms of education and other needs it considers basic. That can range anywhere from the complete abolition of property to something as simple as a worker's union, just as capitalism can range anywhere from a total free market to one where government intervenes but does not seize individual business.

Well I know that. if it weren't true then there wouldn't be marxism, lenninism, stalinism, and so on. The ultimate goal of communism though is to elimate class, thus making 'equality' by government control.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

You control and own things by regulating them friend. give someone a pie and then tell them that they can only cut it into squares, they can't add toppings because it might offend other pie afficionados and then tell them that the crust is your property so he has to pay to eat that portion, and what have you just done? The difference between socialism and communism is that one heavily regulates, the other just goes for the jugular and gets rid of the upper class and private enterprizes.

buldog300

Cimmunism is a wide range of social thinking that at its base incorporates a few basic ideals, namely some sort of economic equality, equality in shaping the affairs of the state and business, and equality in terms of education and other needs it considers basic. That can range anywhere from the complete abolition of property to something as simple as a worker's union, just as capitalism can range anywhere from a total free market to one where government intervenes but does not seize individual business.

Well I know that. if it weren't true then there wouldn't be marxism, lenninism, stalinism, and so on. The ultimate goal of communism though is to elimate class, thus making 'equality' by government control.

Not necessarily, there are some communists who believe that class can still exist, but that the wealth gap must not become so pronounced as to allow the wealthy to control the less wealthy by use of their wealth.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Jesus"] He that is without sin, let them cast the first stone. buldog300

wow, way to quote the most taken out of context saying that jesus ever spoke. When jesus said this he wasn't saying that we can all be happy sinners and worship false idols and have sex with whatever we felt was prudent and steal and kill and lie and slander and blashphem. There was a woman who was being accused of adultery, and the pharisees were trying to use her as a trap for jesus with an ultimatum. they said 'should we stone her now?'. If he said yes then they could have fouled him because he associated with sinners (tax collectors, prostitutes, samaritans) and if he said 'no' they would ahve said 'if he was so righteous then why wouldn't he bring an adulteres to justice?'. Therfore he said what you quoted, and got out of their snare. Don't think that that quote invalidates humanities duties, not by a long shot.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]Everyone seeks control. Power is nothing without control, and everyone seeks power, communists included. The goal of communism isn't to help the needy it's to create a state where everyone is 'equal' by eliminating class. Essentially to bring everyone down (or up) to the same level in society.

Mass production is the reason you are talking to me now friend, and it's the second reason the bible is the most produced book in the world. Don't put words in christ's mouth, that's called heresy.

theone86

Not everyone seeks control, Jesus didn't seek control. I already explained how communism doesn't necessarily mean complete elimination of private property. As for heresy, it's a claim that means nothing to me seeing as how I don't believe in god, but it does seem to me that you're the one who's putting words in Jesus' mouth.

Friend, you have a right to your beleifs, but I have a right to mine. I believe Jesus would tell them that what they were doing is wrong. He told the most 'holy' priests in the world that they were hippocrits, liars, greedy and malevolent sinners. If he didn't excuse the righteous, why wouls he excuse the sinners? Acceptance and tolerance isn't the same thing, bear that in mind.

buldog300

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of record. In the Bible, in addition to religious beliefs Jesus preached tolerance of people with different beliefs and even admonished others for spreading the word of god in a way that didn't accurately represent god's loving nature. I love how it's gotten to the point where the religious are willing to ignore parts of their own holy text in order to suppor their own prejudices, just shows how ingrained this idea of revisionism really is in the neo-con movement.

Jesus was the exception to a lot of rules friend. And in the end it kinda does mean the elimination of property. Every communist movement has two common denominators: hate the rich and follow marxism. There has yet to be a communist movement without these two ideals, and until there is one, my arguement stands. I'm not the one saying what jesus would say now, but what he did say long ago.

Show me where Jesus said to tolerate. Because after reading the bible several times I could've sworn it said 'make beleivers of every nation' not ' let sin win'. Like I said tolerance and acceptance isn't the same thing, we tolerate other beleifs quite well. You go to china and ou can be arrested for having a bible. you go to Africa and you could be killed for being a christian. We have religous rights, founded in an endeavor to protect the church from the state. I have many friends, gay muslim and atheist. You call my kind a judemental group without ever talking to one personally, it is you who is judgemental sir. I let people live by their own means, but that will never stop me from saying that what I believe claims what they practice isn't the right way.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Cimmunism is a wide range of social thinking that at its base incorporates a few basic ideals, namely some sort of economic equality, equality in shaping the affairs of the state and business, and equality in terms of education and other needs it considers basic. That can range anywhere from the complete abolition of property to something as simple as a worker's union, just as capitalism can range anywhere from a total free market to one where government intervenes but does not seize individual business.

theone86

Well I know that. if it weren't true then there wouldn't be marxism, lenninism, stalinism, and so on. The ultimate goal of communism though is to elimate class, thus making 'equality' by government control.

Not necessarily, there are some communists who believe that class can still exist, but that the wealth gap must not become so pronounced as to allow the wealthy to control the less wealthy by use of their wealth.

not quite. The ongoing idea is to tolerate class and hope it goes away in those groups, like how the founding fathers hoped that slavery would disappear over the course of our history so they tolerated it during the start of the nation. The idea is gradual change, but the ultimate goal is the same.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

racer8dan

wow, way to quote the most taken out of context saying that jesus ever spoke. When jesus said this he wasn't saying that we can all be happy sinners and worship false idols and have sex with whatever we felt was prudent and steal and kill and lie and slander and blashphem. There was a woman who was being accused of adultery, and the pharisees were trying to use her as a trap for jesus with an ultimatum. they said 'should we stone her now?'. If he said yes then they could have fouled him because he associated with sinners (tax collectors, prostitutes, samaritans) and if he said 'no' they would ahve said 'if he was so righteous then why wouldn't he bring an adulteres to justice?'. Therfore he said what you quoted, and got out of their snare. Don't think that that quote invalidates humanities duties, not by a long shot.

Indeed, god is the final judge. but we are still meant to differentiate right from wrong. Of course, this gets off track from the topic 'is jesus a socialist'.

Those lazy bastards didn't deserve that fish or bread. wstfld