Yeah... I was going to post a response, but Nelhybel just posted it much more succinctly.

Bingo, Nelhybel.

Jesus wanted to control the means of production!

everyone knows this, after all look at his disastrous attempt to become president during the 2008 election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ1L4eeu5KI&feature=fvsr

Read the Book of Acts (I like the New International Version at blueletterbible.org because it's clear, modern English) for an example of biblical socialism. However, unlike the state-sponsored socialism of the 20th Century, turning your property over to the church was strictly voluntary.

I'm sorry, are the laws of the bible somehow not intended to be coercive? They're "guidelines", not actual commandments I guess.

Jesus didn't say "give up your possessions (to the rich) and you'll have treasure in heaven", no he said "repeal the estate and capital gains tax, and give alms to the poor if the spirit happens to move you".

http://valentinelogar.hubpages.com/hub/Jesus-was-a-Socialist

also, i'd just like to point out a really nice talk i saw yesterday:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

from valentinelogar 'Matthew 25:31-46: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. For those that don’t know this one the key statement is as follows:

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.'

So if a society allows the poor to suffer, go unclothed, sick untreated.... etc.

They are at fault.

Look at a social democracy like Sweden/Denmark. They have systems setup to protect the weak and poor.

It is up to man to divide up their wealth, and it is not theft of their earnings if they choose to pay taxes and support government programs to keep the poor safe.

There is no 'force' involved. The government is elected by the people and they support the measures involved. Just as Americans support taxation to pay for police and army.

So long as you believe it is right to spend your money in this way it doesn't make a difference whether it is done via taxation or charity, both are by choice. And this 'by force' bullshit is just that.

issue with the Sweden/Norway example is that they were rich countries to begin with, you can't spread the wealth in most countries because in most cases there is no wealth to spread.

The problem with socialist countries (and socialists as a whole) is that they put too much effort in spreading the wealth and too few to actually create it.

@Baskineli, do you have any statistics to back up your ascertain?

No, this is purely subjective claim.

"It is not man's job to force other men to use their excess wealth to help those in need." - So this is just God's job? I don't see how this gets Jesus off-the-hook for
I know we get into a Lutheran thing here (Deeds vs. Faith), but if you should follow Jesus or burn in hell, and he tells you to "give your wealth to the poor"... I don't see how this is any different than the government saying let us redistribute your wealth or you go to Jail.

I'm still thinking this through, so I'm open to changing my mind and willing to be educated further.

@orathaic,

"There is no 'force' involved. The government is elected by the people and they support the measures involved. Just as Americans support taxation to pay for police and army.

So long as you believe it is right to spend your money in this way it doesn't make a difference whether it is done via taxation or charity, both are by choice. And this 'by force' bullshit is just that."

Oh? You won't go to jail for not paying your taxes? That's not force?

@KalelChase,

You're quite right in one sense: if one is a believer, then God's command might be seen to function similarly to a government's command. The point is that Christ's command is not to make _others_ share their wealth, but to share your wealth _yourself_. Therefore, His teachings do not entail Christians supporting socialism, since that would be their taking a position wherein _they_ (Christians) were forcing others to share their wealth involuntarily, rather than sharing their _own_ wealth, voluntarily.

Putin, you're barking up the wrong tree--I'm a strong believer in paying taxes and supporting basic social programs. Hey, even Jesus paid taxes. But I don't think anyone would argue that in the now defunct USSR (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics), the chief mechanism for instituting socialism was not taxing but rather stealing the means of production.

Lets look at this in a different way...

If Jesus was a capatalist He would have done things very differently. His revolutionary methods of fishing, wine making, and impressive healing powers could have rapidly catapulted him to a leading position in Roman Industry, with virtual monopolies across many areas of trade. Using this position of power and near limitless wealth Jesus could have started an impressive religious reformation campaign, sending missionaries across the known world to spread the word of his Father, building Churches and hospitals for the sick, giving food to the needy, and lobbying the Senate in favour of Jewish rights. If He played his cards right then not a single person in the known world would have grown up unaware of the Jesus Corporation, His free self help guides, and internationally famous generousity. All this, and not a single person need get hurt making it happen.

He did not do this.

Instead He squandered His talents that could have helped so many, using them on a relatively small group of favoured individuals. His political career was based not on helping others, but purely on advancing His own reputation and power base in one small corner of the globe via populist strategies and a hell of a lot of spin (you need only look at the donkey riding fake humility stunt to get an idea of the sort of politician He was, but there are countless other examples). The result of His selfishness were the painful deaths of many of His supporters and a complete failure to improve the lives of His own people.

In short, yes, He was very much a socialist.

@semck83

Thanks for trying - I'm really doing my best to understand your point. "The point is that Christ's command is not to make _others_ share their wealth, but to share your wealth _yourself_. " Isn't Christ's command to everyone, same as the government's command is to all citizens? The only difference I see here is the flow of money... Christ says you can do it yourself as long as you get rid of it, and a governmental command says let's pool it and try and get synergy out of the volume.
Actually the government one makes much more sense (and I'm a conservative).

"Oh? You won't go to jail for not paying your taxes? That's not force?"

And you're sued for not complying with contract, the contract is still "voluntarily" agreed to, just like we voluntarily agree to abide by the laws made and enforced by government.

"The point is that Christ's command is not to make _others_ share their wealth, but to share your wealth _yourself_. Therefore, His teachings do not entail Christians supporting socialism, since that would be their taking a position wherein _they_ (Christians) were forcing others to share their wealth involuntarily, rather than sharing their _own_ wealth, voluntarily."

What a bunch of spin. So Jesus is making/commanding people Christians share their wealth, but somehow this is voluntary, and somehow it's only applying to individuals and not the Christian community as a whole.

The whole notion of "voluntary collective commands to individuals" is a witch's brew of contradictory gibberish. On a basic level Jesus did not think it was moral or proper for people to enrich themselves or that becoming very wealthy was a worthy goal. That's fundamentally contrary to capitalism. Whether it's "socialism" is another matter, but his ethos has nothing in common with the 'Supply Side Jesus' we're being spoonfed by American evangelicals and their friends abroad.

I am a Christian. The Apostles and Jesus lived in a very socialist way. Giving to the poor treating equally is a very socialist way to live. Socialism didn't exist in that day but the concept doesn't need a name.

communism=atheism

@ILN
No. Stalinism=atheism

SMH

Putin, you come across as so full of venom about anything related to God, Jesus, and Christianity--How can anybody take what you are saying as being unbiased? What you don't understand, and most of the people of his day didn't understand, was that the Kingdom of God is within. It's about individuals letting God change them on the inside. That's what being born again is all about--born to a new life. Octavious, the same point is valid for you as well. The Jewish people of Jesus' day were looking for a worldly messiah, a fearsome leader riding a white horse, to save them from the Romans. But he didn't come to start a corporation or establish a kingdom here on Earth.

where are the citations for this worldly messiah? Or did your religion just make it up...

There really wasn't a big need for someone to "save" the Jews from the Romans. Even in the Bible, it's pretty clear that the Romans left the Jews to their own devices quite a bit.

Putin, Christ was not against becoming wealthy. He was against the love of money and greed. When one has a reason for desiring wealth (i.e. the ability to provide for one's family), it is not the same as desiring money for the sake of having money.
"And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on." - Mark 12:41-44
You will notice that he does not condemn those who put in out of surplus, does not say that they will burn in hell. Rather, he praises the one who gave all she had. Those who were rich gave out of a desire to be noticed for their large sums. She gave out of desire to serve God. Motivation plays a large role in helping others.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." - Ephesians 2:8-10
Good deeds (i.e. giving to others) are not required for salvation. Rather, they are a part of who we were designed to be. Just as one can use a tool in a way it was not designed to be used (i.e. using a hammer as a paperweight), we will still function, but not at our peak capacity.
Octavious, one must ask what was Christ's main purpose on earth. You seem to believe that it was to help people in this life, to give them money, food, or other temporary things. I disagree. His main purpose was not to help people in this life, but to save them in the next. He came with a purpose already set, and that purpose was not to gain wealth to give it away. His purpose was not to become a political figure, either. If he sought political power, why did he go against the leaders in Jerusalem? Before his crucifixion, the people cried out for his death, preferring to release a murder to a man the Roman governor could find no fault in. Is it the goal of every politician to be crucified? To die for the sake of others? Furthermore, even if it was indeed as you said, and Jesus worked solely to advance his own political career, does that not fit more with capitalism than socialism? Does not capitalism seek to better the individual?
I believe Winston Churchill made an extremely insightful comment when he said: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Grace vs works has been debated since at least the 1500's, you can find arguments for either being the "more important" of the two within the Bible.

"The problem with socialist countries (and socialists as a whole) is that they put too much effort in spreading the wealth and too few to actually create it."

How come then the Netherlands is one of the richest countries on earth while having a full blown social wellfare system. And which country had huge economic problems again? (not Greece) As a foreigner it's funny for me to watch these discussions. I am very lucky and happy to live in a country where the government helps me when I get sick or without job. What I see here is fear, fear for a creature called 'communism' and a spirit in which is being called a socialist is a bad thing. OK, we've grown up in different societies. You are proud of yours and we are proud of ours. Each has its own history. But please look farther than your nose is long! You're condemning a system you don't even know. Are we Europeans all evil socialists? No, we are not. 100 years ago the situation in the Netherlands may have been the same as in America. Little or no health care, no job insurance. These things have changed because people wanted them to change. And they have succeeded.


On topic, Jesus is as much a socialist as Julius Caesar is a capitalist. Those things didn't exist back then.