• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Socialism and the Far Right

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I really don't know where they get off calling themselves Marxist. Anyone, really. Except for they haven't read Marx to know things like class, money, and the state itself are done away with in a Marxist state with the working class being at the top.
But dictionaries can't even get communism right and insist it was invented by Marx.
I agree, and I taught a short unit on Marxism in my poli sci course.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Jesus didn't really teach any political or economic system. He taught charity and forgiveness, which are universally applicable. A lot of Christian companies donate a substantial portion of their income to charity, even sponsoring charities. That's not more or less in-line with Jesus than advocating for socialism.

Neither socialism nor capitalism existed at the time of Jesus and Jesus himself hung around outcasts of a wide variety of perspectives.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
the personality has to be stripped away along with all those materialistic entanglements.you cannot serve hierarchies, orders, and serve god, or serve love. love doesn't make a difference between self and other as self. this is how empathy works. you cannot serve selfisness and selflessness. the poor in spirit are blessed for a reason.

materialistically they are poor but in spirit they have great measure, they are blessed. they don't hoard material things in order to exist because mentally they are wealthy. or empowered. the power is in the Spirit and not the flesh.
I basically agree with these points.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
there were 3 men that were given 3 different talent amts. Everyone invested their talents; except the third. He gave each according to their ability, that is a meritocracy. each was entrusted to do what love would compel but the third one didn't do that. he buried his; he didn't try to improve his lot or that of the other; so then what was the outcome? those who won't work for love, are in darkness. love should not be kept only for self; otherwise you are denying god's right to his own, or denying love's right to it's own


matthew 6:21

out of the heart the mouth speaks
There is some truth to this but I think you misapplied the principle because he gave the one talent to the one that had the most. You can't gift a measure of love to someone who already has it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Again, Jesus didn't say it's impossible, but that it's harder than impossible. The key implication being it's not going to happen. But according to Jesus many of us aren't getting in.

I disagree since he specifically said "with God all things are possible" and rich Zacchaeus had no problem with it and was accepted.

Again, that's obviously not the riches he was talking about. Amd it would be silly. Increases in housing? He and his disciples were homeless beggars. It doesn't take much to get more than that. Having more brethren? How can that even possibly get twisted into the camel passing through the eye of a needle?

Obviously you are wrong. Land is land. Houses are houses.

He told his disciples to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor. Time and time and time again he taught and commanded giving to the poor and taking care of the poor. He was clearly against hoarding wealth and he strongly advocated for positions of self-inflicted poverty.

That is correct. Now, since Jesus was all about the law, knew "He who gives to the poor lends to the Lord and He shall repay it". Not to mention that by considering the poor, there are an innumerable blessings not to mention part of the law.

Much of the NT as a whole isn't consistent with the Tanahk.

Hmmmmm... nope.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I don't understand why Venezuela is so often used as an example by conservatives.

What does Venezuela have to do with Kentucky?
Poor are poor usually for a reason and borders don't change that. Giving fish to the hungry means they will be hungry tomorrow. Going to the root and teaching them how to fish while you feed them is the better answer.

Don't get me wrong. I am against the rich that don't consider the poor... but I'm not heaping all the rich people together because there are many that do immense good.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I disagree since he specifically said "with God all things are possible" and rich Zacchaeus had no problem with it and was accepted.
How can you disagree? Those are allegedly Jesus' own words that it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than getting a rich man into Heaven. It doesn't say it's impossible, just that it's harder than an impossible task.
Obviously you are wrong. Land is land. Houses are houses.
Then what houses and land did Jesus and his disciples own on Earth? They had none. A tiny hut on communally owned land is an increase in wealth from such poverty.
Hmmmmm... nope
Christianity gets Judaism wrong from the very first story by inserting a rebellious Satan into the serpent. In Judaism there was no rebellion and the serpent was just a serpent because they don't have a devil.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
most of the far right in the US rails against socialism but isn't that what jesus was promoting?...

I don’t think so. But, the problem with this is, people have many different definitions for socialism. In my experience the difference between a Christian and a socialist is this:

Christian says: “How can I help you, what can I do or you?”
Socialist says: “You must do this for me/us”.

I think right and left are only opposite sides of socialism. Right is the national socialists (Nazis), left is the internationalist socialists (globalists). Both of them are socialists.

Often it seems people call wrongly people right, when those people are just people who are against big government that is against the freedom of those people.

“Socialists” may disagree with this, but I think in practice it is bad, legalized theft and against freedom of the people. But, because the word can have many meanings, I think it would be best to not use right left or socialist/capitalist division. Instead better would be to look where person is on No freedom/Freedom axis, does the person support strict government ruling, or free society. Often “capitalists” and “socialists” seem to be both very much against freedom, the means to get the total control is just slightly different, but the result is basically the same.

I hope people in USA vote for those who don’t try to destroy their constitution and freedom.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
WHAT IF!!!!!

Instead of trying to tear down every person that has more money than us, WHAT IF instead we ask God, or you ask your god, or yourself that has no god, to give you wisdom to prosper and increase so that WE can help our fellow man?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What is the reason people are poor?

There are a myriad of reasons that I personally have seen. Divorce, single parents, lack of education, in some cases--lack of drive, bad spending habits, use of credit cards, addictions (alcohol, cigarettes et al), some just want to be homeless, some prefer government help vs working. I'm sure there are other reasons. Many are poor because they lost their businesses with the mandates.

But one thing I have never found... a person who is poor because there are rich people (at least not in my country). Not that there aren't any but I haven't come across them.

In each case, those who wanted help got it and their financial situations improved.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
How can you disagree? Those are allegedly Jesus' own words that it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than getting a rich man into Heaven. It doesn't say it's impossible, just that it's harder than an impossible task.

Because of what else Jesus said?

Then what houses and land did Jesus and his disciples own on Earth? They had none. A tiny hut on communally owned land is an increase in wealth from such poverty.

How do you know? Where did their families live? Can you give me a source? After all, it IS what Jesus said.

Christianity gets Judaism wrong from the very first story by inserting a rebellious Satan into the serpent. In Judaism there was no rebellion and the serpent was just a serpent because they don't have a devil.

Hmmmmmm.... no
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/satan-the-adversary/
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Be honest, you didn't read that.
Only twice in the Hebrew Bible does Satan appear as a specific figure, as HaSatan — the Satan. One is a brief reference in the Book of Zecharia, where the high priest is described as standing before a divine angel while Satan stands at his right to accuse him. The other is in the Book of Job, where Satan has a central role in the story as an angel in the divine court.
....
Some of these Christian ideas are echoed in Jewish tradition, but some also point to fundamental differences — most notably perhaps the idea that, in the Hebrew Bible at least, Satan is ultimately subordinate to God, carrying out his purpose on earth.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
It should be labeled "Scandinavian capitalism",
because it's taxing the income therefrom that
fuels social programs.

That reminds me of this:
93kjpbtearg21.jpg
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Poor are poor usually for a reason and borders don't change that. Giving fish to the hungry means they will be hungry tomorrow. Going to the root and teaching them how to fish while you feed them is the better answer.

Don't get me wrong. I am against the rich that don't consider the poor... but I'm not heaping all the rich people together because there are many that do immense good.
Yet you heap all the poor together and dismiss their struggle as laziness, ignoring obvious economic factors. Some work two jobs just to keep their head above water. The cost of living has been outpacing wages and salaries for decades, The ladders of economic mobility have been losing their rungs. the wealth gap continues to grow, and you honestly think it's all due to laziness?
 
Top