Jesus was a Socialist
75Jesus was the very first Socialist. Got your attention with that statement, didn’t I?
Over the past several months, many of my more politically right friends and family members have grown quite bellicose during discussions about the current administration and in particular the current President. One of the most frequent slanders I have heard is, “Obama is a Socialist!” Well, as I have heard this label more than once applied to this President, to many Liberal Democrats, and to others myself included who believe there are better options than flat out capitalism I decided to look into the situation and determine for myself the following:
A) Is Obama really a Socialist?
B) Is Socialism an entirely bad economic framework?
C) What was the basis of Socialism, where did it start?
In the West, we have peculiar views of Socialism. In fact, all too often, we wrongly equate Socialism with Nazism, the Third Reich, and post WWII Russia Communism / Marxism, in truth many pundits, those talking heads where so much of our social views seem to be derived from have put horns, cloven hooves, and a tail on socialism and call it evil. Further, we wrongly connect Socialism with a political movement, which it is decidedly not. Consider the definition of Socialism, there are many however, for the purpose of this discussion I will use the following classic definition:
"Socialism". Oxford English Dictionary. "1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common."
I want to go a step further and identify the historically and generally accepted forms of socialism; I believe they are applicable. During my reading, I found many different theories, different standards, and applications. I was surprised to learn how far back the theory of Socialism went, the first writings of which were by Henri de Saint-Simon in 1823. What you say, nearly 200 years ago that can’t be right; nevertheless, it is indeed the truth Utopian Socialism emerged as a economic theory in the early 19th-century laying the groundwork for modern Socialist thought.
What I found in my reading were two distinct schools of thought:
The first is the Social Democrats; this theory proposes a mixed economy with the nationalization of key industry. Social Democrats promote private ownership of property, capital, and enterprise. What appears to be the differentiators in those nations where Social Democrats hold or have held sway is market-regulation and tax funded welfare programs.
The other school of thought is the Libertarian Socialist; this theory rejects all forms of state control and private ownership reverting instead to collective ownership of production and the economy. Decision-making done via councils or workplace democracy. The Libertarian Socialist movement is more closely aligned to the original Utopian view of Socialism, which espoused communal ownership and no private property or enterprise.
Now, having established the forms of Socialism as both economic and social theories it is time to examine why I believe Jesus was the first Socialist.
Jesus was the first Socialist, this isn’t really a question, but a statement of fact based upon the New Testament Bible. In fact I find it an interesting phenomenon that those who are most vocal in their rejection of social programs to assist the poor and displaced of our society are the very same who in most cases call themselves the “Moral Majority” and espouse Christian values as the basis of their political stance. Nevertheless, let me return to my proofs of why Jesus was the first Socialist, how I have arrived at this conclusion.
I am going to start with Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
So here, we have a very good example of Utopian Socialism in action with Jesus telling the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor, in other words redistribution of personal wealth to those with great need from those with great riches. Naturally, this must be very difficult for some to swallow, notice that the young mans face ‘fell’ when told he must give away his wealth to follow Jesus. Here though is our first proof, we must have no personal wealth beyond our needs; Socialism seems to be de rigueur.
Moving on to the next area that might prove my point and which certainly has a few feathers ruffling today; that of health care or in this case Jesus Healing those in need. He certainly didn’t seem to pay much attention to the conventions of the time, like oh say working on the Sabbath, which got him into a few bits of trouble with the powers that be. Nonetheless, heal he did without concern or consideration for pre-existing conditions or whose toes he was stepping on Jesus made his way through the land casting out demons, healing leprosy, epilepsy, and other dastardly illnesses that afflicted the people, he cared not a whit for whether a person was rich or poor, of the ruling class, or the most destitute beggar before the temple he healed them. The Pharisees, although the ruling class within the temple at the time and thus in control of wealth, law, and healing could not prevent him from teaching or healing, even on the Sabbath. There are many examples of this sprinkled throughout the New Testament, here are just a few:
Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 17:14
Mark 7:31, 8:22
John 9:51
Now to one of the best proofs and that is found in Matthew 25:31-46: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. For those that don’t know this one the key statement is as follows:
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.
Finally, the teachings continued after the death of Jesus, the best example of the Utopian Socialism being the following by James found in 2:1-7:
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
So now, we circle back around to my original questions; is the current President, Barack Obama a Socialist? I think the answer is that he is not any more a Socialist than any other American is, we simply have a difficult time recognizing ourselves or our economy for what it truly is. The fact is the current economic system has some aspects of Socialism including government regulation of certain industries, provisioning of health insurance for the elderly (Medicare), provisioning of care for the poor at a state level (Welfare, WIC, and Medicaid), taxing authority supported police, fire, and aid (911) are all examples of socialist programs. Each is generally found in countries with mixed economies, that is Socialism and Capitalism are both at work. Thus, my first conclusion Barack Obama is not a Socialist he is not even very far left of the middle; he is a Democrat and that is all he is.
The next question I asked is easily answered, is Socialism an entirely bad economic framework? The answer is yes, it is a bad framework as a stand-alone economy it is not possible to successfully manage a country in a pure Socialist economy. Nevertheless, the mixed economy of capitalism and Social Democracy is the appropriate and moral basis of a successful nation. This is true both from an economic standpoint and from the standard of ensuring all members of a society are able to their ability to be educated, work in relevant jobs, participate in government, and be cared for when necessary. Providing for the weakest members of society should be a given rather than a fight. Just as a purely Socialist economy is not sustainable neither is a purely Capitalist driven economy as we have ample proof of today in the United States.
So I say again, Jesus was the first Socialist. Perhaps all those who shout from their pulpits and their soapboxes about their moral right to gain riches on the backs and at the cost of others should check their premise. While they are pointing fingers and calling names, perhaps they should read the book they are standing upon, yes that would be the Bible they so readily reference usually incorrectly. During their ranting and ravings, their demand that the government “keep their hands off their Medicare”; perhaps it would serve them well to review the statements and teachings of the man who is the basis of their entire belief system, maybe this would help them.>
Obama is not a Socialist. Jesus however was the first Socialist.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Social programs are good but taking by force the hard work of individuals and spreading it out according to the whim of a few federal bureaucrats is not. Programs are fine unless the agenda goes against the first "socialist" Jesus. You know my friend, I was feeling like yelling when I was reading this hub, then you said stuff I agree with. Then I was back to yelling and you summed everything up with a "gee not bad" as my statement. I have to take exception to the conclusion you made about the rich man. You see I really think that he was worshipping that money of his. This money idol was going to get in the way of his getting into the kingdom of God. This is the problem I have with pure capitalism. If money is your god - capitalism builds a temple to it. If, however, like Job and Abraham and many others who had money, if it is not your God, then it is a useful tool to spread out their blessing to those around them. America can be a greedy place but I still feel it wrong to give so much power to a few people who will have the authority over so much. By virtue of social conscience their values are forced on the whole. Some of their goals are good. But the method and means I object to. Their are some clear leanings that seem to be behind the social programs that I can't agree with. Not many of us conservative Christians can. Like the pressure for abortions, green initiatives that are way beyond good stewardship of the planet. God told us to take care of the earth. Christians are supposed to be ecology-minded. But if I buy all this global warming stuff I have to believe that God is not in control of outcomes. We will have the planet uninhabitable in X number of years etc. I don't buy it and I think there is a lot of pressure to change us as America to a model that is way too radical to abide. Great hub. Thought provoking. God bless.
I always find interesting the idea of "taking by force" to fund social programs is only brought into play when it is programs that have an element that "conservatives" whether Christian or otherwise disagree with. Lets take Abortion, which in truth is simply one small component of a woman's right to make decisions about her health and reproductive well-being without interference or infringement on her privacy. No man has his privacy infringed upon when it comes to decisions of health or well-being, yet women it seems are not to be treated in the same and equal manner, whether they agree with the Christian standard or not. Health Care must be a right that all people enjoy and it must provide reproductive care, including safe abortion where requested by a woman. This is true whether you or I agree with abortion or not. Our agreement is not required only the woman's need is necessary. There is no pressure for abortion only recognition that it is a woman's right to end a pregnancy early at will or late where continuing the pregnancy places her life in jeopardy or there are issues with the fetus that are not compatible with life.
Interesting that when those same monies fund "defense" programs that are not compatible with life conservative Christians have no issue with monies being taken by force, same force by the way...taxes.
Here is my problem in all this, up until the mid 1960's the images of the Welfare recipient, were predominantly those of White families hearkening back to the dust bowl era, the War on Poverty up to 1965 focused on Whites. This country had no issue with the social programs that paid for their health care, for their aid. Starting in 1965 this image changed dramatically and so did the response by this nation to social programs including Welfare and Job Corps.
It is interesting to me, we as a nation are incensed with the idea that we will somehow lose something, that something will be taken by force from us to pay for social programs such as Single Payer Health Care. Yet, we have this today for our elder citizens and it works well. For those who have jobs and have benefits, well they are paying on average 16% for the privileged of those; yet we would pay less to cover the entire nation and be assured of coverage even when we might not be working.
Finally, whether you "buy" Global Warming or not; whether you buy Christianity fully or not. The lesson is you were given a mind to think, even God said he gave you free will and the ability to think. We are all responsible for the outcome. Do we leave those who are in need on the side of the road to perish for want? Do we ignore the signs and rely upon God to fix what is broken because we are to ignorant to manage our resources? Is that what is expected of us?
In theory, socialism works, but in practice it does not. Yes, people do equate Socialism with Nazism, the Third Reich, and post WWII Russia Communism / Marxism. Wonder why?? Because that's what socialism is - government control and everyone having the same regardless of their income or job.
Perhaps you should talk with people who have lived with socialism and see if they would agree with you.
Finally, you are taking scripture completely out of context - typical of people who want to try to prove their point.
HAve a good evening.
Actually, no that is not what socialism is that is what communism is and they are not the same thing. It is important that the two not be confused. Perhaps reading the definition of what socialism is and what the different theories of socialism are would assist in understanding them. As to speaking to people who have lived in Democratic Social countries, well we can go speak with Great Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, or any number of other European countries for their take.
I think prior to casting stones regarding my reading of the scripture, you will need to show my how I have done so. I believe my take on the scripture is right no target.
So Valentine what you saying Is that when a woman makes a decision she wants the abortion whether they like It or not the taxpayer has to foot the bill ? If her health Is endangered that Is one thing , but now It seems to be a form of birth control too .How do ya think Jesus feels about that one ?
I am saying that it is not anyone's business what a woman does. That abortion is a woman's decision and it is not up to you or I whether that is a choice she makes. We are not her moral judge. She is the only person who can determine whether abortion is the right ethical / moral decision for her at that time in her life, not you, not me, certainly not the government. Early termination of a pregnancy is a decision to be made by a woman and is between her and her medical provider, no one else.
Frankly I don't care how Jesus would feel, in fact I believe it was Jesus who said "Judge not lest you be judged", might want to keep that in mind. The entire country is not Christian and should not have to be forced to live within the strictures of those who are. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one!
Taxpayers foot the bill for Viagra. I think that is far more reprehensible.
What If the man wants the baby ?
Different discussion that whether or not Jesus was a Socialist isn't it? But for the sake of argument I am going to answer the question for you from my personal perspective.
I wish that men could bear children, then we would never have the issue as to whether women should have the right to personal privacy with regard to their reproductive health it would be guaranteed. As it stands today, men cannot and thus it is mote, men do not have the right to demand a women remain pregnant to give them the results of a pregnancy if they do not wish to do so. It is a rare thing Tony that a woman would not wish to carry a healthy pregnancy through to term where there was a willing partner in her corner though. Despite what you apparently believe it is a very rare thing today that a woman uses abortion as a form of birth control.
Now I will give you the flip side of my argument and one that is all to relevant in this age. I wish men could terminate their responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy and the resulting child early in the pregnancy so women would understand the full magnitude of their choice. I wish there were a way for a man to go before a court prior to the 9th week of pregnancy and say I don't wish to be a parent at this time of my life and I am therefore terminating all rights and responsibilities for this pregnancy and the resulting child. Now the woman has all the information she needs to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or not, knowing if she does she will be a single mother without the right to chase the guy into child support for the next 18 years.
I believe that men should have the same choice in this case. I don't believe men should be forced to parent simply because a women decides to continue a child that he is not prepared for and does not want. But as to forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy, nope sorry no man gets to make that choice.
Because men and women come from the womb there seems to be a segment of society here that is never considered. Siting the main example that is usually used of endangering the life of the mother or incompatability with life is frankly blurring the issue. You and I both know that abortion is a matter of convenience for the majority of instances. A woman may have the ability to have children but what of the responsibility of life? Has that potential man or woman been considered? Would you ever consider that living organism as having any rights at all? I don't think that most people on the other side of this issue do. And couple this with the statements I've heard recently about when newborns reach "personhood" I am hurting for the ending of the lives of humans. War and other things where the ending of life exists are separate issues and also a distraction tactic. That still doesn't take away the moral dilemma that a woman holds the responsibility to that life and is dodging responsibility holding to some right she has over another person of equal value. Aren't persons of equal value to you? I respect your right to believe these things but personally I find the beliefs reprehensible. I know you think my beliefs just as reprehensible for not giving mom the right in my mind but my poor lil ol brain can't seem to go there. I don't mean to be so narrow minded but it seems so clear to me, but I guess it doesn't to so many others. While we toss around these things abortion IS legal and many other "human organisms with the potential of personhood" are dying. My voice may not be eloquent but someone has to speak for these who have no voice for it is taken from them by force.
Let me say again this is not an abortion discussion nor do I wish it to turn into one. I am certain there are plenty of discussions on Hubpages that are about Abortion and a woman's right to privacy and reproductive health and decision making. Suffice it to say that statistics and medical science do not agree with the emotionalism of the anti-abortion believers. Those on this side of the argument rely upon religious dogma and emotional / reactionary definitions of life. They diminish women to incubators with no brains or value while holding the life of a embryo with no capacity to self-sustain, no brain function of greater value than that of a living breathing woman.
I happen to disagree, I happen to believe that the life of a woman has greater value and that her right to medical privacy is sacred and not to be infringed upon. I happen to believe that it is an infringement of her Constitutional rights of privacy as well as her right to Religious Freedom when others demand that she share her medical decisions or that she comply with their moral standards in her medical decisions.
In perspective: In the United States, nearly nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and 56% occur in the first eight weeks. ( Elam-Evans LD et al., Abortion surveillance—United States, 2000, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2003, Vol. 52, SS-12.) If you want to understand the development of a embryo at this stage I recommend visembyo.com which provides factual and visual development stages from fertilization to birth without judgment or emotionalism.
I completely disagree with you on the men have no right to have a say on a baby . There was 2 Involved and It should be a mutual decision. You are right , It has nothing to do with the topic , however It Is still As a legitimate question .
Your views throughout your hub and comments are completely megalomanaical
Really? You believe I am suffering from delusions of Grandeur? How so? Simply because I am a woman with an opinion? Or is it that you simply disagree with my opinions so felt the need to insult me personally in your departure?
It has nothing to do with opinion , It has to do with the fact that you could make a decision In such a cavalier fashion and have no regard for other people Involved . That Is called selfish . My son and my daughter In law were to have a baby that will have to be aborted because of a defect . A baby they wanted ! Now that Is one thing . However to merely use It as a form of birth control without the other party having a say In the matter strikes me as purely self absorbed ! And to expect every taxpayer to foot the bill for It whether they like It or not Is just plain wrong . And that has nothing to do with being judgemental, It Is just a fact .
I am sorry for your son and daugher-in-law.
Again, this is not a discussion of Abortion. That you wish to impose your opinion upon others is unfortunate and completely contrary to the values of this nation. That you have failed to read anything I have written except through the lens of your personal perspective is a common problem. There are many things that are paid for by tax dollars that others fundamentally disagree with based upon their own personal moral code, things such as the pursuit of Manifest Destiny. I find it reprehensible that Viagra is covered under Medicare, but it is. I find it reprehensible that you believe you have the right to stand in judgment and demand that every woman in this country follow your moral code whether they agree with it or not, yet you seem to think this somehow isn't self-absorbed. I have not stated my personal position on abortion only my position on a woman's right to medical privacy yet you have hammered me personally, insulted me personally, and presumed to judge me personally. I find that self-absorbed. You have not managed to read or comment on the Hub itself only taken your standard which appears to be women are to stupid to manage their own reproductive rights and embryos without brain function have more value than living breathing women; I find that self-absorbed.
So since this is my Hub no more of your self-absorbed comments will be allowed. How is that for Megalomania?
Sure he was a socialist - at least how he was portrayed in the bible. That's why we have a socialism outbreak all over traditionally christian countries. It will likely subside with the decline of christianity. :)
I really enjoyed reading this article, and thought that it was very well written. I am very glad that someone was able to intelligently discern the differences of what 'socialism' is. While I thoroughly disagree with your philosophical ideology, I respect someone who is honest about where they stand. Much respect. As for Jesus? I am a Christian, and am socially liberal, fiscally very conservative. I get irritated with people on the left or right who try to claim that Jesus was a socialist or captialist, or whatever. As I've often stated in Liberation Theology class that I taught, Jesus never invented the Catholic Church, or any denomination. People did. Jesus never created any political titles, people did. As for his deeds, socialistic? Sure. Capitalistic? Sure. For just as many examples that is given about helping the community and neighbor, could be given about self-accountability. In other words, one can still be a strong capitalist, and support the individual and community for the greater good. So? Jesus was a socialist. He was also a lot of other things. 'What would Jesus do?' He'd probably say, "Treat others as you would like to be treated."
Shazz thanks for you comments. Peter was the rock I believe but St Augustine the framework of the Catholic Church, just as an aside. Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of any organized religion in the Western world, those truth political movements used to control the population and had little to do with the teachings of The Christ.
What many likely cannot read into what I have written is the tongue in cheek factor. I am well aware of the fact that the Jesus of the original scriptures did not have a political or economic philosophy, beyond possibly his statement to render to Caesar (which I frequently use when talking to prisoners in the Victim Impact program where I speak).
My comparison of his philosophy to the more purist socialist stance is more to poke at those voices in our current media and political three ring circus who call themselves Christian while at the same time more closely practice Objectivism, or the philosophy of selfishness (Ayn Rand). Now quite honestly I am a big fan of Ayn Rand and see much in her writings that appeal to me, but there must be balance in any nation and we seem to have lost sight of that.
I personally take a very pragmatic view. My religious views are my own. I very rarely share them as they are not the business of any one else. My personal religious views certainly have no place in the political arena and I have no right to demand that others "buy" them through enacted laws that force others to behave in a manner that is objectionable to them. I have a very simple view of the world, chaos is avoided by enacting the least number of laws possible to do the greatest good. Any laws that cross over into the imposition of morality based on religious principals that are not agreed to by all they are intended to govern are bad laws and lead down a very rocky road, this is the way of the Taliban. Laws that protect your right to worship are perfect laws. Laws that demand I worship in the same manner are bad laws and should lead to acts of rebellion.
As I have said previously, I don't give a fig what Jesus would do. While a great teacher, so were others including Mohammad,Abram, Buddha; none of them belong in a political discussion none of them are central to the enactment of laws to better this nation. Their teachings and philosophies belong in the home, synagogue, mosques, temples, and other houses of worship. Their teachings direct your life as an individual, a father, son, husband; they do not direct the life of your neighbor unless he is in agreement with you 100%.
It is for this reason I write on some of the subjects that I write. It is for this reason I study the holy books, all of them; to gain an understanding of both the differences and the similarities. It is for this reason I open my ears and my mind, I believe I was given an intellect for a reason and it wasn't simply to waste on trivial pursuits. Do I poke the bear sometimes? I do, and I offend people with my thoughts and ideas, I know that. There are times I even do it knowingly because I want discourse and debate on important subjects. It is not intended to insult your beliefs or your values, that is not the intent believe me.
I appreciate your respectful response and your opinion.
Bravo! As a social democrat, I cannot see the possibility for either pure socialism or pure capitalism to really work in isolation. You must have really lit up the neo-coms and so called conservative christians. Although it must be difficult to read your hub with that plank in their eye!
James you are absolutely correct, neither in their pure form well work in isolation especially in the global economy that we must function in. There must be a balanced approach and it must take into account many different factors, including competition, cost allocation, management of scarce resources, and how to ensure the greater good of the nation as a whole. This is something many of those who are currently shouting they want the government to keep their hands off of their medicare fail to realize, those talking heads of both the right and the left are not seeking the best solution for the nation just the most expedient for themselves. We the people must be looking beyond this to the future of our children and what is right long term not simply what is right now. What constantly amazes me is the shortsightedness of some people...ah well that is a Hub for another day.
Calling Jesus a socialist isn't a new twist and it is not a true statement.
It was a spiritual matter of not putting anything above following Jesus. The young man was too attached to his riches. That was the point that Jesus made.
That is an opinion, just as mine is an opinion. Both have equal validity. I understand that mine is not a unique opinion I have simply put it into terms based upon my understanding of what true Socialism is and how the teachings of Jesus reconciles to them.
My point is that in the US there are many today who demand I accept their religion as a standard. That I accept their views on God as the standard for the nation. That I accept their perspective and in fact that I bow down to their interpretation of Jesus and Christianity as the only valid one. In so doing they have warped beyond recognition the intent of the founding fathers of this nation and the Constitution that is supposed to guide it. Further, those who are so rabidly pointing fingers and naming the Democrats Socialists, as if they were the next thing to the Devil, barely know what a Socialist is or the difference between a socialist and a Communist.
So in fact were Jesus alive today and based upon his teachings, what do you believe he would have been?
By the way, no it wasn't a spiritual matter it was a real demand for his followers to set aside their worldly goods. The point was that they could not follow to masters....the attainment of wealth and the attainment of spiritual fulfillment. Specifically he said; It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the gates of heaven.
But he didn't say a rich man can't enter the gates. Exactly, the following of a master is a spiritual matter, as Jesus wanted them to follow him in spirit and truth.
It was the young man's love of money that kept him from following Jesus.
Of course, so far, this is still America, and we all have a right to our opinions.
Thanks for commenting back.
Well done! Loads of posts. Your first sentence says it all.
Believe me, you wouldn't like Socialism if you lived in UK at the moment. Taxes at 50% of income. Hand-outs to everyone from MPs to dole people. We spend more on the dole (and supplementary benefits) than we collect in income tax. Meanwhile, we are lectured about smoking, fox hunting and global warming. Even the Pubs are closing! We have, in places, well over half our workforce out of work.
Jesus was not a capitalist although he mixed with several very rich people and was even buried by one. (Joseph of Arimathea). Jesus was not a Socialist because he lived even before Saint Simon and Lenin and Mr Brown.
His message was "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all things shall be opened unto you."
Not "Workers of the World Unite!" or "Fair shares for all".
I write this as a Catholic who was once a Protestant.
I am actually not making a commentary one way or the other, regarding the right or wrong of Socialism. Only the comparative behavior and mudslinging of the current US political talking heads and their misuse of terminology.
In all frankness most nations are Democratic Socialistic to one degree or another, they just don't name themselves as such. There must be social services provided and there must be some degree of regulation undertaken or the nation and the economy comes to a screeching halt; just has it has done in so much of the world.
In fact Jesus was free of politics to the degree that he could be for his time. However, as with all great leaders and certainly with those of his stature his message has been used for political gain ever since. It is with this in mind that I wrote this.
If we could just get rid of labels and just communicate what works well for all of us. Everything is interconnected. We leave segment of the population poorly educated, we all suffer. Thus "socialist" becomes a scare word. It becomes the boogie man not to pass a health care reform that the whole country needs not only health wise but to keep the economy afloat. Another boogie word is abortion. It is almost incomprehensible to me people are giving abortion as one of the reasons not to pass health care. As if women are aborting children left and right. The cost of abortion will be minimal if not negligible relatively speaking. As for not wanting to subsidize it because of religion or morality well the constitution has separated state and religion. Even if we out law abortion tomorrow guess what we will still be paying for it dearly, as young girls desperately go out and get cheap, illegal and unsafe abortions from unqualified heath workers and then end up in our emergency rooms. Yea every thing is interconnected. So we think we should live those lazy poor people uninsured because they don't deserve it guess what again we pay for them dearly already when they ultimately end up in our emergency rooms after years of medical neglect. Haven't you heard the U.S. spends the highest on heath care among all the developed nation including China and Taiwan and has the list effective health system. Where were the Christian right when Bush started the illegal and immoral war in Iraq .Millions of Iraqis died and are still dying and of courses everybody knows about the thousands our young solders loosing their lives. I sure didn't want my tax dollars paying for that. So Valentine was Jesus a socialist? I don't care about labels is the answer. But he definitely seems to see the interconnectedness of things, when he said " Whatever you did not do for the least of these you did not do for me....etc."
lelane you pulled my favorite quote out and it is interesting of all the people who have comment, you are the only one who recognize that one as the most important of the quotes I pulled. It is also one of my favorites.
I like many of the Founding Fathers am a Deist. My ethics and morals are structured in a very clear standard and have little to do with moralistic pulpit pounding. I do not demand others do as I do or believe as I believe; only that they allow me to live my life without interference so long as I am living my life lawfully and am doing no harm. I do not encourage discussions where the faith a component of the argument because it is impossible to debate "faith", you either believe or you do not. I would fight to the death for a persons right to worship and believe, so long as this right did not include demanding my worship or belief as well.
A secular government is paramount. A government based on logical laws that prevent anarchy is critical. Avoidance of any form of religious laws as part of our government is an important part of our continued well-being as a nation and a people. We do not want to be mired in theocratic nonsense as it would not represent who we are as a people or who we were intended to be as a nation.
Discussions of abortion are ridiculous as they are not logical, scientifically or medically based in fact. They are emotionally based and thus foolish. Those that oppose abortion do so based on religious principles that do not apply to everyone and are thus irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It is why I try hard not to have those discussions with anyone who refused to bring relevant and medically sound debatable facts to the table.
The health care discussion is shameful today. The real problem is though that the people who are opposed to it have the money to send a message of fear the the populace that it being bought into. Those who should support it have a history of voting against their best interest and those who represent them do not have the nations best interest at hand.
The truth of the matter is that we should be taking this one step further. Where this really must start is with Education. It should be EDUCATION for all. Free and perfect; consistent no matter where you live or what you tax bracket is. Whether you live in a wealthy suburb or a poor inner city. If every child were educated in exactly the same manner with exactly the same resources through grade 14, not 12; as a nation we might stand a chance.
Great Hub and thanks for the discussion.
I do find it interesting that people of the Christian right always shout about people quoting the Bible "out of context" when the quote seems to go against their particular view. Where were they, as lelane asks, when Bush and Company led your great country into an illegal and immoral war, which has cost the US dearly and caused untold misery to millions, on the basis of a lie. A lie that most of the rest of the world knew was a lie. A lie which is now causing huge problems to the current president who, I agree with you, cannot be described as a socialist any more than Nixon could be.
Glad also that you made the point about the difference between socialism and communism. An important point that many overlook.
BTW the most nationalist and socialist country at the moment is, ironically, Israel, the country so beloved of the Christian right. And we know what happens when nationalism and socialism get put together, don't we?
Love and peace
Tony
By labeling Jesus, you have stuffed Him into a box and are trying to keep Him buried. But He rose, you see, so your anaolgy doesn't work.
Anyone can read their beliefs into whatever they read, but that doesn't mean those things are really there. Edgar Cayce used to say that he could read reincarnation into the Bible just as easily as he could read it out of the Bible. So if he wanted to see Jesus as promoting reincarnation, he could, or he could see where Jesus did not promote the idea of reincarnation.
Apparently, you enjoy some tenets of socialism or else you wouldn't have written this post. But I don't see anywhere in history that a 'distribution of wealth' has been anything other than a way for a few elite to amass great fortunes while leaving the majority either destitute or on its verge.
Look at any union and you will see the bosses enjoying the fruits of the workers' labors while the laborers themselves live poorly comparatively.
Except, of course, in Jesus' case.
But Jesus didn't want anything. He was already complete. And His real message was that wholeness comes not from something outside one's self, but, as He said, from within.
"The Kingdom of God is within you."
Your opinion piece is rather parochial.
I also find it rather distasteful that you would compare who many belive to be the true Messiah to the fake messiah. The two couldn't be futher apart in content, ideology, or character.
Jesus' entire purpose was to open our eyes to God. Obama's entire purpose it to centralize as much power to himself as he possibly can.
Another point I would like to add, the Founding Fathers set up a Republic, not a socialist regime. They did not set up a government that was meant to determine how we should live. And they did not set up the government to be a charitable institution. That's what we have the wealthy for. It is their task to work with the poor, much like what Bill Gates does with his charitable organization. For those wealthy who are not charitable, such as the Obamas, then let God be the judge.
Deltachord was correct in her assessment - the young man thought he would have to give up his money, but that is not what Jesus was really saying. That man believed he was his wealth, and that without it he would be nothing. But he wasn't his money, he wasn't his status, and had he truly listened to Jesus, he would have known that he could keep his money and follow, too. Money is not evil, it's the lust for it that is.
Socialism can only work when one chooses to live that way, as the nuns in a convent do. But when you force a people to abide by what a few elite prescibe, there will be huge upheavels. Then you will have to do what Stalin did, and kill hundreds of thousands of your own countrymen.
Your abortion statement I also find a bit skewed. People have a right to determine how their taxes are spent. I would not like my taxes wasted on an abortion. If a woman is really so concerned about her body, she would be very careful not to get herself pregnant - unless of course she's raped, but I don't believe the discussion was that specific. Yes, a woman has the right to determine what happens to her body, but she does not have the right to other people's money to get her out of her ill-conceived jam.
Obama wants it all for himself, Jesus wanted us to want God above all else.
Huge difference.
Well Stillman although you spent some time standing on a soapbox and another bit of a time casually insulting me I will allow your rant to stand. The reason, everyone has a right to an opinion.
Nice Hub- I thought I would add a little to your original discussion (about Jesus). There are a few other passages that may weigh on this subject:
Acts 2:42-47
Describing The Fellowship of the Believers
"They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved".
The Believers Share Their Possessions
Acts 4:32-35
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world".
Hebrews 13}5
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you".
Matthew 23:25
""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence".
Luke 12:15
"Then he said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions' ".
I Peter 5:2
To God's Ministers
"Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve"
Jesus was very much in favor of people sharing with those who were in need!He also has much to say about greed and "love" of money (not money, but the LOVE of it).
As a Christian, I want to say how sorry I am that we miserably fail so often to live according to the grace that is within us.
We, of all people on earth, should be the most generous, kind, loving, truthful people of all. We really are without excuse for God's spirit, who resides in us, and has transformed us, should be the prevailing force in our lives!
And so our very lives prove the following to be true:
Romans 7:21-25
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
I greatly appreciate your HUB and pointing out that we who name the name of Christ have no defense for greed. Whatever political system we live under, our job is to be "salt and light" in the world. To be the good Samaritans. To offer love from a heart of love to our neighbor.
John 15:12- My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
Romans 13:10-
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law
So you see, we who name the name of Christ are without excuse. Sadly, the most vocal people who call themselves "christian" are often the ones who get the most media attention, and are the ones who display Christ the least. They are more like the Pharisees-
II Peter 2:18-
"For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error".
Yes Valentine you are correct when you say- Jesus believed in sharing what you have with others who don't have.
Sadly, this is not an issue that can be effectively legislated for it comes from within, from a heart of concern for others. Our best hope in the world is to have laws that protect and equalize the playing field, for the law of the land will never change a heart. Only Christ can do that.
Again- I am appreciative that you call attention to how Christians can better "walk the talk"!
God Bless you
Thanks, those are great by the way!
Which was really my only point. But boy did I make some people mad, which I expected.
One who was instrumental in forming a religion should not be linked with politically motivated things. Organising a religion is very much greater than socialism.
Venugopal I don't believe that is the case. The Christian movement has been linked to politics since its inception. For good or ill Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in particular have been the driving force behind the rise and fall of nations, kings and queens, political movements, wars, legislation, and far to many other things to mention here. The reality is that for the past two thousand years the three primary religions of the world have been pivotal in most of the very worst that humanity has to offer each other, this is true both historically and in present day.
It's such a fine balance isn't it? as a Christian, I am inclined to get involved in politics because I feel it is my responsibility as a good citizen. At the same time, however, many of the causes that arise in the name of Christianity, don't reflect the heart of it.
James 4:2
"You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God".
Humans take matters into their own hands, driven by their own desires and then give it a "noble" sounding label. What many people (even some who claim to be christians) don't realize is this: our true power comes in serving others.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
The message we proclaim--the cross-- was the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus- he served in life and in death and was risen by that same power. The sad truth--we who proclaim this message often don't fully believe in it.
Instead, we covet something (as it says above in James) and then we go after it to conquer or take it by force or trickery. It may be another country, or it may simply be the desire for another person's spouse or car. We steal what doesn't belong to us, destroying lives in the process either physically or emotionally.
Of course this is true of all humans, but not everyone in humanity claims God's words as their belief. I am mortified at what is and has been done under the banner of God.
Alas, it is what gets highlighted (there is a lot of good too). It is again, human nature. We love disaster. We crave gossip (look at all the magazines on the racks). We enjoy being a voyeur--"a fascinated observer of distressing, sordid, or scandalous events" (reality TV). We hunger for blood shed (WWF??) and call it entertainment. Humans crave what Christians define as evil. Humans cause evil and claim it in the name of Christianity and God.
It really gets very muddy and mixed up.
John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
The thief here is evil and "I" is Jesus. We who name the name of Christ would do well to realize when we act in the manner of what we call "evil", we are no longer serving man or God, but another master. And by doing this, it is not our name that is profaned, but God's. If we truly believe in God, we would do well to give this serious thought.
Great discussion Valentine!
I enjoyed your article and I agree that Jesus and a sizeable amount of his teachings stress the well being of the collective and the uplifting of the poor. But to get the true essence of what he's talking about, we need a much broader definition of what Jesus meant when he referred to the poor. Poor or rich never simply dealt with how much money a person had. So our narrowly defined categories of "Socialist" or "Capitalist" can never be applied to the annointed Christ. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all rich. They traded in lands, livestock and produce so one could view them as strict capitalists. The nation that they fathered had a strict system for how "Industry" was to govern its taking of profit. In Levitical Law, the year of Jubilee was observed by all chiefs of industry. This system allowed the "Capitalist" 6 years of profit taking but the 7th year was the year in which indentured servants (employees) were raised up by the industry that they served over the last six years. This is by definition a Socialist concept. So, the capitalist SHOULD always fund the socialist agenda with the God defined reason that no man should be forced into servitude for more than 6 years. I discuss this in my book "Recessionproof" (http://www.ourrecessionprooflife.com). Jesus the Christ was God in flesh. He intended us to be abundant and to honor his law and systems so that all men would have an opportunity to experience the Kingdom on this earth. Our systems of capitalism or socialism will all fall short if we don't first honor God's word.
I hope that most understand that my article was to a point intended as tongue in cheek. It was in direct response to the many who direct their talking points at name calling and fear mongering while at the same time standing on the Bible.
I do not now or ever intend to compare Jesus or any other religious leader fully to the political or economic structures of today. While many Biblical teachings are most certainly noteworthy in our current discussions around health care especially, it is important to realize also that there are several other vital issues.
'My point is that in the US there are many today who demand I accept their religion as a standard. That I accept their views on God as the standard for the nation. That I accept their perspective and in fact that I bow down to their interpretation of Jesus and Christianity as the only valid one.'
Amen to that! All the judgemental comments this Hub has drawn has taught me one powerful lesson today - I don't want to ever be like those who wrote them. Seems Christianity is the most divided religion in the world and every one of the denominations is 'right'. WWJD if he was walking the Earth today? Shake his head in dismay probably.
Yes Kathy you are right. But then most who stand on soapboxes stand on extremely unstable stages. I knew when I posted this it would draw ire. I publish in a couple of different places and anytime I publish controversial subject matters this is the result. But you either accept that this is will be the result and stick to your guns or you put on your fuzzy sheep skin and meander slowly with the pack. You see what my choice is.
Jesus never addressed or told the Roman Government it was their duty to help and support the poor.
All His teachings were of a personal nature.
Jesus never ever took anything from anyone to give it to someone else. Jesus was never a political advocate of anything. Socialism has its roots in elitism and politics. This isn't what Jesus was about.
Jesus taught unselfishness - not socialism.
I find it ironic...
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. for I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."
As those on the left today like the Al Gore's and Joe Biden's give very little. This is well documented.
Joe
I think it is really important that a person read an entire article prior to responding. In this way the response adds to the discussion in a relevant way.
Socialism is both a economic and social philosophy; just as capitalism is. If instead of reading the first line of the article you had read the entire thing you would have noted that I quoted, correctly and in its entirety Matthew 25:31-46, the Parable of the Goat and the Sheep, this is the same quote that you half provided.
I do not point fingers, but am able if you like. This is not about who gives more or less. This is about the issue of whether those who name our current administration and specifically our current President a Socialist are accurate in their name calling, they are not.
As to whether The Christ addressed the Romans he did that only one time, upon his sentencing. He did however address the ruling class of the Jewish people many times and took them to task, this was a far more important issue for the times he lived in.
Charity is a personal issue and one that is neither right nor left. I care not a whit whether Al Gore and Joe Biden give away their personal money. Their behavior is their own, just as your and mine are ours to contend with ultimately. The issues of the day are greater than whether a single individual gives 1% or 10% of their personal wealth to charity. The issue is whether we are a nation that will see our people starving and homeless on the street and willfully turn our backs. The issue is whether we are a nation that will see our people dying for lack of proper access to health care and willfully turn our backs on them. These are the issues of the day, whether we are a nation and a people that care more for the profits of the few individuals and the corporations or the greater ability of the many to participate in the promise of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That is at the end the true question we must all ask. I do not promote socialism. I do however promote a more efficient and effective democracy. One in which we are assured equality of opportunity for all American Citizens and one in which all American Citizens have access to education, health care, housing, food; the basics of life.
There is no "we as a nation" until we all accept our own personal responsibility. The real issue is people turn their backs on themselves.
The true question is "When will I be responsible for my own actions?"
You are mistaken. We live in a republic. Democracy takes place in a boardroom (capitalism in its purest form). It may seem trivial but there is a difference.
Philosophy is the study of problems. Socialism is not a study of anything. Socialism is a form of government used to control economic conditions by sharing the wealth not by charity but by force. Perhaps it is just a coincidence the leaders are the wealthiest.
I read the article and it is rather good. But my answer is Jesus was nowhere near a socialist and Obama is probably worst than FDR. Just look at the people he associates with.
It's a no brainer. Government never does anything right!
Just some my thoughts on subject...yeah I can be blunt but that's me.
Have a great evening.
Oh, I don't mind blunt. I can be quite to the point myself.
Actually we live in a designed Democratic Republic, specifically. We also live in a Social Democracy, also designed. It is neither a purely capitalistic nor a purely socialist economic market. Neither by the way are only economic theory but are also social theory.
I don't disagree with one statement, that is the government doesn't do anything right. The problem is that it is us, that is right it is "we the people" that are the government and that allow the travesty of this government to continue too act in no ones best interest but its own. Were 'we the people' to take a greater interest in who we elect to office rather than simply putting the same criminals in office time after time some of this would resolve itself.
Personal responsibility is all well and good. I am a big fan of Ayn Rand myself. In fact have no real issue with profit nor in individuals being paid for the value of their labor. What I take issue with is when those same individuals do so while causing harm to others. This is the case with health care and the private insurance market. As well as with the financial and banking industries; and in great part in the IT and Engineering segments with the greater and greater expansion of the "temporary worker" program to drive out the American worker in favor of cheap overseas labor.
Medicare is in fact something the government did do right. Whatever you might think, it works for millions of Americans. Extending this system to the rest of Americans is the right answer. Single Payer insurance is the right answer.
There isn't a single civilized country in the world today that doesn't provide health care for their citizens. They aren't all perfect, but most of them are better than what we have. I have seen many of them up close and personal having lived in several other countries and at least there I wouldn't be bankrupt by a visit to the hospital.
I have worked for all of my adult life. I don't make a bad living and can't complain. But 19 years ago I was carjacked and shot three times leaving me with long-term injuries (pre-existing conditions). I am uninsurable. It isn't about bad decisions I made but it is about private insurance companies who have decided that my life has no value, that is the message.
So you can't really talk to me about personal responsibility every year my medications cost me over $10,000. Every year my medical bills top $30,000 and that is if I don't spend any time in the hospital or don't need surgery. I am self-employed and my husband's insurance excluded all pre-existing conditions from coverage which is common these days, so we pay $400 per month for insurance on top of those expenses above.
Every person who loses their job is uninsured and if they have a family that family is without insurance. 76% of all personal bankruptcy is due to a catastrophic illness and health care bills that are out of control.
Americans in the Technology and Engineering fields are out of work and facing 6 month job searches and underemployment, meanwhile the H1B program, L1 and B1 Visas are being expanded and technology and engineering jobs are being filled by immigrants from India and China at 1/3 the salary of the US counter-part.
Shall I continue? It isn't always about personal responsibility. Many people have always taken personal responsibility, this is the buzz word these days from the right and it isn't addressing the entire problem.
Well lets agree to disagree.
I made great money now I make only about one third. I don't blame anyone. I was uninsured too with a family a couple of times. I just picked myself up and got employed again. It wasn't easy with 30 years under my belt to prove myself again.
I had friends get shot and I grew up in a neighborhood that went from very good to very bad. Recognizing a developing situation by being aware of my surroundings kept me safe. No one could do that for me. Only me.
There are people who have had it much harder than you or I. They are are the pinnacle of responsibility. They just make it work. They are like rocks and I admire and hope should I need it, be just like them.
To ask another to take on the the added responsibility of another is wrong and cannot be done. The best that can be done is temporary help. There is a huge difference between the two.
Fact is that there is only a very small number of people who cannot help themselves. These people should and deserve to be take care of. But most just want a free handout and when they get it they want more and become more dependent. That does not help anyone.
I am sorry to hear about your plight but that doesn't change reality one iota. You, as I, as everyone else are responsible for their own actions and life. That's how life works.
What are we going to do when medicare totally fails in five years? No government didn't do that right either.
Remember this when it happens. Our money is worth nothing, unemployment is at about 18% (they don't count everyone), and in order recover from our economic crises things need to get back to where they were.
It is not happening and the 18% number is depression territory. The primary mortgage market is now failing and banks are failing every day. The stock market can't even get close to where is was.
China and Japan have stopped buying our debt. The Fed continues to print money to buy our own debt - that is a fact. You get the info under the freedom of information act.
The US is going bankrupt as tax dollars dwindle. All of Europe is failing thanks to health care, green energy, and socialist programs.
We need not worry about medicare because we are going into a depression that will make the '30s look like a holiday.
And no politician will stand up and do the right thing.
Health care is not the only thing out of control. And if you do some hard honest research the money trail goes from corporations to Washington and from Washington to corporation at all levels of government.
America needs to wake up now or it is going to get pretty ugly. The ramifications are life changing.
Just what I see based on history and what's happening now. But remember I told you so:)
Personal responsibility will become more than a fad. It will become the staple of life. Just ask those living in tent cities now.
Seriously, I wish you and yours the best.
Great hub, very well written. Funny how people come along and say you're wrong because they've been told that one of the biblical passages you refer to means something else, and yet never mention your other biblical references. Not to mention your secular points.
You handle yourself with grace in the face of it all as well, and I admire you for that.
Great job, and keep talking.
Jesus is Liberal.
God gave us the ten commandments which is the original rule of law, subservient to no other law, and it states, "thou shall not steal". When government takes my production and gives to the non-productive, under threat of fine and jail, this is stealing, plain and simple. Whether Jesus was a socialist or not does not matter. His father sent us the rules to live by and Jesus himself is subservient to those rules.
As for """But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.""" This is not a statement of wealth denying entry to the kingdom of God in heaven yet a statement merely saying that wealth is not bad, greed is bad. Most wealthy are derived of greed. Money is not the root of all evil...love and worship of money is the root of all evil. As Margaret Thatcher said, Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money. Theory and actuality performance are two different things. Socialism has been done to death throughout history and has never worked. Obama IS a socialist with his distribute the wealth ideas and he is flogging a dead horse. Without competition and meritocracy, societies flounder. Again, read your history.
Nice hub though that gets the debate going. This adds spice to life as long as people debate intelligently and respectfully.
No need to read my history. I actually stated quite clearly that any society that adopted a pure socialistic economy would fail.
I fundamentally disagree with you that Obama is a Socialist, he is not. He is a Centerist within the Democrat party. He is not even terribly Liberal or progressive.
The 10 Commandments are only part of the Law, the Law is encompassed in its entirety in three books; Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus. All the Laws are applicable, not just the Ten.
Taxation is not stealing. There is a fine line, I would agree with that; nevertheless, taxation is not theft. Your or mine disagreement with how our tax dollars are allocated is addressed through our active participation in government. This means our voice is heard by casting our vote, being involved in action committees, writing to our government officials, taking an active role in our communities.
You and I likely agree there is a fine line between being a welfare state and being a humane state, that line should be drawn and defined. Is the man who worked all his life, paying his bills, raising a family non-productive because the plant he worked for for 25 years shut down without notice and sold all their assets to China? What does he do now? He likely still needs to work for another 15 years, maybe more before he reaches retirement age but unfortunately his skills are no longer needed in the marketplace.
What about the woman who stayed home to raise her children, one of whom is disabled while her husband worked, now her husband has passed away in a foreign battle field serving his country, he was a reservist. His life insurance won't pay out because there was a clause that defers risk such as the armed forces. His insurance through the military is $25,000, that is it. She still has two small children. She can't get insurance for her disabled child, not even through an employer. With the death of her husband she has no coverage through the military. Is she non-productive?
I could go on, these are people I know. My story is up above. I also am not non-productive. It is a fine line.
I don't want to see re-distribution of wealth. I do want to see a nation that is concerned with the well-being of its citizens so they are able to be productive and competitive at a global level. I want to stop the bleed of our tax dollars in to the hands of Wall Street, the Defense Industry, and Corporate CEO's where it isn't needed and doesn't belong.
I want to see a competitive education system. I want to see available and affordable health care. I want to see jobs available to Americans. I want to see "Made In America" on labels at competitive pricing. I want to see welfare be a work program not a gimme program with a definitive goal of giving people real skills and a end date.
What Would Jesus Do? Slap you silly.
Really? Probably not since he was a pacifist. But continue to apply your own personal violent standard to his teachings as you wish. This is what most modern "Christians" do and why most will have to answer for their behavior eventually.
Call yourself a Christian? Suggest you learn the meaning.
Valentine - this is a brave and fairly written hub. I have not read all of the comments, but enough to see that you are being given the bullying treatment that always results from offending certain groups. But I see that you can hold your own, and that with dignity. Well done :)
I think you missed the Jesus was a socialist bit. I keep finding that socialist think what Jesus did is socialism, where I believe it is just the opposite.
Socialist force by laws. Jesus ask and set example.
In socialism, production is lost along with creativity, With Jesus, people want to do the best and then share with with the less fortunate. \
So with just these two examples I see Jesus's ways are actually opposite to socialism. Satan is the one that wants to force and take away freedom. The socialism concepts closer simulates Satan's plan.
I can give a lot examples if needed.
Keep on hubbing!
Nationalization of industry is just one step toward fascism and yes Jesus was the first one to live off the land so to speak; the young man who wanted to follow him was young and single too, like Jesus, but money was his god. Jesus was fed by others as he taught and preached, he was working as the Son of God.
Paul also said to work in our communities and be a witness in our lives. Personally I am going to work as a capitalist and live and give as a witness in my community. I think that is great if you can give everything away and work full time as a witness, but I am going to keep my money, so that my taxes will have to pay for you and what is left over I will feed my large family and if I can save anything for retirement it will be meager that is because I couldn't save more over my life because of Government mismanagement of our tax dollar. If you will notice all of the government run agency's such as welfare, medicare are bankrupt and I sure don't want government run health care insurance If you read our United States Constitution you will read where it says we have the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. I didn't see any guarantees in there like free health care, free food or free anything, but you could pursue those things by working for them. Those that are old ,children or sick we help by using responsible industry outside of government to run these projects and have external watchdogs in place to audit their books, Everyone else can just stop whining and work for a living. Even the Apostles had to do some form of work, if you remember My Jesus was a carpenter and I know He worked.
Paraglider - thank you. Yes I find that people grow very offended with some of what I have to say. Often without ever reading the entire Hub. It is unfortunate really. I think if they actually took the time to read it without the filter of their personal feelings and belief systems they might find something of value and their replies might be less pugnacious.
Eovery - your definition of Socialism is inaccurate thus cannot be responded to effectively.
I think what you are saying is that with Christianity people want to do their best and then share. I find just the opposite. I don't find most "Christians" sharing what they have with those less fortunate. In fact I look around and find most working hard to keep what they have and damn those less fortunate.
From your first statement I can only assume you believe I am a socialist. Which can only lead me to believe that you did not fully read my Hub, had you done so this would not have been your conclusion.
ShrikeTexas
You may do anything you wish and believe anything you wish. Including believing that it is appropriate to witness without giving. The fact of the matter is that your taxes, as meager as they might be already pay for social programs including education, emergency response (fire, police, 911) as examples. I have read the Constitution many times and fully understand the meaning of those words. I also understand that we, the people of this country, have an obligation to ensure that all members have access to Education, Health Care, access to jobs, access to credit within their means, ability to put a roof over the head of their family within their means.
Today we don’t have these things. Today our jobs have been off shored and those that have not been sent off-shore have been given away to the lowest cost provider through the import of cheap labor. While millions of Americans are out of work hundreds of thousands of imports from India, China, and the Philippines are brought in to replace them. Capitalism is fine, in fact Capitalism is the right economic model overall. Nevertheless, all members of society must be able to participate or it does not work. There is a part of the current government who supports the continuation of programs that will allow expansion of programs that import labor and further deregulate industry and banking.
The government cannot be blamed for mismanagement. The government is in place because the people put them in place. The people cast their vote and allow them to mismanage without being held accountable. The wars are fought, billions spent and thousands of lives lost and for what other than a lie, just one example. The state run agencies are generally bankrupt due to poor tax revenues which are in part based upon property values within a state and in part based upon income tax collections. If you will consider those states with the worst collections you will note that these states are those with the highest unemployment rates and thus the states with the most dire problems, most people in need, most properties in foreclosure, and the list goes on. The federal programs are not bankrupt, this information can be easily looked up and you should not rely upon Fox News for your information regarding Medicare and Social Security.
Overall, your judgment of whether you will be paying for me with your taxes? Not likely. I have paid for myself since I was 15. I will continue to do so, my taxes are more than sufficient, my tax bill plenty high enough, my social security maxed out every year. It is likely that my earnings will continue to enable me to live well and save for retirement. As a small business owner I also employee others not just myself. I am more than capable of understanding the issues at hand.
Unlike so many who claim Christianity, I make a real effort not to judge others. But please continue to feel free to do so, it should go over well when you eventually meet YOUR Jesus.
This is a well written piece. I agree with little of what you have to say, but enjoyed reading it.
I will reiterate since you twisted what I said: "Paul also said to work in our communities and be a witness in our lives. Personally I am going to work as a capitalist and live and (give) as a witness in my community.That is what I wrote; you just missed it. Other than that, for one so well written I am surprised that you place such a high opinion or trust in the people we place in office it won't be the first time we have been duped by the politicians of this great nation. Look at what the last administration did to us, we are bankrupt from a misbegotten war and fear mongered the American people out of more of our constitutional rights.If you remember I stated those that are old ,children or sick we help by using responsible industry outside of government to run these projects and have external watchdogs in place to audit their books, your disagreement with me is your desire for big government in all their ineptness to continue running programs into the ground. I believe we place companies in place with excellent track records to organize and run these programs with open books that are audited by "intelligent" government agencies and you would end graft, government waste thus tax dollars saved. I too believe companies should be regulated in moving factories to other countries and I also believe unions have helped in some of this mire. As an Artist I see my friends losing their jobs to designers overseas and I find it very disheartening, but you are talking about putting more tax money in the hands of government ineptness, not my money. Have you read the health care bill ? You should, it has some chilling facts that even you don't want. I think that is great that you make so much money your tax dollars will probably be taking care of me when I am too old to work. I feel like the poor man kicked to the bak of the church you referred to so humbly As far as being judgmental we all have to look in the mirror everyday and your barbs are unwarranted, just because your political views are for a social democratic Fascist society with a with a touch of capitalism if you are lucky.
Shriketexas -
Show me a responsible industry that you would like to give your money to so they can deny you a necessary medical procedure. Perhaps you should read some of the comments above and my response to them. I believe there are areas that cannot be put in the hands of for profit industry, this includes healthcare insurance. I also do not think the current Bills being proposed are the right bills and hope they do not pass, nevertheless Medicare for All is the right standard, increased tax for a Single Payer system that insures all members of society and provides for healthcare services for all members regardless of pre-existing conditions is the right answer.
You and I don't disagree on some issues, including the fact that past administrations have been bad. We also don't disagree that big government is bad. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that all government is bad or that government should not step into certain and specific social programs to provide for specific services and ensure those services are available to all members of society.
You have simply repeated what I said about the wars of the last administration. You have repeated what I said in previous posts regarding the loss of our Constitutional Rights during the last administration.
You seem to ignore what I have said about the fact that we, the people of the United States are the government. It is up to us through our active participation to stop their most nefarious behavior. It is up to us to vote them out of office. It is up to us to demand accountability. It is up to us to demand from our representatives they do what we put them in office to do.
I am a progressive, I believe individuals have the right to determine for themselves many things. I believe that I have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, all of them. As a woman I believe I have the right to privacy in many things that many don't think I do. I believe that we are a secular government and that no person has the right to demand their religious belief into law.
We are already have a mixed economic model. Your taxes already pay for social services including emergency services, roads and infrastructure, education. No country is without a mixture. This is what most people don't understand Capitalism, in fact I am a Capitalist. I simply acknowledge the truth of a mixed economy and want my tax dollars put to proper use.
What you have failed to recognize in this hub is not that I have stated my personal views only that I have defined what the current president is or is not. The fact that you are offended by it is unfortunate but really when you read with automatic assumptions about the writer it is pretty natural you that you will also make assumptions about the writer as well. There were no barbs in my posting to you only a response.
Valerie-You're right about America having a mixed economy. I think the question that many Americans are asking themselves is this: With how much should the federal government be entrusted?
I'm clear from my study of history that humans have a dark side and cannot be trusted with power-meaning that we must keep tabs on those who we've elected. Those in industry are no better, but they don't literally 'govern' us, though as you point out industry can make things difficult for us.
Putting more power in the hands of government is not the solution to healthcare and poverty issues, but neither is putting more power in the hands of industry. What I'm seeing now is perhaps the 'final scene' in which we're experiencing the results of trusting others, whether in industry of government, with our security and well being.
That's a quandry. Who then do we turn to (humanly speaking) in granting authority? Don't have that answer. I wouldn't give more power to government though. Whatever government can give, it can also take away.
Hxprof
I believe the answer is that you don't entrust any single entity with too much power or money. Instead you must create a system of checks and balances that ensures those who are empowered are also checked at the gate so too speak. What we have done is exactly what many of our founding fathers warned us of, we have allowed a two party system to define our country and in truth they are not all that different. We have also allowed our government to be influenced by two very critical external systems:
1) Industry and Industrialists
2) Religious bodies
Neither of these two have the best interest of the "whole" but rather have only the best interest of themselves and their agenda. The parties line up with their hands out and over time only the very wealth who are willing to sell their ethics to the highest bidder are able to run for and sustain themselves in office win places in government. Competition for seats of power is simply to expensive both financially and morally for the common person, although in truth these are who should be serving.
Even "we the people" resist term limits with silly excuses the like of, "it takes to long for an elected official to learn the ropes of Washington". Well this wouldn't be true if we didn't allow lifetime membership in the congressional and senatorial club. If we limited these to 3 terms or even, worst case 4 terms.
If we limited spending for public office to reasonable amounts and demanded true accounting of where all funds came from then and only then would we start seeing the common person back in office and potentially third and even fourth parties emerging with an opportunity to gain momentum in the polls. If all candidates were invited to public and televised debates not just those hand chosen then we could say we were in an open democratic system again.
While I believe we need true change in some of our systems and with Healthcare I believe the right answer is Medicare for all, it isn't the only answer. I would be happy with a regulated private system similar to the Auto Insurance industry in some states, but one that included a public option for those families that have no place else to turn.
I believe the states have lost their right to direct their public education systems and that the federal government should step in with a set of national standards and some funding for those blighted areas where there is no tax framework within the districts.
I believe that any industry that has taken money from the federal government in bailout should not being paying bonus to their executives until all bailout money with interest has been returned to the government and thus the people of the country.
I believe banking and investment industries, including mortgage should be federally regulated.
I believe strongly there should be heavily regulated immigration rules, especially on the H1B, L1, and B1 systems until all Americans are back at work. Industry should not be employing immigrant labor before Americans, especially if they are taking government funding for projects.
I believe people, yes that is right, we the people must learn what the government is up to. We must stop flinging about names and pointing fingers. This is really all this Hub was about, whether or not our the current President is a Socialist, he is not. It isn't about whether I am a socialist, I am not either; it isn't about whether socialism is a good economic theory (it is not self sustaining thus it is not).
If you have read the entire Hub and all the comments, most people here have spent an awful lot of time attacking me and generally trying to bully me. Most likely didn't read the Hub, most simply read the first few lines and likely decided they I was a pagan left wing flaming liberal and not worthy of the time it would take to actually read and respond. I try hard to respond to each person with courtesy, I hope I have done so this time.
I stated that we should take care of the sick, old and young through private industries with external watchdogs(Government) in place. We already have Government watch dogs that check the books of Home Health care companies, but they are in a catch 22, there are not enough of them to go over the books of every agency, therefore corrupt agencies take advantage. If we have more "smart" auditors checking their books medicare would save huge amounts of money. I believe in private health care Insurance, they just need to be regulated, i.e., existing health care issue should transfer from one insurance carrier to another, individuals health insurance should cost the same as group, extra.
ShrikeTexas -
The sick, old, and young are not being cared for by private industry unless they have personal wealth. External watchdogs do nothing more than insure providers behave in specific ways once a person is within the system and paying their astronomical costs for services. The "watchdogs" cannot require that a private service provider change their rules to offer services to those that do not fit their profile.
Not all those with "pre-existing" conditions are old or even obviously "sick". If you had done as I had asked and read some of the comments above you would have seen the situation I have, a pre-existing condition that makes me "uninsurable". It is not something that I caused, it is not something that will ever go away, it is not something that will ever change, it is something that costs significantly in pharmaceutical and frequent surgical intervention so that I can live with some degree of quality. It is also a condition that may someday kill me despite anything I do. Some companies may insure me for everything but this condition, however, nearly everything that requires medical care for me is denied as an extension of my pre-existing condition and requires a fight. I have been fighting this battle for well over 15 years. It is not a catch 22 for me and others like me, it is a fact of our lives that bankrupts families every year.
I don't disagree with the issue that Medicare could be improved from the perspective of cost savings, however it remains less costly from a paperwork and management standard than private insurance. The program is not bad and the goal of the program is not profit, this is a key point. As a person with two parents who had been Medicare recipients for over 15 years I know that it works well. They received the care they needed from the doctors they chose. No question no challenge.
There are simply some things that should not be "for profit". Health Care is one of those things that should not be "for profit" as the primary driver. Capitalism is fine and industry should not be hampered by regulations; nevertheless, the health and well being of human beings should not be sacrificed to the God of Greed....it is today and this must change. Whether this is through heavy regulation of private industry or Medicare for All, it is irrelevant; either way we will pay greater taxes to pay. Personally, I would rather pay for Single Payer and improved services through a system that is already proven, Medicare. Than pay to regulate a system that has already proven corrupt, private providers.
You are right and you are right, I have an incurable illness no one will cover and private providers are corrupt because no regulations have been placed on them, one could wonder why the government hasn't stepped in to regulate insurers, so that we would cry out for big government to step in and take over as they are doing now? I don't know,but if you've noticed I don't have a lot of faith in big government. If you don't think Medicare is inept you should take a look inside that little organization it has alot of explaining to do. Bush has screwed up Medicare for the elderly with his tweaking it, also. I just know that if there isn't incentive in the market place we will have fewer men and women going into the medical field, there will be less research for new drugs and wonderful surgical devices that are non-invasive. We will be dumbing down our medical care and creating a huge burden on the medical staff that remains. I'm sorry your sick.
Alright ShrikeTexas, we are talking in circles because the only thing you see in what I write is that I want bigger government. This is not the case, I believe we need to correct a proven system; you see this as creating larger government.
I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of this. Expanding Medicare to all does not expand government only expands services of a single program and eliminates other programs, including VA health services, state run Medicaid, and others. Thus in fact it contracts government services into a single solution for all American citizens. To expand upon this, it is important to streamline processes within the system including modernizing systems (IT), eliminating paperwork for doctors and hospitals, improving billing systems (single systems and direct on-line billing) are just some of the examples that would reduce cost for providers and the Medicare system.
Again, although I lost my mother last year my father is still alive and on Medicare. He suffers from a number of ailments including Alzheimer. Both of my parents have had several health issues and have received outstanding care from doctors of their choice. There has never been issues with this care from Medicare, never any question as to the care their doctors determined was required including medicines, tests, surgical procedures, and end of life needs for my mother.
While Medicare certainly has problems currently due to the misuse of funds by past administrations and the inefficiencies inherent to the system, these are easily corrected. The system overall works and is far better than for profit systems where your or my health is subject to profit decisions; where someone's bonus may be affected by a "yes" for a life saving procedure.
The reality of whether there will or will not be more doctors or researchers has nothing to do the insurance decision. Private insurance providers are far more nefarious in their behavior and far more likely to deny procedures and negotiate lower rates. The reasons there are not more providers has to do more with the cost of education and the limited space in our schools today. It has more to do with the AMA and their control over that space. It has more to do with the litigious nature of people and attorneys today and the cost of insurance for private practice providers. It has more to do with what a doctor is able to earn in a hospital or group if he isn't specialized compared to what he owes upon graduation. These are not issues of where your insurance comes from but the inequity in the market, this is why more and more doctors are being imported from overseas, from India, China and other Eastern nations under the scarce resource programs.
This same issue is true of researches, this is why the H1B program is so popular. Why we are turning out fewer and fewer scientist from our universities today. Most can no longer afford the costs only to earn $35,000 - $50,000 per year with student loans exceeding $50K.
I am sorry you are ill as well if I am reading your post correctly. But my "illness" was due to a violent crime against me, I was carjacked, kidnapped, and shot three times; nearly lost my life and was left with lifelong injuries including epilepsy. As I said, nothing I did but something I live with including 2 bouts of paralysis 27 surgeries (major and minor), 7 major hospitalizations; the most recent seizure I stopped breathing, there is more but those are the highlights.
I only want to not be bankrupt to live, that is all. I want to see providers of my choosing who will provide me with appropriate care based on my needs without bankrupting me. I want this to be true for my family members. I want those who find themselves suddenly out of work not to have to choose between food or healthcare insurance. I want families who suddenly lose the primarily breadwinner to not lose their healthcare insurance as well. I want all American Citizens, no matter their financial situation, age, or current health to be assured they can seek medical attention and receive appropriate attention for whatever their problem whether it is a hangnail or prostrate cancer. I only want that Americans are not dying because they cannot afford medical care and are thus choosing to not seek help.
Between you and my wife, who is a nurse, my dim mind is beginning to understand, I still would like to keep Government out of it just out of fear of taking my and your freedoms away. It is true if you have a major illness you might as well declare bankruptcy because your insurance is not going to cover it all.
Government is not always bad. It is frequently mismanaged, I agree. The current bill for healthcare is certainly bad, this I also agree. We, the people of this nation must become activist and we must drive our elected officials into doing the right thing for the most people or we must vote them out of office. It is that simple.
Amen to that.
Wow! Long responses. I just want to say: I think this was an intelligently-written Hub, regardless of one's views.
Thanks, some of the discussion was interesting. Some on and some off the Hub Track.
I've always thought that lassez faire capitalism (and related conservative ideologies) is every bit as utopian an idea as socialism...neither has ever been attempted within the context of their full theoretical principles. But its not the principles themselves that are without basis...its the application of the principles. In other words, both systems could work equally well if people weren't so self-interest-oriented.
Excellent hub! You have earned a new fan in me, and I can see that you can handle yourself against the opposing view just fine. :D Great job!
All of this is very interesting, but leaves a question of "what do we do with Deuteronomy 8:18?" It states (paraphrase) that it is God who gives us power to gain wealth, that he can establish his covenant on earth. Some may believe it's irrelevant since it's Old Testament, but it's still in the Bible and it sounds capitalistic to me. Socialism in our history has failed over and over again, and even in Europe where it hangs on, the societies are stagnating. Democracies like the US have out performed them in every area conceivable. There are few if any, innovative new ideas coming from that part of the world, and it is only a matter of time until they collapse under the tax burden. Socialism in its purest form may be superior to capitalism in its current state, but the world lacks the pure form of leadership necessary to make it work.
@Beyond Politics - I guess I am one of those that believe it is nearly impossible to apply any theory perfectly for just the reason you have stated. It is obvious in the US we have some of both, any person who believes otherwise is not looking at the reality of our economic systems;
The person who goes to school on a Veterans bill
Then purchases a home through VA
Secures their money in banks protected by the government
Sends their children to public schools
Ever calls 911
Ever has need of the police
Then receives medical care through VA Medical
Then retires to Social Security and Medicare
All of the above are forms of Socialism. Anytime the government provides services it is a form of Socialism. I always laugh at the person who screams "keep the governments hands off my Social Security".
@T_Agustus - Glad you liked it. I am pretty use to the opposing forces and their vitriolic and scathing approach to debate when it comes to my views. It never surprises me and so I am always prepared. I call what I do with many of my hubs "poking the bear", they are intended to get a reaction.
I do the same thing in facebook all time, either through answering controversial polls and then adding my own twist; or by simply asking controversial questions as my status. It amuses me!
Your hermeneutical skills are demonstrateably inadequate based on the way you handle your selected passages of Scripture. You attempt to speak authoritatively about subjects on which you have no professional training, and thousands of people accept your views as fact even though you yourself have said that these are your opinions and that they are usually the minority opinion. In addition you clearly depart from your own definition of socialism (from Oxford), because the definition states that the result is mutual, communal ownership of property whereas what you say Jesus advocates in these passages is merely giving away property to the poor which does not result in communal ownership.
You cannot simply quote part of a passage of Scripture and expect to come up with the correct meaning. You only quoted Mark 10:21-25, the middle part of Mark 10:17-31. You have to explain the meaning as part of the entire story or you are putting words in the author's mouth and telling us what you think he means, instead of allowing him to tell us what he means. (how could any of Aesop's Fables be understood without hearing the whole story?)
Next you must answer the questions: Why did the author include this story in his book, and Why did he place it here, in between Jesus' teaching on divorce, children, and the prediction of his death, and the request of two disciples? This is called context and it supplements the author's intended meaning and purpose in telling the story. Your context for Mark 10:17-31 is Mark 10:1-45.
Next you have to answer the question of how does the author's treatment of this subject related to his treatment of the same subject in other passages of his book?
Next you have to answer the question of how do other biblical authors understand and treat this subject in their books? You DO know, don't you, that this same passage occurs in Matthew 19:1-20:28 in the exact same order yet with more detail? That it also occurs in Luke 18:15-34, but that for some reason the teacing on divorce and the request of two disciples are curiously absent from this passage?
If Jesus really was having a surface-level discussion and told the man that all he had to do to follow him is to give away his possessions, then we must also say that only six of the ten commandments apply as well, for in the immediately preceding verses the man asks "What must I do to inherit eternal life? (Mark 10:17, Luke 18:18, Matt 19:16)" and Jesus quotes -- not ten, but only five or six (depending on the account) -- commandments from the Old Testament: "Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother (Mark 10:18-19, Luke 18:20, Matt 19:18-19)" So elsewhere in the accounts of Jesus' life we find that he repeats all ten of the ten commandments, yet here it appears that we find Jesus saying that we must only keep five or six of the ten, plus give away our wealth, in order to gain eternal life; please tell us all why?
Actually anasteso1454 my interpretative skills are just fine thanks. Check your facts by the way. Jesus said he did not come to undo the laws but to fulfill them.
Next, I gave three definitions of Socialism, not one. Try reading it will help you when you wish to insult people.
Finally, try manners. They work well and generally those who have them are viewed as having a certain amount of class. Those who don't, well you can only imagine.
As to opinions, we all have them and we all have the right to express them. I have enough education Biblical and otherwise to have well educated ones. Your disagreement doesn't make them less so.
Thank you, you are actually correct with your statement that Christ did not come to "undo" the laws but to fulfill them. According to Matthew 5:17-20 he also says what he means by that and what it means for anyone who follows after him. In my argument I was taking your statements to their logical conclusion: that we if settle for a superficial reading of Scripture at this point we would assume that Jesus was really saying that we must give away all of our possessions in order to follow after him. Thus we would also have to assume that because Jesus only repeated five or six of ten commandments that the young man need only follow those, because he DID in fact ask "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" We both know that Jesus came to fulfill, not to change or undo, the laws according to Matt 5:17-20.
My comments about your opinions were merely a loose paraphrase of what you yourself have said in your own biographies on Hubpages, Helium, and other internet blogging sites. I also could not find any indication in any of your biographies that biblical scholarship is a field of study in which you have received formal training; you only indicate that religious issues are an area of interest to you. Thus my comment, "You attempt to speak authoritatively about subjects on which you have no professional training." If you do have formal training it would be beneficial to everyone that you share what that training is. I am sure that you are a very intelligent person who does not make unscrupulous assertions. Nonetheless, any level of education does not guaruntee correctness.
In the end, my statements still stand unchallenged by your response so far:
1) what Jesus advocated was voluntary surrender of personal wealth for the good of others. This does not result in any form of government ownership, public ownership, or even communal ownership of property in this specific reference (Mark 10, Matt 19, Luke 18), and thus it does not fit any definition of socialism. The closest example might be Acts 2:32-35 but it also gives no indication of government or public ownership of property and also no indication of communal residence of the early Church; thus it may be loosely related to communalism, but not entirely. No person in the first century would have any idea what a socialist is, even if they had a different word for it.
2) if you want to correctly exegete your passage from Mark 10:21-25, please employ your interpretive skills and share with everyone the accurate interpretation of its actual context, Mark 10:17-31 (the full story). Here Jesus explains to the reader what he means by his response, and I believe that if a person explains what they meant that we should pay close attention to that explanation. You should also explain its wider context, Mark 10:1-45, and its parallel accounts elsewhere in Scripture, Matthew 19:1-20:28 and Luke 18:15-34. Share with us why Jesus made the comments he made in Mark 10:21-25, and also why he only repeated five or six of the ten commandments just prior to that?
As with others Anesteso1454 I will say this to you, I have no reason whatsoever to need to place my qualifications on the table. I note that you have not placed yours for our review and assessment. Why should your "opinion" be of any greater import or value than mine? Can you provide your to all my readers and me your qualifications? No? Didn't think so. Nothing more than itinerant preacher who doesn't like that I have insulted his view of the Bible and his view of the Invisible God.
Try reading, I have suggested it previously to you now I will suggest it again as this is the last post you will be allowed on this thread. Read what I wrote. Respond to what I wrote, rather than what you feel like.
My post wasn't about the Bible, it wasn't about Jesus. It wasn't about interpretation of Biblical theory. Had you read it completely you would have know this, you did not.
I could not care a whit less about your interpretation of a book written and then re-written by man.
Thank you again. What is of importance is that there are no "opinions" when it comes to the correct interpretation of Scripture. I don't recall trying to give you my personal interpretation of a book inspired by God, about God, and written by man; I was merely asking for a more complete explanation of your interpretation. It is evident that you have a very low opinion of the bible and (possibly) of Jesus as well based on your most recent comments. If your post was not about the Bible and was not about Jesus (obviously it was about Obama being called a socialist), then why the need to repeatedly refer to Jesus and the Bible? Why are these references even necessary?
I am certainly not one to brag about anything about myself, but since you have insisted:
B.S., Psychology and Religion (dual degrees) Charleston Southern University, 2005
M.Div., Biblical Studies, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (2011)
I don't see any harm in you sharing your qualifications to handle ancient literature in the manner of a professional scholar.
And if you insist that "Jesus was a socialist" then I will respond to what you wrote and say with equal confidence that "Obama is a socialist."
If you can handle hearing another person disagree with you and give honest critique of the argument and the argumentor's qualifications, then you will allow this post. If you are not able to handle disagreement, we both will know it if this post does not appear
You are right, I don't buy "inspired by". I buy written by man and re-written by man to fulfill mans desire to control the populace. The Bible is a book, nothing more and nothing less. It is representative of nothing but mans greed and ambition, were it otherwise there would not be so many different versions or different interpretations. As to the issue of whether persons without Theological degrees are capable of reading and interpreting Biblical writing, why yes they are ; that is why ultimately it was written in the common tongue rather than Latin so the common man could read the Word for himself. Let me suggest you study the history of the Church.
I don't mind argument or disagreement. What I mind is how you have come at it, which is attacking the person first. You clearly went out of your way to do so. You sought out who I was and where else I write. You have no other postings here or else where. Clearly you have an axe to grind. Based on the years your degrees are granted (if indeed they are) you are still young with no life experience as a framework for your arguments, which is fine as far as it goes. But you might learn some fine day that arrogance does not get you far in life.
I will suggest to you again, read the entire thread. Learn the meaning of Socialism. Read what I myself have said about this Hub and why I wrote it.
Good luck in your continued studies and your future life. Get some humility, you will need it in life as you venture into a world full of people with far more experience than you. People who fundamentally disagree with your perspective and your opinions. People who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, there will be many and most will claim Christianity.
arpee christian sabe says:
4 months ago
I do see Jesus incarnation as an act, involving himself in society, to help and guide us in right living.