djorno
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 16, 2023 12:30:45 GMT
I say no.
What say you, and why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 13:01:02 GMT
Yes.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 16, 2023 13:08:49 GMT
Why do you feel he was, Jack?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 13:09:58 GMT
Why do you feel he was, Jack? "The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common. 33 The apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus with great power, and they were all accorded great respect. 34 None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them, 35 to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need."
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 16, 2023 13:37:01 GMT
Why do you feel he was, Jack? "The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common. 33 The apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus with great power, and they were all accorded great respect. 34 None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them, 35 to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need." Well there’s a few key differences with whats going on there in Acts 4 and actual socialism though. The first being is that it was voluntary. The people chose to be a part of the church, people chose to come and give their goods and their money to then be distributed to others. In socialist countries that’s simply not the case, it’s not voluntary. Secondly, This wasn’t a government or state ran operation. This was the church. A small segment of people, within a larger Roman Empire. A state, political and economic theory is completely different to a church practice we see in the bible about charity.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 16, 2023 13:48:16 GMT
In socialist countries that’s simply not the case, it’s not voluntary. Socialism means that workers control their workplaces in some kind of democratic fashion and share the profits. If that is not happening in a country, then it is by definition not socialism no matter what the propaganda of that country says.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 16, 2023 14:09:46 GMT
Why do you feel he was, Jack? "The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common. Sounds more like a bunch of Commies to me.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 16, 2023 14:24:56 GMT
Since socialism or capitalism didn't exist back then, no. Jesus never talked about seizing the means of production from the owner class or proletariat revolution or anything like that. Now if he actually existed today, that's a different conversation. If he were to partake in modern mainstream politics, at the very least I'd imagine he'd be a center left/social democrat type (high welfare state, high unionization, progressive tax rate, universal healthcare, strict corporate regulations, free housing for the homeless). And then maybe eventually he'd advocate for abolishing privatized means of production. I REALLY doubt he would be a fan of awful free market capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 16, 2023 14:31:37 GMT
In socialist countries that’s simply not the case, it’s not voluntary. Socialism means that workers control their workplaces in some kind of democratic fashion and share the profits. If that is not happening in a country, then it is by definition not socialism no matter what the propaganda of that country says. Also if were gonna play that game, is capitalism really "voluntary"? Typically in a capitalist state, your choice is to be a wage slave (unless you're lucky enough to be a business owner) or...starve to death. Is that really voluntary?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 16, 2023 14:39:58 GMT
Socialism means that workers control their workplaces in some kind of democratic fashion and share the profits. If that is not happening in a country, then it is by definition not socialism no matter what the propaganda of that country says. Also if were gonna play that game, is capitalism really "voluntary"? Typically in a capitalist state, your choice is to be a wage slave (unless you're lucky enough to be a business owner) or...starve to death. Is that really voluntary? I see capitalism as significantly less voluntary than socialism since workers under capitalism have no real control over their workplace.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 16, 2023 14:40:41 GMT
No, because socialism did not exist in Jesus time.
I think people need to remember Jesus lived (assuming he did) between c. 4 BC – AD 30 or 33, he did not live in modern times, his views and ideas and ideology is based on the time he lived and the region he lived, not modern times.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 16, 2023 14:46:39 GMT
"The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common. Sounds more like a bunch of Commies to me. I would say only if you interpret it out of context. If a hurricane hit Rio De Janeiro, I have no doubt a lot of Catholics, with time and resources would come to their aid and help with food and housing for those effected. One of Christianity’s primary teachings is to serve and be charitable to those less fortunate.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Feb 17, 2023 9:47:35 GMT
Oh no.
He was a full blown Objectivist.
Individuals, who responsible for the creation of wealth were being oppressed by the collectivists Romans in ancient Judea. So a group of entrepreneurs led by Jesus tried to start a revolution there but the Romans put a stop to it.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 17, 2023 13:40:23 GMT
Read the Book of Acts. But in reality, they did not have modern politics or capitalism in the 1st c. Rome Empire. To put our way of thinking into their heads is non-productive.
Communism/socialism was a reaction to Industrial Revolution capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 17, 2023 13:46:41 GMT
"The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common. 33 The apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus with great power, and they were all accorded great respect. 34 None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them, 35 to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need." Well there’s a few key differences with whats going on there in Acts 4 and actual socialism though. The first being is that it was voluntary. The people chose to be a part of the church, people chose to come and give their goods and their money to then be distributed to others. In socialist countries that’s simply not the case, it’s not voluntary. Secondly, This wasn’t a government or state ran operation. This was the church. A small segment of people, within a larger Roman Empire. A state, political and economic theory is completely different to a church practice we see in the bible about charity. They were living as a religious, family tribe, not a political collective. They would have been closer in resemblance to the Branch Davidians in Waco than the Bolsheviks…but without the gun fetish, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2023 15:45:18 GMT
Catholic Liberation Theology my brethren and sistren ✝️ ✊
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 17, 2023 17:53:24 GMT
Sure, why not.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 17, 2023 22:21:39 GMT
No, because socialism did not exist in Jesus time. I think people need to remember Jesus lived (assuming he did) between c. 4 BC – AD 30 or 33, he did not live in modern times, his views and ideas and ideology is based on the time he lived and the region he lived, not modern times. That just means he didn't have a label of "socialist". He was quite obviously a socialist, dare I say "communist"? The early church was certainly a "commune", which is pretty amazing, because "communes" always fail due to humans not being worthy of being in communes. Some people will always consider themselves to be a superior species to other people. Just because the label didn't exist, doesn't mean he wasn't a socialist. Before we knew water was H20 doesn't mean that water wasn't H20 before it was known to be H2O. Just because Newton "discovered" the laws of Gravity, or the rules of motion, that doesn't mean those rules didn't exist before his discovery. Just because no one reached the Moon before 1969 doesn't mean the Moon didn't exist before 1969.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 18, 2023 5:55:24 GMT
No, because socialism did not exist in Jesus time. I think people need to remember Jesus lived (assuming he did) between c. 4 BC – AD 30 or 33, he did not live in modern times, his views and ideas and ideology is based on the time he lived and the region he lived, not modern times. That just means he didn't have a label of "socialist". He was quite obviously a socialist, dare I say "communist"? The early church was certainly a "commune", which is pretty amazing, because "communes" always fail due to humans not being worthy of being in communes. Some people will always consider themselves to be a superior species to other people. Just because the label didn't exist, doesn't mean he wasn't a socialist. Before we knew water was H20 doesn't mean that water wasn't H20 before it was known to be H2O. Just because Newton "discovered" the laws of Gravity, or the rules of motion, that doesn't mean those rules didn't exist before his discovery. Just because no one reached the Moon before 1969 doesn't mean the Moon didn't exist before 1969. The point is the first Christians were not a political commune because politics per se didn’t exist then. But you could say it was a collective where all members shared everything in common. This is clearly stated in the Acts of the Apostles. Somehow this morphed into the Vatican State and millionaire preachers telling their flock who to vote for. And the Moon was called Nannar in Aramaic.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 18, 2023 8:40:54 GMT
Jesus was a hippy cult leader. You know they were smoking something because look at all that crazy shit they believed happened.
|
|