The funny thing is, I'm not a Christian. 1. Jesus owned nothing. 2. Jesus argued for the dissolution of the family and the establishment of communes. 3. Jesus loved all people regardless of ethnicity or class. 4. Jesus revolted against the imperial government, established religion and finance capitalism (usury). 5. Jesus taught that we should act as one body, one blood. 6. Jesus taught that his kingdom (ie nation state) is in the heart and not below the feet. 7. Jesus taught that we should fight for Justice and 'turn the other cheek' to petty morality. 8. Jesus was a laborer and a teacher. 9. Jesus practiced healing and forgiveness. 10. Jesus taught that you can't be an imperialist and a disciple at the same time.

Comments

  • StillSeeking said Feb 12, 2007...
    Amen!  Couldn't have said it better myself, Ned!
  • kelly said Feb 17, 2007...
    lt's fairly amazing how people like Pat Robertson, et. al. can twist what Jesus stood for (so they tell us) into things like pushing for the assassination of a foreign leader (Chavez), intolerance of gay people, intolerance of anybody who isn't like them, etc.
  • mmcginnis said Oct 25, 2008...
    http://www.lcurve.org/writings/BiblicalLiberal.htm David Chandler, in this article, tries to make the point that Jesus (God the Son) was a socialist. By this logic then, so was God the Father as Jesus and the Father are One and the same. Contrary to Chandler’s views, the truth is that Jesus was NOT a socialist. He never taught Socialism. He taught love and humility and through these teaching, the natural reaction of his followers was to show love for all mankind, including providing for those who could not provide for themselves (The lame, widowed, old, and downtrodden). He did NOT suggest that we are to give to the lazy. In fact He did just the opposite. In 2 Thessalonians The Lord inspired these words: “Neither did we eat bread for nought at any man's hand, but in labor and travail, working night and day, that we might not burden any of you: not because we have not the right, but to make ourselves and ensample unto you, that ye should imitate us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well-doing. And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” Clearly, by this we are instructed not only to not provide for those who will not work, but to not even have company with him, so that he might be ashamed. As to the teaching of scripture, it could be summed up as in the Lords words in Psalms 14:23: “In all labor there is profit, But idle chatter leads only to poverty.” And in Proverbs 6:6-8 “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, hhich, having no captain, Overseer or ruler, Provides her supplies in the summer, And gathers her food in the harvest. How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to sleep- So shall your poverty come on you like a prowler, And your need like an armed man.” In neither passage above, does the Lord say that the idle, sluggard, or lazy person should be taken care of. On the contrary, He says that this type of person will reap his just rewards, poverty. God says that if we work, we receive profit. If we do not, we become poor. Now, that being said, when God set forth the first economy over the nation of Israel, He did not institute a capitalistic system nor a socialistic system. It was actually a mixture of the two. In fact, the Lords teachings on many subjects call for a balance of extremes, not one side or the other. God lays out the idea of ownership of property in Exodus 20:15 and 22:1-15, stating the punishment for those who take the possessions of others or trespass on another’s property. In Leviticus 19:9-10 the Lord lays out a type of welfare in that when a field is harvested, the edges of the field are not to be picked. In the same way, the fruit dropped while harvesting the vineyard are to be left, in both cases for the poor, but laziness was allowed to run its course without a safety net. Everyone was also instructed to give one tenth of everything they produced to the Lord. This was used not only to provide sustenance to the priests, but also to fund the needs of the Temple. Later, in the New Testament, the tithe was done away with and replaced with giving to the needy solely as one’s heart directs them to and taxes were still instructed to be paid to the government. Because in both the old and new Testament the Lord instructed that giving was to be a personal act, the lazy could be differentiated from the truly needy which is an impossibility under the one size fits all approach of government welfare systems. God’s approach to the economic system was one of balance. The idea was that each man would be rewarded for his labor and that the needy would be taken care of out of compassion of the individuals. However, the people of Israel repeatedly fell into imbalance. The problem was not in the Lord’s perfect economic system, but in that man is corrupt. With all this in mind, the points stated in the above mentioned article hold no validity, as I will show: When Jesus said “Blessed are the poor, for yours are the Kingdom of God” and for the rich man to sell all his possessions, He was simply saying that being unshackled by things makes it easier to give one’s life to God, not that EVERYONE should do so, but only those who are holding money and possessions up as a thing more important in life to them that God. Jesus was not concerned that money would lead to “moral decay” as Chandler suggests, but to the separation of one from God, because with money, one can apparently sustain oneself and thus would have no need for God to sustain them. In doing so, they conveniently forget the fact that it is God who provided the money and possessions in the first place. When Jesus fed the 5000, Chandler makes a statement that he suspects there was plenty of food in the crowd, but that the people were not willing to share it, and thus He had to drive home the point that they should join Him in giving away their food. First, this statement has no basis of fact in the scripture nor can it be deduced from the text even indirectly. The exact opposite is the case. In John 6:26, just after this incedent, we read “Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." If Jesus was wanting to teach the people to share their food with everyone, then why does He condemn the people the following day for trying to find Him simply so He can feed them again? The fact is that Jesus was teaching the people that He is the “bread of life” that when eaten, will keep a man from being hungry again. Chandler’s remarks fall flat here. Chandler tries to make point after point that Jesus was a socialist, when nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism is a system in which the government takes from the producers and gives to the lesser or non producers. Jesus’ teachings are the exact opposite. Your excess is not taken FROM you against your will, but given BY you out of the love of your own heart to those in need and then only to those who cannot provide for themselves, unlike socialism which gives to all, including the sluggards.
  • Arjay said Dec 24, 2008...
    From Arjay. Not only was Jesus a socialist, the entire liberal agenda begins with the Sermon on the Mount. I find it funny how many detest such a concept, that Jesus could be a socialist, and yet they do not cite the Gospels. Generalities at best, but they do not offer anything Jesus said and did. This is the perfect example as to why I consider myself a Red-Letter Christian, having put the deeds and teachings of Christ ahead of everything else. None of this going back and forth from the Old and New Testament to fit one's selfish desire, no confusing the Father and the Son to make an argument. If you accept the Gospels are the center of being Christian, then the contradictions melt away, everything else revolves around them. I would argue against anyone on this, because it is quite inconvenient to believe Jesus is not a Republican, even though they believe they have cornered the market on reality. Such Christians are in for a rude awakening, they are the ones who will come up to Jesus at the end of days, and our Lord will say, I never knew you. Prima scriptura. Start with the Gospels, make them first and foremost in your heart, and you will have to come to the conclusion that not only was Jesus quite liberal and radical in his deeds and teachings, he was indeed a socialist.
  • stevencarlyle said Jul 22, 2009...
    Here is the question what would Jesus do if he were the President of the USA? Would he feed the hungry? Would he heal the sick? Would he execute people? Would he provide education for all? Would he take the clothes off of his back and give it to some one without? and would he welcome all the money changers and sellers into his fathers kingdom? We say that we are Christians but are we the Christians of Jesus or of the Church? Would he approve of the Vatican? Last but not least would he be upset that man will keep his money in banks and stocks while his Fathers (GOD's) children die from starvation, sanitation, and diseases that we can cure die by the rate of 17-18 children dying every minute or Some 70 million children dying between 2000 and 2007 I think he would ask what your return was?
  • Cal-el said Aug 17, 2009...
    Using verses from the Old Testament out of context does not prove that Jesus was a socialist. 2 Corinthians 8:1-9 (English Standard Version) Encouragement to Give Generously 1We want you to know, brothers,[a] about the grace of God that has been(A) given among the churches of Macedonia, 2for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and(B) their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3For they gave(C) according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, 4begging us earnestly(D) for the favor[b] of taking part in(E) the relief of the saints— 5and this, not as we expected, but they(F) gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. 6Accordingly,(G) we urged Titus that as he had started, so he should complete among you(H) this act of grace. 7But as(I) you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you[c]—(J) see that you excel in this act of grace also. 8(K) I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that(L) though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. Jesus didn't become poor so that we could become rich materially, but spiritually. Mark 12:17 (King James Version) And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Most of these posts against the truth about Christ are driven by greed and power lust. You're fighting against the truth because of your own desire to make more money than someone else. You're worshiping the almighty dollar. In the fear of "Socialism" many of you have bought into the insurance corporations' lies. You feared that a social program would make us a Socialist nation so you backed huge corporations in which you have no voice instead of a government program that would help all people in a system in which you DO have a voice. Love, Hope, Peace, & Christ Is With Us All, Cal Jennings
  • cafenitro said Sep 13, 2009...
    Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are lazy. You can work 3 jobs and still be poor in America. Also, don't think you're quoting Jesus when you delve back into the old testiment for your quotes. The whole purpose of Jesus is to banishes the old testiment with a new one based on love and not the wrath of God. Christians today love to mix testiments to show Jesus would hang out with Dick Cheney. Jesus was a socialist because he preached socialist ideals and shunned capitolist ones. He was crucified for kicking the capitolists out of the temple.
  • kennyandjo said Nov 14, 2009...
    Here is one pastor's response to the question: "Did Jesus Teach Socialism?" http://kburchard.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/did-jesus-teach-socialism/ Enjoy... KB
  • Jugganaut777 said May 11, 2010...
    Jesus was definitely not a socialist. There is a major difference between private charity and caring for the poor vs. forcing redistribution of wealth. Jesus never forced anyone or demanded anyone to give away monetary possessions. There are points in the bible where he does it as an act of faith, but there is nothing biblical about a Governing Bureaucracy that controls every aspect of people's economic lives. Socialism involves corruption and seeking of power by the leader. This would definitely not be/would've not been accepted by Jesus. Caring for the poor and social justice are not anywhere close to the same thing. Forcing taxes upon people who have made money to give money to people who are not prosperity seekers is not what Jesus had intended by any means. I'm not saying all poor are lazy asses. But I am saying that Jesus would've not been in favor of a welfare system by simply giving away free money. He was compassionate and wanted to help others. That is completely acceptable and very admirable. Good deeds and wanting to help others for the sake of helping others(without seeking benefit) are human feelings of compassion. This is what Jesus was about, he was not for the forcing of people to Give up their money they earned to Give away to others, which is in essence, socialism. Jesus was definitely not a socialist, and it is a very radical and ignorant thing to say that he was..
  • thepostman said Oct 24, 2010...
    Interesting thoughts... I would love to see more evidence supporting these ideas.
  • AlfordA said Dec 10, 2010...
    To anonymous on Apr. 1st 2010 - I don't have time to comment on your whole post because it's long and I'm in the middle of finals and should be studying, however I felt I should say a few things: On point #1 - I guess I'm confused as to how Jesus' needs as a HUMAN are different from our needs today as humans. Surely he needed food, water, clothing, shelter, and companionship just as we do today. So I'm not sure what you mean by "he didn't need anything because he was the son of God" On point #2- I'm glad you asked! I'm smoking marijuana and I'm reading the King James Version, "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." - Luke 12:49-53 On point #3- Well, it's not political as long as you separate LOVING the poor from actually HELPING the poor. And I find it difficult to believe you could watch those you love suffer knowing you could end their suffering. So, if helping the poor is political so is loving the poor. On point #5 - "But not under the propagandist socialist ideology which shows blind allegiance to the nation state and the corrupt leaders of it" I believe if you replace "socialist ideology" with "capitalist system we are currently under today" that may be more accurate. Blind allegiance is NOT in short supply here in the USA, neither are corrupt leaders. On point #6- Man is corrupt. God is not. Did I miss something in your counter-argument? I feel that this is very common knowledge to believers and non-believers alike and does not contradict the point that "Jesus' kingdom is in his heart". As a believer you should try to emulate Christ rather than pointing out that you are not Christ......
  • bst0072011 said Mar 15, 2011...
    I am hoping the same best work bstong2bags leather from you in the future as well. gucci 2011 portafoglio alviero martini catalogo louis vuitton In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me. louis vuitton pochette damier ebene gucci store handbags italian
  • bst0072011 said Mar 15, 2011...
    Normal 0 7.8 磅 0 2 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:普通表格; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} I am hoping the same best work bstong2<a href="http://www.borsa-replica.com/borse-uomo/louis-vuitton/suhali-leather.html">bags leather</a> from you in the future as well.
  • bst0072011 said Mar 15, 2011...
    I am hoping the same best work bstong2bags leather from you in the future as well.
  • mixednuts said Oct 9, 2011...
    SATAN IS A REPUBLICAN!

New commenting closed as post is too old. Why?