Was Jesus a socialist?

1. 0

   Mtbailzposted 12 years ago

   I mean if you think about it, it makes complete sense. First, he absolutely agrees with the redistribution of wealth. Feeding the hungry masses with bread he made bountiful and then telling his followers that they should give all their money to the poor. Jesus seems not to worry about taxes either. Give unto Cesar what is cesars. Also known as, pay your taxes. So, looking at him this way I'd say Jesus was ahead of his times and leaned a little left, politically speaking.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      But Jesus lived in a perfect world.  It would be great if it could be.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      2besureposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What I can't figure out is since when is it wrong to help those in need.  If that means being a socialist, than yes,  Jesus was a socialist, and those who think this is a bad thing are not worthy of Him!  While we are talking about Jesus, he said it was harder for a rich man to get into heaven, than a camel going through the eye of a needle.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Remember, there's a difference between helping them and enabling them.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            2besureposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            This is totally true!

            replyreport
   3. 0

      Fatigmonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Matthew 25:14-30
      
      King James Version (KJV)
      
        14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
      
      15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
      
      16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
      
      17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
      
      18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
      
      19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
      
      20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
      
      21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
      
      22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
      
      23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
      
      24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
      
      25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
      
      26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
      
      27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
      
      28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
      
      29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
      
      30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

      replyreport
2. 71

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   How is it that people understand "redistribution of wealth" a socialist trait? It's not.
   
   The "redistribution of wealth" is about the most wealthiest shifting money around redistributing among themselves. It has nothing to do with helping the poor or giving money to the poor.
   
   On aside note- Jesus wasn't a socialist in any manner of speaking.

   replyreport
3. 61

   charles wadeposted 12 years ago

   "First, he absolutely agrees with the redistribution of wealth."
   
   How does Jesus teach this?
   
   “Feeding the hungry masses"
   
   Why did Jesus feed them, were they poor & hungry or just hungry because they hadn't eaten in a while?  They weren’t poor people - so are we being taught to feed everyone or just our guests?
   
   "Give unto Cesar what is Caesar’s"
   
   What belongs to Caesar?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Of course Jesus was speaking around the premise of getting into heaven, disregarding earthly things.  Cags is talking about 'redistribution of wealth" as it is used today.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      cprice75posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't necessarily classify Jesus as a socialist, but it's obvious that he wasn't a capitalist in the current sense of the term.
      
      Is there anything in the text that indicates their socioeconomic status? 
      
      Jesus paid taxes, and did not complain, so apparently he had no problem with the concept.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Mtbailzposted 12 years ago

   Well redistribution of well is a general term and could be applied to many situation. So yea it could apply to wealthy moving their finances around and it could also mean the government stepping in and doing it for them or mandating that they do it

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I wrote a hub that dispels a political misconception which was going around for awhile.
      
      The hub title: Political Misconception- Share The Wealth
      
      It shows a distinction between "redistribution of wealth" and "share the wealth" ideology.
      
      Redistribution of wealth is what the upper 1% does through government, so as to appear to be helping the poor when in fact they are not.
      
      Share the wealth concept is a misconception because giving money to the poor doesn't actually solve anything and it comes from sheer stupidity.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Absolute Kant.  The consequences of generosity are good for the local person but the giver has no idea what his moral duty is.  His inclination is to give but it only temporarily helps the poor.  At least according to Kant's implication.

         replyreport
5. 0

   Mtbailzposted 12 years ago

   Charles, doesn't matter if they are poor or not he still used redistribution methods. Redistribution does not have to mean money going from the rich to the poor. Take our modern paradox. Occupy wall street just wants some of it to go to main street middle class workers who are not necessarily poor but could use a little extra dough to get by.

   replyreport
6. 79

   cprice75posted 12 years ago

   Something pretty interesting about the whole redistribution of wealth idea is that the poor are more likely to voluntarily redistribute their wealth through charitable giving than are the wealthy (with the exception of uber-wealthy people like Gates and Buffett  who are big philanthropists).
   
   Here's a link to a very interesting article on charitable giving:
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magaz … wln-t.html

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Mtbailzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I guess when you have lived through poverty you would be more inclined to empathize and thus donate.

      replyreport
7. 61

   charles wadeposted 12 years ago

   Mtbailz, I agree that the earnings of many companies could be distributed more fairly within their workforce.  I do believe some people are underpaid while others might be overpaid in many larger companies.  Claiming Jesus to be a socialist or anything other than this world's Savior is a mistake in my opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus' moral code is much more radical than reciprocal.  His life surrounded loving god and each other.  He never intended for us to use the golden rule instead he intended for us to to good deeds to those who have done no good to us at all.  So his feeding the 500, etc. had more to do with demonstrating this love and his ability to perform miracles to prove a point. IMO

      replyreport
8. 61

   charles wadeposted 12 years ago

   couturepopcafe,  The people had been there listening to Jesus for a long time without having any food,  they were hungry so He feed them because He could and because He could testified as to who He was.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think we agree just putting it differently.

      replyreport
9. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   I don't know if Jesus was socialist, but the early Christians appeared to be communist. That's why Christianity western style may have such a difficult problem with the whole concept of Jesus. Personal gain in the physical world appears to be their goal on many levels.

   replyreport