Was Jesus a socialist?

Originally posted by black beetle
So rwingett my friend,

In case you accept my challenge, it is obvious that my thesis is consistent of the two post of mine at this thread: my first post (the last post on page 2 of this thread) must be taken as my answer to your opening post as is; the second part of my thesis are the five first paragraphs of my second post (the first post on page 3 ...[text shortened]... st be taken as my answer to your closing text as is.

It's all up to you now, here wait.-
😵

I do not wish to endure another formal debate, although I may address your points through the normal posting process. You should have spoken up before if you wanted to take on the topic. I was fishing around for opponents for a while and only Jaywill and Whodey showed any interest.

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not wish to endure another formal debate, although I may address your points through the normal posting process. You should have spoken up before if you wanted to take on the topic. I was fishing around for opponents for a while and only Jaywill and Whodey showed any interest.

You have to endure nothing, for your opinion is already expressed🙂

My opinion is expressed too, and in my opinion my texts are destroying your sophisms big time; so, if you think that I am wrong and that your position is tenable, bring up the judges of your own choise as I mentioned earlier and we will see allright if Jesus was a Sosialist😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Ha ha. You don't have a dead beetle's chance of winning in the court of public opinion.

Your grasp of epistemology is clearly lacking. Truth is not determined by public opinion. It is determined by officially chosen judges. That's what makes it official. Otherwise its just hearsay and gossip.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your grasp of epistemology is clearly lacking. Truth is not determined by public opinion. It is determined by officially chosen judges. That's what makes it official. Otherwise its just hearsay and gossip.

Officially chosen judges!

OK then: go ahead and state the judges of your personal taste, which they can be as many as you want; I will accept this team anyway.
It's pity to lose another chance to enjoy another one victory with just one shot😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You have to endure nothing, for your opinion is already expressed🙂

My opinion is expressed too, and in my opinion my texts are destroying your sophisms big time; so, if you think that I am wrong and that your position is tenable, bring up the judges of your own choise as I mentioned earlier and we will see allright if Jesus was a Sosialist😵

I was debating Jaywill, not you. You were supposed to be an impartial judge, not a debate opponent. I may address your arguments, but not in a debate process.

Originally posted by rwingett
I was debating Jaywill, not you. You were supposed to be an impartial judge, not a debate opponent. I may address your arguments, but not in a debate process.

Of course I am impartial -I 'm a dead pure atheist afterall.

And I repeat: no further debate between us is required -just count my two posts as a reply to the two posts of yours as is. The sole thing that remains is the verdict of the judges (no matter of their number), which will be chosen solely by you😵

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]***********VICTORY!!!!************

I wish to thank the judges for helping me prove beyond any possible doubt that Jesus was a socialist. By at least a 3 to 2 vote the truth has been clearly recognized and can henceforth be carved in stone. Fact: Jesus was a socialist. Every Christian denomination will now be required to alter their dogma to confor ...[text shortened]... reality leaves them ill prepared to deal with a more factually grounded understanding of Jesus.[/b]

Well done rwingett, a well written proposition by yourself (and jaywill). Both of you are very good a putting your ideas into the writen word.

Fabulous entertainment too.....your victory speach I mean! Obama should hire you. I wonder however if there is hollowness in this victory..?

1) Did the judges "help" you; are you suggesting collusion my triumphant friend?
2) Your original rules said "reasonable doubt" not "beyond any possible doubt" so you cannot claim that I'm afraid.
3) Christian demoninations will change thier dogma as it suits them anyway, so you cannot claim that either...sorry.
4) The scale and legitimacy of your victory lies securely within the scope of the debate rules, which are really only about the your proposition that Jesus was a socialist -- and jaywill's proposition that you failed to prove your own point -- not everyone elses. I'm afraid you are still not the spokesperson for this generation.

Points 2 and 4 above, somewhat reflect your scurrilous accusation of christians "tenous grasp of reality".

Good entertainment all round though, thank you for the idea. I'm looking forward to the related various debates and counter-arguments.

DG

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]***********VICTORY!!!!************

I wish to thank the judges for helping me prove beyond any possible doubt that Jesus was a socialist. By at least a 3 to 2 vote the truth has been clearly recognized and can henceforth be carved in stone. Fact: Jesus was a socialist. Every Christian denomination will now be required to alter their dogma to confor ...[text shortened]... reality leaves them ill prepared to deal with a more factually grounded understanding of Jesus.[/b]

I would like to know if you will be revising your concept of what constitutes a post, in light of the specimens found herein.

I find it interesting that rwingett begins by saying,

"But the socialism of Jesus did not involve politics. It transcended politics. It was a withdrawal from the political systems of the time and the renunciation of their corrupting influence......In other words, the kingdom of God could not be legislated into being through any political act or by any political party."

However, socialism today is defined as the control and distribution of goods, places total control, but not ownership, of the nations assets on its hands. How is this to be achieved by a withdrawal from the corrupting political systems? Is he suggesting that the kingdom of God was built from the ground up through people who had been filled with hope and uplifted by the social gospel of Jesus which later evolved into modern day socialism? If so, why then would the state be needed to mandate that people "do the right thing" today if the people have finally seen the light and become this wonderful social utopia of the kingdom of God in socialistic countries today?

The question must be asked, would Christ approve of modern day socialism? To get a better understanding of the mind of Christ about such things, one must get a better understanding of the Torah in which he immersed himself. After all, we are told that the boy Jesus even taught in the synagogues with amazing clarity and understanding about the Torah. So to begin with, we will look at what the Torah has to say about government? In 1 Samuel chapter 8 we get a good sense of what type of government God set up for the children of Israel. What we see is a God that reigns as king over the nation of Israel with judges there to settle disputes. That is all!! There is no central power that collects and redistributes the wealth. There is no central power to see to it that the poor are "taken care of". Instead, we see laws that are placed as admonishments and judges set in place to keep the peace among the 12 tribes and people to choose good from evil and to choose "to do the right thing". One of these admonishments, however, is in relation to what the children of Israel were demanding. They wanted to be like the other nations who had a king. God saw this as a personal rejection of himself as king, however he conceded. In doing so, however, he warned them of what was to come. In short, they would become the servants of the king rather than the other way around. You may call them public servants, but the opposite is more accurate. In fact, we see this in any form of government of the past and present whether it be socialism or even communism. In fact, we continue to have the poor whether it be socialism or even communism in control.

Having said that, how does the Torah and the rest of the Bible address how to care for the poor? In the Torah we see three ways for the poor to be helped. 1. Through the family. The family unit is the cornerstone upon which a Biblical society exists. Each member is reliant on the other as they strive to survive and even flourish. For example, widows were to be cared for by other members of the family instead of striking out on their own. In fact, it is only when one loses ones family, for whatever reason, that people within that society might slip through the cracks. 2. Through the church. Christ's ministry was a prime example of this. There is no speculation that part of his ministry was to address the poor, however, there is a great deal of speculation as to whether this was the focus of his ministry as I will later point out. 3. Through individual charity. In Deuteronomy 24:19-21 we see that the children of Israel were commanded by God that when harvesting their fields, which were privately owned, they should harvest it only one time. Then any left overs were to be left for the poor. In Deuteronomy 15:11 we see the children of Israel being commanded to be "openhanded" toward the poor. So where then is government? A better question would be, what are the consequences for a government to replace such a system? The consequences are that you wind up with are what we see today. You wind up with people forced to pay taxes rather than giving to the poor which robs people of the gift of giving. You have the poor receiving the money from the government rather than from individual charity which creates a sense of entitlement rather than gratitude. In fact, it evolves into being an expectation and it never is enough. Then you cap it all off by eroding the family unit as each member is no longer dependent upon the other because Big Brother is there for him instead. What you then wind up with, and what we see more of today, is a populace that is increasingly disinfranchized and isolated. Is this the kingdom of God that Christ spoke of?

As I have already stated, it was not the focus of Christ to redistribute wealth, rather, it was to effect change in the hearts of men. Case in point is the widow who threw in a very small amount of change as a tithe. Christ told his disciples that she had given more than everyone else even though it was the smallest amount given by everyone in the room yet he praised her for it. You see, it was all she had in the world. Christ was looking at her heart rather than seeing to it that she pay her fair share. In fact, if he was only concentrated on dividing the wealth proportionally, he would have rebuked the poor widow for doing so, however, that is not what happened is it? In fact. the Bible only rebukes both the greedy and envious. It rebukes the greed of those who could easily give but chose not to and it rebukes those who are poor and lust after the riches of their neighbor. In fact, Exodus 20:17 mandates that a man not covet the wealth of another man's possessions. However, is this not what we see in many hearts of socialists today? In addition, would Jesus have denounced wealthy men in the Bible such as Job or Abraham? I think not. It may be harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of God but with God ALL things are possible and WITH GOD this became a reality for both men.

I have to admit one thing, I was once sold on the gospel of capitalism. In fact, I had seen in times past people pulling scriptures that support their claims such as the parable in Luke 19:12-27 At the end of the parable Jesus says, "For I say unto you that everyone which has will be given, and from him that has not, even that he has will be taken away from him." However, I just have to turn and laugh. In fact, Jesus was just as much a socialist as he was a capitalist. Another favorite they used were scriptures such as Proverbs 10:4 that say something to the effect that if you don't work you should not eat. Using such verses to support a political ideology is just plain nuts though because as Rwingett pointed out political ideologies was not what Jesus was about. You see, there is elements of Biblical truth in both left wing and right wing dogmas, but both are left wanting. It is only Christ and Biblical teachings which encompuss the whole truth regarding both ideologies. In fact, we see capitalism fall to its knees during today's credit crisis. Why if the gospel of capitalism is our savior? It is because of corruption in the hearts of men. In fact, socialism is no different. Both ideologies can be and have been proven to be brought to their knees because of the inequity that lives in the hearts of men. That is what Christ came to address, that is what he was about whether it be in the heart of a capitalist or a socialist.

Now as for my last critique of Rwingetts rant. He would have us to believe that the mythology of who and what Christ was had been built up by the early Christian writers after Christ had come and gone. However, how does one explain such archaeological evidence as "Gabriel's Stone"? Google it if you like. It is nothing more than evidence that the Messiah story of redemption, death, resurrection, and triumph over sin that we see in the New Testament was written in stone before Christ was even born!! No longer can Paul be blamed for "creating" the Messiah myth. All that can be said now is that he stole it.

In closing, I would just like to say that we should learn something from this debate. We should learn about the power of belief. You see, Rwingett is a rabid socialist and, therefore, sees the world through the eyes of a socialist. That is the main impetus I think for his assertions. He is no more different than those who have tried to convince me in times past that Christ was a capitalist because those that tried to convince me of such things believed in the gospel of capitalism just like Rwingett believes in the gospel of socialism. As for me, I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ that came to change the hearts of men unto righteousness.

In addition, it has also been pointed out that the judges were naturally impartial due to their atheistic beliefs and, therefore, voted in favor of an atheist over a theist. Now you all have your own opinions regarding the matter and you may or may not agree with what was said, but it is something to think about. We are all confronted with the same data, yet form completely different conclusions. I say it stems all from our beliefs!!

Originally posted by whodey
I find it interesting that rwingett begins by saying,

"But the socialism of Jesus did not involve politics. It transcended politics. It was a withdrawal from the political systems of the time and the renunciation of their corrupting influence......In other words, the kingdom of God could not be legislated into being through any political act or by any p ...[text shortened]... rm completely different conclusions. I say it stems all from our beliefs!!

There is much that I did not include in my presentation as it was not necessary to the immediate topic at hand. But I will give you my extended version of theology now. It may clear up a few things. Of course, it will require you to set aside almost everything you believe about Jesus, God and Christianity. And I wish to dispel, once again, this notion that socialism is exclusively a political and state oriented redistribution of goods and services. That speaks more toward your own limited imagination than anything else. All right, here we go:

At the dawn of human history, pre-civilized man lived as hunter-gatherers. This lifestyle was a form of primitive socialism. It was an egalitarian, non-hierarchical society. What few possessions and tools people had were shared by the community. All the proceeds from the day's foraging and hunting were shared amongst everyone. Man lived as an integrated part of the nature around him, the bounty of which was the "common treasury of all." It was a harsh and uncertain existence, but yet an idyllic one where mankind possessed a level of freedom that we can scarcely comprehend today.

Then came the Fall. But unlike the alternate myth presented in the bible, the fall from grace was quite different. Mankind's Original Sin was private property. When man began to claim the bounty of the earth as his own private property and to deny its fair use to his fellow man, all the evils of the world followed closely behind. Tyranny, oppression, poverty, slavery, greed, all of these evils were a direct result of man’s decision to enclose part of the earth and claim it as his own. States were soon erected to enforce those property relationships. In fact, all of the relationships in life and nature were corrupted into property relationships. All interactions were commodified. Mankind had become alienated from his fellow man, from the world around him, and from his very own humanity. And he had become alienated from God.

In my debate, I made much use of the phrase “the kingdom of God.” I went to great lengths to describe what the “kingdom” meant. But as it was not necessary for my purposes then, I did not explain God. Suffice it to say, he is not a supernatural being who created the universe. Far from it. Rather, as John Lennon said, “God is a concept.” Not by which we measure our pain, but by which we measure our humanity. God is the Platonic ideal of humanity itself. The fullest realization of humanity. The yardstick by which we measure ourselves, so to speak. To become alienated from our own humanity is to become alienated from God.

Jesus is the path by which we are able to reconnect with that lost humanity. He is the one to remind us what it actually means to be fully human again. He is the one to show us to which heights we may aspire and remind us that “human nature” is not relegated to its fallen state. The “salvation” offered by Jesus is the realization that we can transcend our present surroundings. We can break free from the hierarchical stratifications which have been imposed upon us for 10,000 years. We can quit acting as mere cogs in the machine and can re-connect with our primordial humanity.

When we become our brother’s keeper again. When we learn to love with reckless abandon. When we see that the jealously protecting our own position of privilege only limits our freedom. When we see all these things, when we change ourselves as Tolstoy said, then, using Jesus as our guide, we can reconnect with our lost humanity. We can be reunited with that non theistic definition of God.

This is not, I repeat, is not a political process. It is the transcendence of politics. It is the complete abandonment of the entire political process. It is rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. As Timothy Leary said, it is tuning in and dropping out. It is refusing to participate in a system of tyranny and oppression any longer. It is to rise above that base state of being and live as a free and fully realized human being. It is to reconnect with the lost humanity of our primordial ancestors and adapt that primitive socialism to our modern surroundings.

But as they say, you can never go home again. You cannot abandon 10,000 years of progress and return to that hunter-gatherer existence. You must learn to live as a fully realized human being within this modern world. But you cannot reform the political institutions of this world. You cannot overthrow the hierarchical stratifications inherent in the present world. Those institutions and those concepts must be abandoned. As the 19th century utopian Christian socialists tried, you must build the kingdom of God yourself. And it must be built from the ground up, not from the top down. It must be built from the personal renunciation of greed, avarice, hate, and the blind adherence to any dogmatic creeds. It must be built by retaining the good that progress has wrought while reaching back to the roots of our humanity. The fully human Jesus is the medium which allows us to synthesize these two disparate worlds. The full realization of our shared humanity by reclaiming our role as our brother’s keepers. That is the kingdom. That is the socialism of Jesus. That is the self-realization of our collective salvation. Jesus showed us the way. It is up to each of us to make the journey ourselves.

I wish to conclude here by stating that this interpretation of Jesus is NOT meant to be taken literally. It is a myth. A myth, as Vistesd likes to say, in the best sense of the term. A myth that helps us find our place, in our time. I think that any religion that takes itself literally is dead to the present world. It must be free to grow and adapt. Jesus spoke in parables that defied dogmatism. To try to box them in to a specific meaning that is true for everyone in every circumstance is to destroy them. So while I did try to present evidence for my position in the debate, I will not go to such lengths here. It would be self-defeating.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is much that I did not include in my presentation as it was not necessary to the immediate topic at hand. But I will give you my extended version of theology now. It may clear up a few things. Of course, it will require you to set aside almost everything you believe about Jesus, God and Christianity. And I wish to dispel, once again, this notion that r my position in the debate, I will not go to such lengths here. It would be self-defeating.

I have always said that everyone has a "devil". For example, those on the right of the political spectrum say it is the government as where those on the left say it is the corporation, however, for you it is private property. All I can say is, the devil is in certain aspects of all these things. There are good aspects to all these things as well as bad aspects to all these things but I dare say they are not the SOURCE of our ills. The more unsettling thing to look at is what lies within us that causes government to go awry or what causes corporations to go awry or what causes disputes for private property to go awry. Now as for Jesus, I see no where that he makes reference that private property specifically as the source of our ills. If you have some evidence, please share.


As for the bit about not taking the Bible literally, of course some of it must be taken literally. After all, it is about real people during real periods in history. It is not presented as a book of fantasy. If you don't believe me, just ask a Biblical archaeologist. Having said that, we must then ask ourselves if it should all be taken literally, and that is for you to decide. For example, I don't think you argue that Jesus existed or that he was killed upon a cross because there are other historical evidences that point to this fact that are not religious in nature, but the rest is up to your imagination because you reject the rest of it......except for verses that point towards a socialistic theology, of course. In a way, I see this as picking what you like and leaving what you dislike. For example, you give evidence in Acts that points to the early church as being socialistic in nature, but then attack the same text in terms of claiming that Jesus is more than just a mere man. You even attack the man Paul whom the text says is a servant of God as the one who created the Jesus resurrected myth. I find this to be dangerous to say the least because I find that the truth about things is often what we don't want to hear or can't even imagine. In short, so long as we strip the text of the living God and strip it of its miraculous stories or any other teaching that rubs you the wrong way we can embrace it as literal. That is what I hear you saying.

As for myself, I find the living word to be like a scapel cutting away things in my life that need to go. Sure, it is painful and scarry at times but if I submit myself to it that is where I have found freedom from the evil within. However, people like yourself can't do that because it is not all based in truth from your perspective. You must sift the truth out and only embrace the truths that you agree with. In fact, as a Christian I have even done this myself but have only found myself to suffer in the long term for it. You see, we all have the tendency to be "blinded" at times and delude ourselves of things for various reasons, at least from my past experiences.

I really have no idea how this utopia of yours is supposed to come about. From a Christian perspective, we are strangers in a strange world. In fact, we are not of this world. It is falling apart around us as we participate to try and stabalize it the best way we can by being "lights" unto the world as we share the "good news:" with others around us. However, to make EVERYTHING right will take nothing less than the Prince of Peace returning to earth with a sword in his hand to help avert mankind from destroying himself altogether. I see no other way to bring this about. How about you?

Originally posted by rwingett
There is much that I did not include in my presentation as it was not necessary to the immediate topic at hand. But I will give you my extended version of theology now. It may clear up a few things. Of course, it will require you to set aside almost everything you believe about Jesus, God and Christianity. And I wish to dispel, once again, this notion that ...[text shortened]... r my position in the debate, I will not go to such lengths here. It would be self-defeating.

Do you actually live by this ideology, or merely hold it as some kind of intellectual utopian mirage?

If it is the former then please send me some money as I am extremely hard up at the moment. Also my wife has run off with a capitalist and I'm feeling rather frisky and in need of some consolation, so if you ask your misses could bring the required funds I would be most appreciative.

Kind regards fellow comrade

PS please email a photo of said spouse first...just in case.

Originally posted by whodey
I have always said that everyone has a "devil". For example, those on the right of the political spectrum say it is the government as where those on the left say it is the corporation, however, for you it is private property. All I can say is, the devil is in certain aspects of all these things. There are good aspects to all these things as well as bad asp ...[text shortened]... roying himself altogether. I see no other way to bring this about. How about you?

It is my contention that most of what is in the bible is made up. Some of it may be traced back to the actual Jesus, but most of it was invented by later writers. It's very difficult to say with certainty what is authentic and what has been contrived. The research of groups like the Jesus Seminar can give us some insight into this, but the actual Jesus may never be fully reconstructed. If you feel that I am inventing my interpretation, then to a certain extent I will agree with you. But I hasten to add that I'm not doing anything differently than every other Christian group that has ever existed.

I think Jesus intended his teachings to be a flexible and adaptable approach to the problems confronting people. His parables are open to interpretation and multiple meanings. I do not think he intended them to become fixed into a permanent, inflexible dogma. As people's circumstances change, then his teachings were meant to be flexible enough to change with the times and remain relevant to the present age. So when we try to say that Jesus meant 'X' and 'X' alone, we close ourselves off from much of the nuance, depth and richness that are latent within the text.

I also think that if Jesus was able to return that he would update and modify his teachings to take into account all that has been learned since the first century. If Jesus could read Darwin, for example, how would he react to it? How would he incorporate that body of knowledge into his message? If he could see firsthand the enormous changes wrought by the industrial revolution, what would he have to say about it? We have to ask ourselves, what would a 21st century Jesus do? To lock ourselves into a first century interpretation of Jesus is to make him less and less relevant to our present time.

To paraphrase Utah Phillips (the closest we will get to the second coming of Jesus in our lifetime), we are all engaged in the process of story telling. We are all participants in the narrative of that story. We take what has been handed down to us, we write in our own few chapters, and we send it on to future generations to do the same. The story is never 'true' at any particular point. And it is never static. But it may be useful all the same. How much of the real Jesus is in that story? How much of the real Jesus is in the bible? It's impossible to know.

Originally posted by whodey
I have always said that everyone has a "devil". For example, those on the right of the political spectrum say it is the government as where those on the left say it is the corporation, however, for you it is private property. All I can say is, the devil is in certain aspects of all these things. There are good aspects to all these things as well as bad asp ...[text shortened]... roying himself altogether. I see no other way to bring this about. How about you?

How will this Utopia come about? By having people build it, that's how.

Look at the Amish, for example. They've dropped out of the world around them (as much as possible) and have built their own communities. They're an example that most people are familiar with, but they're a flawed one. Their Anabaptist brethren, the Hutterites, who most people are not familiar with, are a better example. They, too, have dropped out from the world around them and have built their own communities. But unlike the Amish, they live a communal, socialistic lifestyle. Plus they do not shun technology to such an extent. So clearly, given enough dedication and persistence, it can be done. But nobody expected building the kingdom would be easy.

The 19the century saw a great number of utopian communities spring up. Many Christian socialists of that era agreed with my interpretation that the kingdom was something they needed to build themselves. And many tried. The Harmony Society, the Icarian movement, the Oneida community, the Aurora community and others were all experiments in Christian socialism of one form or another. After the 19th century, this form of Christian socialism fell out of favor and most Christians today are scarcely aware of this chapter in their history. It is one that is worth revisiting, in my opinion.

Originally posted by divegeester
Do you actually live by this ideology, or merely hold it as some kind of intellectual utopian mirage?

If it is the former then please send me some money as I am extremely hard up at the moment. Also my wife has run off with a capitalist and I'm feeling rather frisky and in need of some consolation, so if you ask your misses could bring the required ...[text shortened]...

Kind regards fellow comrade

PS please email a photo of said spouse first...just in case.

No, I don't. I am not a Christian. But I find Christianity interesting enough that I'm willing to do some research into it. And because I am not a Christian, I am not beholden to any particular dogma. I am free to come up with my own interpretation, which I make freely available to those who do call themselves Christian so that they may see the error of their ways.