The "Jesus Was a Socialist" Meme and Lie

[Libhater]

The above "Jesus Was a Socialist" meme and lie is making it's way around Facebook again.

It's the socialism claim that mostly caught my attention. The poor are enabled when the market place is free from oppressive regulation, taxes are low, the government is severely limited.

These Facebook memes try to equate New Testament social theory with modern-day socialism in an attempt to turn Jesus into an advocate of wealth confiscation and redistribution.

Socialism is the transfer of wealth from some people to other people by force. Neither Jesus nor the Bible advocates for such a system.

Even the poorest members of society had to work (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:20-22). Jesus and his disciples practiced a form of gleaning as they walked through grain fields breaking off heads of wheat to eat (Mark 2:23). Gleaning was hard work, and it wasn't a government program.

Certainly Rome had the power to tax, and yet Jesus never petitions the Empire to force people to pay their "fair share" in the development of a welfare state. Jesus believed in limited government.

The early Christians voluntarily sold their property and used the proceeds to help those in need. Neither the Empire nor the church had any role in the sale of the property.

Then there's Paul injunction, "if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either" (2 Thess. 3:10).

The Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony tried their hands at socialism. No matter how much a person worked, everyone would get the same amount. The collectivist society of the Pilgrims was meant to bring the community common wealth, make them happy and flourishing--as if they were wiser than God. The results proved to be just the opposite; collectivism bred much confusion and discontent, and retarded much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

Not only is socialism immoral; it doesn't work.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/15860/jesus-socialist-meme-lie/

[Codename Section]

Jesus was an anarchist

/thread

[Common Sense]

Everyone knows Jesus was a Republican.

[Mainecoons]

Jesus was an anarchist

/thread

Yup, although I prefer libertairan. :grin:

[donttread]

The above "Jesus Was a Socialist" meme and lie is making it's way around Facebook again.

It's the socialism claim that mostly caught my attention. The poor are enabled when the market place is free from oppressive regulation, taxes are low, the government is severely limited.

These Facebook memes try to equate New Testament social theory with modern-day socialism in an attempt to turn Jesus into an advocate of wealth confiscation and redistribution.

Socialism is the transfer of wealth from some people to other people by force. Neither Jesus nor the Bible advocates for such a system.

Even the poorest members of society had to work (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:20-22). Jesus and his disciples practiced a form of gleaning as they walked through grain fields breaking off heads of wheat to eat (Mark 2:23). Gleaning was hard work, and it wasn't a government program.

Certainly Rome had the power to tax, and yet Jesus never petitions the Empire to force people to pay their "fair share" in the development of a welfare state. Jesus believed in limited government.

The early Christians voluntarily sold their property and used the proceeds to help those in need. Neither the Empire nor the church had any role in the sale of the property.

Then there's Paul injunction, "if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either" (2 Thess. 3:10).

The Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony tried their hands at socialism. No matter how much a person worked, everyone would get the same amount. The collectivist society of the Pilgrims was meant to bring the community common wealth, make them happy and flourishing--as if they were wiser than God. The results proved to be just the opposite; collectivism bred much confusion and discontent, and retarded much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

Not only is socialism immoral; it doesn't work.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/15860/jesus-socialist-meme-lie/

Jesus asked individuals, not governments to help the poor

[Libhater]

Jesus asked individuals, not governments to help the poor

Exactly! One of the reasons I posted this was because the self avowed socialist Bernie Sanders of socialist Vermont is considering running for president in 2016. God help us all!

[Mini Me]

Exactly! One of the reasons I posted this was because the self avowed socialist Bernie Sanders of socialist Vermont is considering running for president in 2016. God help us all!

The wealthy 1% elite don't need any help from God.Their God is Manna.And they live in Babylon.

They are the self chosen few.

But tens of millions of people do need help, after the great financial collapse. There was never a recovery, that's BS.

And ask yourself one question:

What have your beloved Rethuglicans done for the American people in the last 30 years?

[midcan5]

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13


OMG is this a comic thread? I don't know if you right wingers are aware enough of reality to realize Jesus did things, he didn't sit and whine about others, he feed the masses and raised the sick, you fools do nothing but whine, and oh whine some more. Jesus as 'pie in sky libertarian' is even funnier, can you imagine Jesus worshiping the market. You guys aren't serious are you?

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/LLC-portal.html


'Taming the Savage Market' by Robert Bellah, et al

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=108


'Why Jesus Would Never, Ever Vote Republican' Richard John Siviur

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Would-Never-Ever-Republican/dp/1419697595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8


This sound like either of you useless ideologues?


"When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and he taught them, saying:


"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.


Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.


Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.


Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.


Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.


Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.


Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who went before you."



"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9


"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24

[Codename Section]

midcan5

difficult distinction for you but Jesus meant direction action, directly giving to the poor instead of having that money filtered through the hands of greedy bureaucrats.

Keep on with the propaganda, though. We all appreciate it. Seriously.

[Codename Section]

The wealthy 1% elite don't need any help from God.Their God is Manna.And they live in Babylon.

They are the self chosen few.

But tens of millions of people do need help, after the great financial collapse. There was never a recovery, that's BS.

And ask yourself one question:

What have your beloved Rethuglicans done for the American people in the last 30 years?


About the same as Democraps, nothing, nada, zilch, but hey--they at least fooled you into thinking they hate business even though their cabinets and appointees are filled with banksters and elitists.

Wanna play "Count the Goldman Sachs members in Obama's administration"?

There is NO choice in the 2 party system, that's why we have it.

[Libhater]

@midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765)

difficult distinction for you but Jesus meant direction action, directly giving to the poor instead of having that money filtered through the hands of greedy bureaucrats.

Keep on with the propaganda, though. We all appreciate it. Seriously.


You beat me to it, so thanks. It does look like a couple of these naysayers here didn't quite read and or comprehend some of the Bible passages that showed Jesus didn't have pity on the poor and that Jesus expected people to work for their keep, and that Jesus didn't expect an over powering government to take care of the people.

[DigitalBluster]

The poor are enabled when the market place is free from oppressive regulation....

No they're not. (Source: all of economic history)


Socialism is the transfer of wealth from some people to other people by force.

No it isn't. (Source: all of socialist literature)


Even the poorest members of society had to work....

Socialism doesn't change this. What it does change, is that even the richest members of society will have to work.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're citing Leviticus and Deuteronomy to bolster you case in this instance, but these arguments always reach an immediate stalemate because they're about different people interpreting the same text to suit their own agendas. Christian socialism and Christian anarchism are as old as the hills, and they're based on the same Bible you're citing. So who's right? I'm atheist but I have a red-letter Bible and I've read Jesus' words many times; I can't find anything in there to support right-wing politics, but then I'm biased, just like you. Still, I trust that Gerrard Winstanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers), Leo Tolstoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You), the Sojourners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sojourners) and other Red-Letter Christians (http://www.redletterchristians.org/start/), to name a few decidedly left-wing Christians, are sincere in their beliefs and aren't heretics. Don't you agree?

[Perianne]

And ask yourself one question:

What have your beloved Rethuglicans done for the American people in the last 30 years?

I want the government to stay out of the way and let this great nation flourish.

[Codename Section]

No they're not. (Source: all of economic history)



No it isn't. (Source: all of socialist literature)



Socialism doesn't change this. What it does change, is that even the richest members of society will have to work.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're citing Leviticus and Deuteronomy to bolster you case in this instance, but these arguments always reach an immediate stalemate because they're about different people interpreting the same text to suit their own agendas. Christian socialism and Christian anarchism are as old as the hills, and they're based on the same Bible you're citing. So who's right? I'm atheist but I have a red-letter Bible and I've read Jesus' words many times; I can't find anything in there to support right-wing politics, but then I'm biased, just like you. Still, I trust that Gerrard Winstanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers), Leo Tolstoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You), the Sojourners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sojourners) and other Red-Letter Christians (http://www.redletterchristians.org/start/), to name a few decidedly left-wing Christians, are sincere in their beliefs and aren't heretics. Don't you agree?


I am very communitarian and believe that if I don't give a large portion of what I own to the poor then I am not a Christian and won't go to heaven. I don't buy that Paulean" if you just believe in Jesus as Savior" you go to heaven stuff. In Matthew (wish Rina was here) it says that Jesus will say he does not know you if you don't care for the poor. I don't think he was kidding.

But I don't like government redistribution. It's inefficient and it takes away voluntary choice and free will.

[Codename Section]

You beat me to it, so thanks. It does look like a couple of these naysayers here didn't quite read and or comprehend some of the Bible passages that showed Jesus didn't have pity on the poor and that Jesus expected people to work for their keep, and that Jesus didn't expect an over powering government to take care of the people.

Actually no. We don't agree. He had love and compassion for the poor and expected ME and YOU to VOLUNTARILY care of them because we love him.

[Libhater]

Socialism doesn't change this. What it does change, is that even the richest members of society will have to work.

What in the world does that mean? Richest members of society will have to work? Right now with approximately 50% of the American people living off the dole and not working, I can only assume that someone is doing the work out there to pay for these entitlement babies, and so my assumption is that a good portion of those working people represent the rich and or the rich business owners.

My post compares the independent Conservative actions of the people during Jesus's day with the push for and or the Facebook memes that Jesus was a socialist. First of all...socialism has failed everywhere its been tried, so I don't see Jesus as being a socialist today by having a failed message to give his people, do you?

[Perianne]

I think we should leave Jesus out of politics. But, if He were here today, He would have criticized Obama. Obama would have had Jesus assassinated.

[Chris]

The problem here is that some associate in analogy capitalism with competition and socialism with cooperation when there's no such association, in fact the opposite. Capitalism, free market capitalism is all about cooperative, voluntary exchange. Socialism is all about coercion, be that "he transfer of wealth from some people to other people by force" as libhater says or as DigitalBluster says "even the richest members of society will have to work."

It's the same backward analogy Plato made between individualism with selfishness and the collective with altruism.

[Libhater]

Socialism is all about coercion, be that "he transfer of wealth from some people to other people by force" as libhater says or as DigitalBluster says "even the richest members of society will have to work."

Even the richest members of society will have to work? What does that mean? When haven't the rich worked for their own keep? And what does working rich people have to do with socialism? I don't get his point at all.

[Chris]

Even the richest members of society will have to work? What does that mean? When haven't the rich worked for their own keep? And what does working rich people have to do with socialism? I don't get his point at all.


That's true too. Some may have inherited riches, but most worked their way there. And their riches do them no good unless they spend it, invest it, use it, which enrishes everyone else.

[DigitalBluster]

as DigitalBluster says "even the richest members of society will have to work."

I might have chosen better wording, but then, you might have chosen a fairer interpretation. The point intended is the very same one cited in the OP: He who does not work, neither shall he eat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work%2C_neither_shall_he_eat). This isn't to suggest a taskmaster with a whip; but that those who now make their living by owning will no longer enjoy that luxury (obviously), and will "have" (be compelled) to work alongside the rest of productive society.

[Chris]

I might have chosen better wording, but then, you might have chosen a fairer interpretation. The point intended is the very same one cited in the OP: He who does not work, neither shall he eat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work%2C_neither_shall_he_eat). This isn't to suggest a taskmaster with a whip; but that those who now make their living by owning will no longer enjoy that luxury (obviously), and will "have" (be compelled) to work alongside the rest of productive society.


Yes, perhaps it was just a Freudian slip.

Anyway, the rich do work. Exploitation theory is baloney.

[DigitalBluster]

Yes, perhaps it was just a Freudian slip.

Anyway, the rich do work. Exploitation theory is baloney.

Not a Freudian slip; I don't advocate gulags, despite your implications. All of us, if we were Robinson Crusoe, would "have to work." I advocate the abolition of the enforcement of the private ownership of productive resources. This is not the same is rounding up capitalists and enslaving them in labor camps; it merely denies them their privilege and, therefore, compels them to work, just like you and me.

Some rich people work, yes. The objection is not to wealth, but to the relationship to productive resources (owners, versus hired hands). Granting permission to utilize privately owned resources is not, in and of itself, a productive act. Production requires labor, and therefore laborers, who can't be separated from their ability to labor. It also requires resources, but not private owners, who can be so separated. Capitalist apologetics 101 would have us believe that the capitalist and landlord are the embodiments of productive resources, just as the laborer is the embodiment of labor. This ought to be self-evidently ridiculous.

[Chris]

Not a Freudian slip; I don't advocate gulags, despite your implications. All of us, if we were Robinson Crusoe, would "have to work." I advocate the abolition of the enforcement of the private ownership of productive resources. This is not the same is rounding up capitalists and enslaving them in labor camps; it merely denies them their privilege and, therefore, compels them to work, just like you and me.

Some rich people work, yes. The objection is not to wealth, but to the relationship to productive resources (owners, versus hired hands). Granting permission to utilize privately owned resources is not, in and of itself, a productive act. Production requires labor, and therefore laborers, who can't be separated from their ability to labor. It also requires resources, but not private owners, who can be so separated. Capitalist apologetics 101 would have us believe that the capitalist and landlord are the embodiments of productive resources, just as the laborer is the embodiment of labor. This ought to be self-evidently ridiculous.

Who said or implied anything about gulags?

Public ownersip of the means of production would do nothing but create conflict over their use, naturally resolved by private ownership.

[Mainecoons]

Public ownership of the means of production leads to bad production and worse poverty.

How many times do we have to go there before some of you figure out this idea doesn't work?

[Codename Section]

Not a Freudian slip; I don't advocate gulags, despite your implications. All of us, if we were Robinson Crusoe, would "have to work." I advocate the abolition of the enforcement of the private ownership of productive resources. This is not the same is rounding up capitalists and enslaving them in labor camps; it merely denies them their privilege and, therefore, compels them to work, just like you and me.


Why do you think they don't work? Do you only classify work as an assembly line or something?

[Codename Section]

I'm still not understanding how I don't work even though it feels like I do, and why someone I hire in the future who never saved, suffered, or risked not one thing to make or grow this business should have my privately paid for means of production that only exist because I busted my ass through 10 fucking years in the US marines..

Can you explain DigitalBluster ?

[DigitalBluster]

Why do you think they don't work? Do you only classify work as an assembly line or something?

Those who make their living by owning things are clearly not working in that capacity. If they work in some other capacity, that doesn't concern me.

[Codename Section]

Those who make their living by owning things are clearly not working in that capacity. If they work in some other capacity, that doesn't concern me.

Alright can you give an example of someone who owns things and doesn't work? Also can you explain why someone who used their own hard earned money to bankroll a business and spent hours of time in sweat equity doesn't deserve to do less when they're older?

Lastly, can you explain why these producers aren't pooling their money like we did to start their own business instead of knocking over old geezers and robbing them of theirs?

[Chris]

Public ownership of the means of production leads to bad production and worse poverty.

How many times do we have to go there before some of you figure out this idea doesn't work?


Yes, another effect of it.

But let me string out the cause and effect: Public ownerships of property causes conflict of its uses, causes the need for and creation of government to make those decisions, causes the dependency instead of self-responsibility, dependency that leads to "bad production and worse poverty."

[nic34]

I think we should leave Jesus out of politics. But, if He were here today, He would have criticized Obama. Obama would have had Jesus assassinated.

So much for leaving Jesus out of politics.....

[nic34]

I might have chosen better wording, but then, you might have chosen a fairer interpretation. The point intended is the very same one cited in the OP: He who does not work, neither shall he eat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work%2C_neither_shall_he_eat). This isn't to suggest a taskmaster with a whip; but that those who now make their living by owning will no longer enjoy that luxury (obviously), and will "have" (be compelled) to work alongside the rest of productive society.

If those sitting around poolside waiting for the dividend check don't feel compelled to "pitch in", then its only fair that their income be taxed at ahigher rate than the workers.

[exotix]

http://thyblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/republican-jesus.gif

[texan]

Jesus plays RF for the Dodgers I think.

[midcan5]

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." (Romans 13:1-7)

[Perianne]

Jesus plays RF for the Dodgers I think.

http://www.julienslive.com/images/lot/6284/62841_0.jpg