Jesus was NOT a capitalist

[Sand Dancer]

Please note my post just before yours, and I'm an agnostic deist. How does that fit with your prejudicial theory?

He was against the rich exploiting the poor. Capitalism often gives the wealthy the most and leaves the rest to the poor employees. Unfettered capitalism puts profit before people and Jesus was for the people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jesus (pbuh) was pretty much what we'd call a communist. No idea how you can believe otherwise.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

He was against the rich exploiting the poor. Capitalism often gives the wealthy the most and leaves the rest to the poor employees. Unfettered capitalism puts profit before people and Jesus was for the people.

Capitalism doesn't give anything to anybody. It allows people to work and invest. And nobody said anything about unfettered capitalism any more than individuals are unfettered by legal limits. Profit isn't evil. Saying so is merely another example of class warfare envy.

Jesus (pbuh) was pretty much what we'd call a communist. No idea how you can believe otherwise.

Because Jesus was for voluntary charity. Communism is mandatory.

 

[metis]

Because Jesus was for voluntary charity. Communism is mandatory.

Jesus would have been aware of the Jewish Laws that required taxes to help the poor, the widows, plus others, and there's not one indication that he negated any of them (note the last item actually deals with charity):

1. Not to afflict an orphan or a widow (Ex. 22:21) .
2. Not to reap the entire field (Lev. 19:9; Lev. 23:22) (negative) .
3. To leave the unreaped corner of the field or orchard for the poor (Lev. 19:9) (affirmative) .
4. Not to gather gleanings (the ears that have fallen to the ground while reaping) (Lev. 19:9) (negative) .
5. To leave the gleanings for the poor (Lev. 19:9) (affirmative) .
6. Not to gather ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard (Lev. 19:10) (negative) .
7. To leave ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21) (affirmative) .
8. Not to gather the peret (grapes) that have fallen to the ground (Lev. 19:10) (negative).
9. To leave peret (the single grapes) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10) (affirmative).
10. Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf (Deut. 24:19) This applies to all fruit trees (Deut. 24:20) (negative).
11. To leave the forgotten sheaves for the poor (Deut. 24:19-20) (affirmative).
12. Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs (Deut. 15:7).
13. To give charity according to one's means (Deut. 15:11).

 

[Thief]

thanks for the list

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Jesus would have been aware of the Jewish Laws that required taxes to help the poor, the widows, plus others, and there's not one indication that he negated any of them (note the last item actually deals with charity):

1. Not to afflict an orphan or a widow (Ex. 22:21) .
2. Not to reap the entire field (Lev. 19:9; Lev. 23:22) (negative) .
3. To leave the unreaped corner of the field or orchard for the poor (Lev. 19:9) (affirmative) .
4. Not to gather gleanings (the ears that have fallen to the ground while reaping) (Lev. 19:9) (negative) .
5. To leave the gleanings for the poor (Lev. 19:9) (affirmative) .
6. Not to gather ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard (Lev. 19:10) (negative) .
7. To leave ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21) (affirmative) .
8. Not to gather the peret (grapes) that have fallen to the ground (Lev. 19:10) (negative).
9. To leave peret (the single grapes) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10) (affirmative).
10. Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf (Deut. 24:19) This applies to all fruit trees (Deut. 24:20) (negative).
11. To leave the forgotten sheaves for the poor (Deut. 24:19-20) (affirmative).
12. Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs (Deut. 15:7).
13. To give charity according to one's means (Deut. 15:11).

Ancient Israel was a theocracy and didn't distinguish between religious and secular law. Jesus apparently understood this and his rebellion against it is evident when he asked if man was made for the sabbath, and when he cleansed the Temple. And what police force existed during that time. The temple guard is the only Jewish force I know of during that time, and their charge was just protection of the Temple. And his advice to the rich young man was just that, advice on voluntary charity with no legal compulsion--and was bad advice at that, IMNTBHO.
There was no police force out enforcing those biblical passages, and 13 is about charity not taxes.

 

[JustWondering]

Who thinks he's a capitalist?

Probably most conservative Christians.

 

[metis]

Ancient Israel was a theocracy and didn't distinguish between religious and secular law.

Partially true as gentiles living in eretz Israel were not forced to observe all the Laws.

And what police force existed during that time. The temple guard is the only Jewish force I know of during that time, and their charge was just protection of the Temple.

There were the efforts of the Great Sanhedrin, who were allowed limited sovereignty by the Romans, so maybe you should look them up. Here, I'll help you: Sanhedrin - Wikipedia

And his advice to the rich young man was just that, advice on voluntary charity with no legal compulsion--and was bad advice at that,

Again, false. Ever hear of the Parable of the Widow's Mite? The point becomes that she gave beyond what the Law required, obviously implying the the taxes were being collected as the Law required. Get it?

There was no police force out enforcing those biblical passages, and 13 is about charity not taxes.

Again, false, as these were taxes collected, but not always with money. Did you actually look them up or do you just post nonsense just for the heck of it? If you do not understand these as taxes, then why don't you ask some of my other fellow Jews about this instead of wallowing in utter ignorance?

Here,: Halakha - Wikipedia

or here: Judaism 101: Halakhah: Jewish Law

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Probably most conservative Christians.

I'm a libertarian deist. How does that fit with your scenario? Libs just wanna have God on their side even though most are closet atheists, in order to entice more voters to grow their socialist theocracy--which uses all the trappings and rituals of religion, just not the deity. *Socialist theocracy*, hmmm, that's a keeper.

 

[JustWondering]

I'm a libertarian deist. How does that fit with your scenario? Libs just wanna have God on their side even though most are closet atheists, in order to entice more voters to grow their socialist theocracy--which uses all the trappings and rituals of religion, just not the deity. *Socialist theocracy*, hmmm, that's a keeper.

Going towards a socialist system just makes sense, has nothing to do with god whatsoever. The way things are going, we will need a socialist system to keep civilization from imploding. Automation is going to continue eliminating jobs and the population is going to continue growing. What percentage of the population being unable to support itself because the reality is that there simply aren't jobs to be had before we have to rework our economic system? Will the 1 percenters officially become our unquestioned overlords at that point because they own everything?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because Jesus was for voluntary charity. Communism is mandatory.

Religious communism is voluntary.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Going towards a socialist system just makes sense, has nothing to do with god whatsoever.

How does an inevitable socialist elite make sense. And no, I've admitted it has nothing to do with God, but socialist propaganda, being corrupt, will use any argument which appeals to the emotions over reason crowd.

The way things are going, we will need a socialist system to keep civilization from imploding. Automation is going to continue eliminating jobs and the population is going to continue growing. What percentage of the population being unable to support itself because the reality is that there simply aren't jobs to be had before we have to rework our economic system?

A lot of that is brought on by artificial wage inflation caused by an artificial minimum wage. The market will always find an equilibrium, while artificial government price and wage control will always screw up the balance. And we're seeing now that the minimum wage is forcing automation to take over, even in the "do you want fries with that" with student start-up workers.

Will the 1 percenters officially become our unquestioned overlords at that point because they own everything?

Your "1 percenters" flags your comment as nothing more than trite class warfare. When it comes to talent, pleasing appearance, drive, intelligence, health, wealth, etc. etc. etc., the world will never be fair. You can whine about it or make the most of what you have. But no matter how hard it tries, government has never been able to mandate equal outcomes--and judging by the process so far, and the process being so corrupting, never will.

 

[SinSaber]

He just said give not give half your crap because your rich. The father in the prodigal son parody was rich as was the land owner in the Christs parody about his death. And pooling your money can be looked at as an investment not just social properiety

 

[Sha'irullah]

If Jesus was a loving god he was a capitalist. If he hated mankind and held resentment then he was undoubtedly a socialist.

I love and pray to Big Daddy Trump so I am a fascist, go figure

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

He just said give not give half your crap because your rich.

Huh?

The father in the prodigal son parody was rich as was the land owner in the Christs parody about his death.

More examples of biblical schizophrenia, or at least that's the way it appears as the edits have been passed down over the eons.

And pooling your money can be looked at as an investment not just social properiety

Under capitalism, the proportion of what you pool remains your property. Under socialism, it becomes the state's to waste as it sees fit so you can kiss it goodbye, and as always they'll keep forcing you to "pool" more and more.

 

[metis]

Again, there are different forms of socialism, plus doesn't a country have a right to choose whatever economic system they want?

Here in the States, we have had a "mixed-economy", which is a blend of socialism and capitalism. For many decades now this combination and other factors has made us the wealthiest country in the world. So, if socialism is supposedly so bad, then how does one explain our prosperity over these many decades?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Again, there are different forms of socialism

Yeah, fascism and communism at the least. Who said there wasn't?

plus doesn't a country have a right to choose whatever economic system they want?

No individual, corporation or government has the to violate the inherent rights of any other individual--those rights being the right to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud.

Here in the States, we have had a "mixed-economy", which is a blend of socialism and capitalism. For many decades now this combination and other factors has made us the wealthiest country in the world. So, if socialism is supposedly so bad, then how does one explain our prosperity over these many decades?

Capitalism has done it in spite of the increasing fetters of fascist government control and taxes. And the government has admittedly done its inherent duties with police and military protection (though failure to enforce the borders has seriously deteriorated of late in that regard), and overall protection of private property (with some flaws in that ointment as well).

And what you're not seeing is the corruption and overthrow of the rule of law by the shadow Establishment, that started with FDR and which came into its own under LBJ--and it's as fascist as it gets. The Constitution is in shreds.

 

[metis]

No individual, corporation or government has the to violate the inherent rights of any other individual--those rights being the right to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud.

False as there really is no such thing as "inherent rights" as it is the society one lives in that determines what one's "rights" are-- unless one is a hermit.

And what you're not seeing is the corruption and overthrow of the rule of law by the shadow Establishment, that started with FDR and which came into its own under LBJ--and it's as fascist as it gets. The Constitution is in shreds.

I don't buy into "the sky is falling!" scenario.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

False as there really is no such thing as "inherent rights" as it is the society one lives in that determines what one's "rights" are-- unless one is a hermit.

That's how we got the Holocaust, or human sacrifices, slavery, theocracies or any other form of despotism. Religions and governments have been adding their long laundry lists of proper or politically incorrect behavior since the cave man. But there is a moral code based on the all but universal desire for good order (only despots an anarchists excepted), and that's one based on the Golden Rule: Honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to life, liberty, property and self-defense to be free from violation through force or fraud. It's just that simple, but most Establishments want control so they add miles of crap.

I don't buy into "the sky is falling!" scenario.

But that's exactly what you're doing, siding with the Establishment with every crisis they can think of to gain more control. (Think Global Warming, or "racism" long after racial hatred has been reversed.) Where do you thinks behnd "Never let a good crisis go to waste" and "The Big Lie"? the Democrats have been furious ever since the Republicans freed their slaves.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

False as there really is no such thing as "inherent rights" as it is the society one lives in that determines what one's "rights" are-- unless one is a hermit.

So....your declaration that there are no such things as inherent rights settles the argument?

I don't buy into "the sky is falling!" scenario.

Like I said (in so many words), the left's chief strategy is exploiting chaos--artificial or otherwise. Chicken Little is Al Gore or Barack Obama personified. If you're bent on ignoring that, I can't stop you.