Was Christ a communist?

bluegenes writes:... if none of its contents need be taken literally by Christians.

Perhaps the reality of Christ is that he is whatever Christians make him into.

bluegenes writes:Looking at Christianity throughout history, with the quite probable exception of its very early beginnings, it has generally been a conservative force.

In that case, Christ is not a communist at this moment in time, as the overwhelming majority of Christians are not communists.

Ringo writes:The imagery of a camel going through the eye of a needle is a pretty good clue that the passage is not meant to be taken literally - or even seriously. It's a pretty obvious example of hyperbole.

anastasia writes:I have heard somewhere that the 'eye of a needle' is a reference to one of the low-arched doorways that you see in Jerusalem and surrounds.

Ringo writes:When you read anything, you have to take it literately, not literally.

bluegenes writes:... as the interpreters of the Bible have invariably been from non-egalitarian societies, there might always be a tendency to play down Christ's (possible) egalitarian message.

Ringo writes:In "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs",

Are conservatives Christian, or are Christians conservative?

Again, are you putting the cart before the horse?

It is nice that you are getting all philosophical, but no one is trying to change Jesus, they are trying to imitate Him. This includes non-religious idealisms, because as I said, ideals can have some things in common.

All in all, it is as everyone says. Jesus is republican and democrat and capitalist and socialist, and more.

But what sense would it make if I asked you whether Jesus was a monk?

anastasia writes:The point is that our responsiblity to each other is the same.

bluegenes writes:Is the Christian average conservative? As individuals, you can be very conservative or very radical or anything in between. But collectively, your average seems to lean to the side of conservatism. Don't you agree? I'm using "conservative" very generally, but if you wanted to test it in terms of politics in your country, I'd be happy to bet anything that if American atheists and agnostics abstained from voting for fifty years, then the republican party would be in power for fifty years.

Yes. I'm suggesting that the cart is pulling the horse, but seems to believe it's the other way around.

You (Christians) seem to be imitating lots of different "Hims".

So you are busy trying to be all these things at the same time. Ana, I admire your energy!

Not a lot.

Ringo writes:Maybe it should be mentioned too that that responsibility isn't just financial. Everybody has something to give: time, a sympathetic ear....

anastasia writes:I mentioned it.

bluegenes in earlier post writes:Looking at Christianity throughout history, with the quite probable exception of its very early beginnings, it has generally been a conservative force.

anastasia writes:I think the point flew over you. Christianity is not particularly conservative. It was founded by somewhat of a radical. Christianity became conservative after years of equating certain behaviours with it.

J.C. according to Mathew writes:Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.24"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.

annastasia writes: He was also not a communist. Did He live in a socialist state?

annastasia writes: When people set up a topic like this the case seems over before it starts. Premise, conclusion, game over. But the more I keep looking at this passage, and excuse me if you have said the same, there is nothing about financial equality in there. Jesus is saying we all have different abilities. He is saying that the beggars and the wealthy alike should give according to their abilites, not that we should all have the same abilities, not that the result of our giving will somehow strike a balance between classes. The point is that our responsiblity to each other is the same.P.S Wasn't this from Paul?

wiki writes:From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, irrespective of what they have produced. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.The complete paragraph containing Marx's original statement of the creed is as follows:In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!Although Marx is popularly thought of as the author of the phrase, it has been widely speculated that he merely co-opted a term earlier used by other leaders of the communist movement. The slogan was first used by Louis Blanc in 1840, in "The organization of work", as a revision of a quote by the utopian socialist Henri de Saint Simon, who claimed that each should be rewarded according to how much they work. Despite the secular nature of Marxism, inspiration for this creed may have been drawn from the early Christian communism of the 1600s.The earliest exposition of this idea, however, is found in the Bible, in Acts of the Apostles. Luke describes the organization of the first Christian congregations following the death of Jesus:
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
...Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)
This passage is, naturally, important to Christian leftists.