I think some on here are confusing socialism and charity, or in the cause of that passage, complete charity where you give everything away for a life of simplicity like many Catholic and Orthodox Christian Monastics have chosen to live. Even the men and women living such lives would agree that such a life is not for everyone and in reality feel that society would not be sustainable if all were to try.

Exactly.

 

Which is why there are no elements of socialism with Jesus. To my knowledge, he never forced anyone to give anything unless they chose to give it.

 

He never forced anyone to give anything but isn't it implied that you'll reach the Kingdom of Heaven if you choose to be charitable and not be greedy with your riches?

@Twotoplace, Fishers of men, making disciples, evangelizing the world, being witnesses for Christ, a communist venture?! I REALLY don't see the connection there.

 

We are using terms that were coined a millennium and a half+ after Christ so...

 

But yes, the approved culture of 1st century Israel was much more a "capitalist" society than socialist. So what is essential in the example you gave? Jesus telling them to leave their father's business (fishing) to devote themselves to Him and the calling he was placing on their lives to be His Apostles or to leave a "capitalist venture" because you can't be a capitalist and serve Jesus?

 

I would say this call had nothing to do with capitalism and is not a comment on capitalism. It is about the establishment of His church. Other disciples were not called to leave their livelihood. One man was told to return to his family and community and tell them what Jesus had done for him. Many early Christians continued in their station of life and followed Jesus too. There was no conflict there. And the office of Apostle has nothing to do with communism.

 

Really, Twotoplace? I was with you in your first comment. Now you've lost me. I have to call it a day. I will be traveling soon.

Sounds like you're too hung up on my use of "communist," in a common-noun sense. The term, though accurate, probably carries too much baggage, with all its modern-day connotations. So let's use "communalist" instead.

 

You're right. The fact that Jesus and his disciples were communalists in no way negates capitalists (or whatever they were called in 30 A.D.) from embracing Christianity. Still, it is interesting that Jesus of Nazareth set up his "corporate model" in the form of group-share. And it's even more interesting that the chief financial officer of this "corporate model" -- Judas Iscariot -- betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

He never forced anyone to give anything but isn't it implied that you'll reach the Kingdom of Heaven if you choose to be charitable and not be greedy with your riches?

 

The foundation of Christianity is that grace alone saves, which is a gift given by Jesus and cannot be earned.

 

However, giving to those in need should be an identifier of a person following Christ. Generosity doesn't save a person, but it indicates that they are saved. On the other hand, being greedy with money (regardless of socioeconomic status) indicates the opposite. Jesus taught generosity to those in need and most certainly practiced it, so those who align with him should do as he did.

 

However, I don't see it as generosity when it's forced.

 

The passage referenced in this thread's original post is descriptive of the early church. They had no needy persons among them, and that's because people who had resources voluntarily gave, as opposed to being forcibly taxed. And it was given to church leaders, not the government. Then the church leaders saw to it that the funds were funneled to the necessary individuals. It was a brilliant system, and generous giving was the system's backbone.

 

So I don't see socialistic tendencies within the life and ministry of Jesus, but that doesn't mean he was beating the capitalism drum either. Capitalism, in and of itself, is toxic if those participating within the system are more identified by greed than by generosity.

I wasn't really going for a "gotcha" moment, if it came across that way, it was unintended. Nor was I saying god/jesus is a socialist. I didn't even touch on what jesus said about wealth. I was using this to show that when we discuss issues about how we should live today, what sorts of policy decisions we make, a lot of people throw the term socialism around like it's a dirty word. Yet, it is just a label. A label that tends to hide the truth, with that truth being that these policy decisions as proposed by democratic socialist bernie are actually very consistent with the principles in the bible AND that the policies proposed by the lovers of capitalism are often inconsistent with the biblical principles.

 

Nothing wrong with taking care of our children, and the poor, and those that need help.

 

Now, if pressed to make an argument for capitalism with only bible verses, or for socialism with only bible verses, I say the socialist argument is much easier to make. But I recognize the bible does neither, it's not the stated point of the bible.

 

If jesus were alive today, he would vote for bernie, based on the bible.

If jesus were alive today, he would vote for bernie, based on the bible.

 

If Jesus were here right now he'd wear himself out with how many times he'd have to say "Go, and sin no more" to modern Americans.

 

It'll be Gehenna for the lot of us, likely as not.

 

If jesus were alive today, he would vote for bernie, based on the bible.

 

If Jesus were alive today he would smite Bernie based on the bible and Bernie's support of abortion.

If jesus were alive today, he would vote for bernie, based on the bible.

 

I don't think there's any reason to believe Jesus would be a voter/politician whatsoever based on the Bible. As I've said before on here, Jesus lived under the Roman Empire and was obviously aware of the politics of it. Yet, he didn't spend any time attempting to work through the "system" or commenting on its structure. The most governmental/political statement I can think of was mostly dismissive of the concept - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."

 

I do agree that there are numerous verses that can be used to justify a plethora of political stances. But I also think this is a reason not to justify one's politics with what the Bible commands.

I don't think there's any reason to believe Jesus would be a voter/politician whatsoever based on the Bible. As I've said before on here, Jesus lived under the Roman Empire and was obviously aware of the politics of it. Yet, he didn't spend any time attempting to work through the "system" or commenting on its structure. The most governmental/political statement I can think of was mostly dismissive of the concept - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."

 

I do agree that there are numerous verses that can be used to justify a plethora of political stances. But I also think this is a reason not to justify one's politics with what the Bible commands.

 

And he resisted attempts made by the masses when they tried to force him to be a king. People expected the Messiah to be a political Messiah, yet Jesus was anything but. In fact, he seemed to purposefully be anything but.

 

I disagree with the very last sentence. I think a person's faith should have a major impact on every facet of life. However, I do agree with you that the Bible can certainly be abused when this is done.

I don't think there's any reason to believe Jesus would be a voter/politician whatsoever based on the Bible. As I've said before on here, Jesus lived under the Roman Empire and was obviously aware of the politics of it. Yet, he didn't spend any time attempting to work through the "system" or commenting on its structure. The most governmental/political statement I can think of was mostly dismissive of the concept - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."

 

I do agree that there are numerous verses that can be used to justify a plethora of political stances. But I also think this is a reason not to justify one's politics with what the Bible commands.

 

He might not have said anything about politics, but he had plenty to say about things like the accumulation of wealth, the treatment of the poor, the treatment of enemies, and so on. Extrapolating those statements to our current state of policy decisions we face, and I will stand by my assertion. But I will modify it a bit, and say "if jesus were alive today, he might not care to vote, but bernie is the candidate for president who most closely tracks the values of his teachings."

If Jesus were alive today he would smite Bernie based on the bible and Bernie's support of abortion.

 

Lots of god/jesus sanctioned baby-killing in the bible.

 

Numbers 5:11-21New International Version (NIV)

 

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

 

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

However, I do agree with you that the Bible can certainly be abused when this is done.

 

That's my beef.

Lots of god/jesus sanctioned baby-killing in the bible.

 

Numbers 5:11-21New International Version (NIV)

 

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

 

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

 

You have some very specific instances, what about the millions of other circumstances where Bernie supports the killing of the baby? You think Jesus would like Bernie for those?

 

Keep tryin.

I disagree with the very last sentence. I think a person's faith should have a major impact on every facet of life.

 

I wouldn't say that someone's faith shouldn't impact all aspects of their life, but I think turning the Bible into a political program is hazardous, at least in the sense that I don't think that's what it was meant for. And I take that away from MayfieldFan's posts here, which is that people will openly vote based on their religious beliefs when it comes to certain issues (e.g. the "social conservatives") but would consider a similarly Biblical justification for supporting Sanders to be absurd. There are plenty of ways of untangling that knot through interpretation and such, but that's my point I guess - are religious beliefs informing political positions or are political positions being rationalized with religious beliefs? That's why I think there should be some caution when intermingling the two.