Think about it: Jesus was the first person to propose Socialism. It's in the Bible

BTW, for those of you not of the Christian faith you have to admit, Jesus was a progressive thinker whose ideas are align with the way many of us think. Even Ghandhi, who was not a Christian, found the teachings of Jesus to be an important part of the life he lived (and he freed a nation without every using a gun). To me faith isn't profession of a God or Savior but the actions you take when dealing with others in this world and especially those who are in need. I've known athiests that display better Christian values that mirror those of what Jesus would do moreso than these fundie nutjobs out there that would rather make it about controlling others and keeping the wealth to themselves.



If that's not socialism I don't know what is. And I'm not demanding pure socialism but the least our country could do is make sure we have programs in place that reach out and take care of all of our citizens and not just those with the money.

They just ignore it and don't even try to answer it.

My theory is that Christianity is code for "white, European" to them.

They claim the country is founded on Christian principles, but can not explain what those principles are and why this country's founding documents reflect that.

All they can point to is man getting his rights from the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence. The use of that word indicates an actual attempt to get specific religions out of it, IMO.

For these fundies it's more about what Paul said (post-Jesus and btw, someone never prophesized in the old testament. There were probably 1000s of 'Pauls' out there spreading the word, why was this one picked?) or obscure old testament laws.

Here's the facts: Jesus was NEVER a Christian. He was born and died a Jew. Christianity did not exist until years after his death but somehow the message got warped by the message that Paul (again, one of thousands who was doing it but the one that the makers of the bible selected, some 300 years after Jesus and Paul's death).

I wonder who made that decision and why?

You can thank this guy for the bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Clearly books were selected that favored his rule and direction he desired for religion in regards to the government.

and gave to each according to their need.

were struck dead by God, on the spot. Second Chapter of Acts o' the Apostles.

It was the lie not just holding back.

They are the ones that actually reached out and helped others.

Go figure.

.... I told her because preacher in question is probably the biggest socialist in the city.

She looked very puzzled lol.

And he was neither a prophet nor the messiah. Just one of thousands who, after Jesus's death & resurrection, opted to go out there and spread the word. And although Paul wrote some nice scriptures like 1 Corith 13 (read at every wedding), in general his philosphes were way out of line from what Jesus taught. Paul downplayed the concept of 'helping others' as a means to being saved and stated it was more about just converting as many as you can. And if you look at the fundamentalist Christians out there, they make great emphasis on the fact that we all need to be Christians and we need to be Christian nation and we need to teach our children christianity, blah blah blah. They are out there doing the word of Paul and not Jesus.


I sometimes wonder if Constatine wanted Paul's writings because they would justify keeping the money to yourself. Some of the most profound gnostic gospels out there rejected by his team assembled to create the bible - they were very radical in the sense that women had more power & independance (Mary Magdeline wasn't a whore but an equal to the disciples and possible wife/love of Jesus himself) and that a Church can be organized just by 3 people hanging out talking about faith (lack of structuralized Church which means the money wouldn't be rolling in).

And isn't the concept of this healthcare package making sure we reach out and help others?

There's nothing stopping you from reaching out and helping others, is there? There's nothing stopping me, either.

The question with "socialism" is that it's government. Did Jesus found a government or a governmental system? I think he said something about that, but maybe that's just me. It makes, IMHO, Jesus irrelevant. I can't help but think that people like saying God is on their side. The number of wars that have been fought, the millions killed, in the name of what must be a schizophrenic, psychotic god is staggering. From what little I can see in history, neither side had much of a claim to God. I haven't noticed any difference in modern politics. Let's assume the claim is potentially valid, however.

One problem in assuming that Jesus intended socialism, no matter how anachronistic that view might be, is this: Jesus was concerned with righteousness, but seldom do I understand him to mean collective righteousness. A group may be punished for unrighteousness in it, whether for tolerating it or for adopting it. But seldom does anything truly important ride on it: Nobody is condemned for another's sins. Yet this is what's under discussion here, isn't it? Now, if Jesus is being socialist, and it's a collective duty to help the least among us, then the reward is also collective. You can sin and receive the reward because of what others do; or, perhaps, if enough sin, you can be righteous and be damned for others' behavior. (Note that this thinking is at the heart of much "Religious Right" thinking, because they make the same initial mistake that the "Jesus was a socialist" 'thinkers' do.) However Jesus' message seems to be that we reap the rewards of what we sow, not as a collective, and when we're judged we're judged on what we've individually done, not for what others have (or haven't) done.

Yeah, I know it's unpopular to point out that Jesus actually endorsed righteousness. It screws over antinomians on both right and left, and it's especially hard for the left--hating Paul, they're forced to crucially rely on interpretations of Pauline writings.

There are two comments I usually have about socialism, at least in the 20th century (neither of which are true about most communes). The first is that most people that talk socialism always say what others should be doing; often they can help, but mostly they talk about how bad others are. I find beating up on those present to be poor sport and not very fruitful. Granted, I can always find excuses for my lack of good behavior, but that's also irritating after a short while. The other thing is that that socialism and affine modes of thinking in the 20th century was nearly always enforced with government authority. You help, whether or not you want to. If you don't, somebody shows up with the weight of the government behind you. I don't think Jesus says we'll be rewarded if someone's there with a gun to our temples ordering us to help the poor. "You'll be righteous or be arrested" undermines the entire point of "seeking righteousness". You know, one of those sermony-on-the-mount things that seldom gets quoted in some circles.

Granted, a lot of socialist thought in the 20th century was collectivist in both meting out punishment and rewards. More than one toddler born to previously wealthy parents in Russia was denied a good job and a college education because, well, parents he couldn't remember had all kinds of privileges; yet he was in a cursed class, sort of intergenerational political karma, I guess. I don't see that in the NT.