Posted on 05/03/2009 9:53:16 AM PDT by OneVike
It has been the aim of the Democrat party since they lost the Presidential election in 2004 to subvert the Christian doctrine with the claim that Jesus was a socialist. Their goal is to convince Christians that their Social agenda is morally equivalent with the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. Considering the lack of historical and Biblical knowledge most Americans have, it is not surprising that many have fallen for the misinformation on what Jesus taught (and for whom the teachings were given). These Biblical revisionists have become especially adept at cherry picking Scripture to suit their agenda. Hence, many have come to misunderstand the gospel of Christ by equating it with modern day Socialism.
My first point of contention with the idea that Christ was a socialist, is His teachings and the example of His life. Throughout the time that Christ lived with His disciples, He never worked. Instead he was dependent upon the charity and good hearts of those who surrounded Him. Now that is not to say Jesus was lazy or a bum either. Jesus was always about His Fathers business, and that business was the salvation of mankind. Nowhere in the Scriptures will you find Jesus telling His followers to rely upon anyone except those who were willing to hear the gospel and share what they had. If the people refused to hear the gospel or be charitable, Jesus told His disciples to rebuke them and go to others who were willing to hear the teachings, as when He sent them out by pairs. (Matthew chapter 10)
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
“Any attempt to place civil government over church, family and individual in the manner advocated by the socialists (ie. secular humanists) will lead to tyranny and the destruction of Christian civilization. All forms of socialism are a denial of God, Chrisitanity and the rule of law.” ~ SecAmndmt
Robert Frost wrote, “Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor.” bttt
Liberals tend to view human being as basically good, which is why they are so naive about human evil and impervious to real-world feedback about the failure of their ideas.
For most liberal programs to be effective—say, pre-reform welfare—you must assume at the outset that people are basically good and won’t abuse the system. But liberal programs typically put in place a structure of incentives that encourages people to act out their greed and selfishness in antisocial ways.
The whole point of free market capitalism is that it acknowledges self-interest and greed at the outset, providing it a with pro-social outlet without anyone having to force the issue from on high.
Yes, tinkering at the edges of capitalism is fine, so long as you think things through and realize that most of your tinkering will make matters worse, not better (which was true of the vast majority of FDR’s counterproductive ideas—not to mention LBJ).
Excerpted from:
What is a Conservative, Really?
http://tinyurl.com/2b3j69
<>
The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk (Author) “THE STUPID PARTY: this is John Stuart Mill’s description of conservatives...” (more)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261715/onecosmos-20?creative=0&camp=0&adid=16E97Y2BZ6FKD30T07ZJ&link_code=as1
Russell Kirk summarized the six canons of conservative thought as
1. Belief in a transcendent order; and that most political problems are moral problems resulting from bad values. (To cite an obvious example, if Hispanic or Black Americans adopted Asian American values, they would be just as successful—unless you are a liberal who believes that intelligence is a function of race.)
2. Appreciation of the mystery of existence, and with it, opposition to the tedious uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of of most radical systems.
3. An understanding that liberty and equality are contradictory aims; a belief that there are distinctions between men and that classes will emerge naturally and spontaneously in a free society. “If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum.”
4. A belief that property and freedom are intimately linked. “Economic leveling... is not economic progress.”
5. Distrust of radical schemes by liberal intellectuals “who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs” that simply mask the intellectual’s lust for power.
6. Recognition that change and reform are not synonymous, and that “prudent change is the means of social preservation.”
Contemporary liberalism has entirely different assumptions and attacks the social order on the following grounds:
1. “The perfectibility of man”; the belief that education, environment or legislation “can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity towards violence and sin.”
2. Contempt for tradition. “Formal religion is rejected and various ideologies are presented as substitutes.”
3. Political leveling: “Order and privilege are condemned,” accompanied by “an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.”
4. Economic leveling: “The ancient rights of property... are suspect to almost all radicals.”
When Jesus says “Woe unto you who are rich..”, that sure is a condemnation for just being rich. Then there’s babble that follows about “the meek” (read: the poor) inheriting the earth (”the earth” in this case is all that’s in it, including the property owned and earned by others). Notice the use of the word “inherit” - it’s by design. Wealth is created. And it has to be created before it can be “inherited”. But “inherit” is at the direction of those that own the riches. If he says the meek shall inherit the earth and all it’s riches (none of which he owns himself), then you cannot say he doesn’t condemn the rich for being rich. He says explicitly that those who have are to be shamed for that sake of those that haven’t. This is pure collectivism, plain and simple. All laughter aside, you’re correct. If it wasn’t taken so seriously today, it truly would be funny. The fact that many do take Jesus seriously means those who do are as altruistic as any Marxist. They too believe “woe unto you who are rich..”. Meaning all those who think religion has a place in shaping the moral code of everyone is the same as any Marxist, who also openly claims private property is to be “inherited” (read: re-distributed) to “the meek”. The Religionist and The Marxist are both kindred-spirit altruists, believing there are some who deserve a share of that which is earned by others. And those who make the loudest pronouncements about such “fairness” are the ones who want to be either The Church or The State.
No, the Son of G-d doesn't concern himself with such petty labels/things.
5.56mm
ping
Good post.. although Jesus was not a socialist, would it not be fair, however, to state that many of his early followers were? In the time after Jesus’s death, did not many set up communes to await his reappearence?
busybodies.
Can't think of a better word for legislators who sit in state capitols and Washington, DC and make laws designed to control another persons life.
Personally I don't have that level of faith in God, so I going to work tomorrow to make sure I have food, clothing and shelter.
Paul obviously felt the same way because he wrote to the Thessalonians, "This should be your ambition: to live a quiet life, minding your own business, and working with your hands, just as we commanded you before. As a result, peple who are not Christians will respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others to meet your financial needs." I Thessalonians 4:11,12 NLT
Why? Didn’t He come to save the thieves, prostitutes and other misfits? DC would probably be His first destination.
I think he could walk across the Tidal Basin and it still wouldn’t disrupt business as usual.
However, it might be a moot point, since we’re no longer a Christian nation according to Obama.
A commune in its strictest definition is not socialism.
Com-mune n. - A relatively small, often rural community whose members share common interests, work, and income and often own property collectively. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company).
socialism n. - A political theory advocating state ownership of industry. An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise. (Ibid...see above).
In a commune everyone works. This was the biblical admonition in II Thess. 3:10, 'if no one works, he doesn't eat'. In socialism property and wealth is redistributed equally from those who produce (work) to those who don't produce (non-workers). In addition this 'wealth' or property is not controlled by the people of the commune, it is controlled by the government or 'state'.
My husband had a cousin back in the 70's who lived in a commune with her husband and children. We all kind of shook our heads at her 'hippie' ways but we tried to just stay quiet whenever she was around. I won't go into any more details other than to say that in this particular commune....anybody that didn't pull their share of the work load was kicked out. PERIOD. No questions asked. There were no moochers living off the work of others that you see very frequently in all socialist countries.
You might have a point that a commune is akin to socialism IF socialism didn't take half the wealth of the state's producers and re-distribute it to those who sit around on their butts collecting goodies from the state for nothing in return. As long as you have the non-producers taking from the producers its not a commune. Its just insanity.
There’s no equal distribution in heaven:-)
Good point!
Excellent response. I would like to suggest another passage of Scripture that clearly shows capitalism in action Proverbs 31:10-31. The classic text of the godly wife. Some examples:
16She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She works (v. 10-15), saves, then buys a field and plants a vineyard - yet more work and more earnings. Says nothing about the state coming in and taking over her vineyard, taxing half her earnings, and then giving those earnings to the lazy able bodied bum sitting around at the village gate waiting for a handout.
Another one:
v. 17-19 more work from the godly wife again and in verse 20:
20She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy.
From the earnings from her hard work she has surplus to take care of those truly in need. The state does not come in and decide for her who is in need and then takes half or more of her wealth from her. SHE decides.
In verses 21 - 23 - again - MORE work that she does so that her husband praises her. What does she do?
24She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen.
She sells what she makes, she is running a business here. She is SELLING what she is PRODUCING. And she’s doing so without state interference. Again, that’s capitalism. The state isn’t running her business for her, she is producing without the state telling her what to produce, how much to produce, and what is to be charged, or how much she can keep of her earnings from what she produces. Nor is she facing such high taxation that she can no longer afford to produce anything let alone sell it!
Just my 2 cents.
I like your two cents, I would bet that conservativegrandpa is one blessed man to have you as his bride.
Thanks for the ping OneVike.
Was Jesus a Socialist?,
_______________________________________
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8
Actually I’ve thought about that a lot lately. Basic conclusion if He returns: There will be Hell to pay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.