Was Christ a communist?

allegedly there is one particular gate called the eye of the needle. but i really doubt jesus meant a real gate instead of a real needle. especially since camels go through that gate all the time.

why?the only word on monogamy in the new testament is that a preist must be the husband of only one wife (and must be married, how about that?) no one else has to be married. no one else is restricted in number of spouses. only paul discusses anything resembling homosexuality, and he hated anything feminine. and family values like what? what the fuck does family values mean anyways. it's such a bullshit phrase for "i want to shove my personal moralisms down your throat."

what exactly is early about christians in the 1600s?

I stand corrected on monogamy, although I did use a cautious "perhaps".Family values seems to be a phrase used by Christian conservatives in this country. Doesn't Christ lecture against divorce? But I'm neither a Christian or a conservative, and I don't disagree with your "bullshit phrase" description. It's also often a "spot the hypocrite" phrase, as lots of the politicians here who were fond of using it have been caught having extra-marital affairs.Consequently, we don't hear it so much these days.

Nothing is early about the Christians in the 1600s. If that's what you're referring to, the writer's "early" implies that Christian communists in the 1600s (like the levellers) were amongst the first Christian communists, not (obviously) that they were amongst the earliest Christians.If you meant to ask "what is early about the Christian communists of the 1600s", then you would have had a point, as many earlier Christians, including Christ's original following, could possibly be described as communists going by the way in which they lived. That's partly what this thread is about.The writer of that article could justify the phrase, perhaps, by saying that people like the levellers were amongst the first organized politicized Christian communists (they took over land for common use and wanted their society to be communist) and that he's using the word communist in its understood modern sense.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I see the topic has wandered to monogamy, which is way off topic, so I'll take a shot at the OP.I am in a situation where I'm part of a group actually doing the verses mentioned in the OP. "From everyone according to his ability; to everyone according to his need," is what we ask of those who live in Rose Creek Village. And we're doing it right here in the good ol' capitalistic US of A.My comment on the communism of Biblical Christianity is that it's really true that human nature is human nature, even in the church. It's obvious from Paul's letters that there were problems in his churches, just like we face today. What I mean is that not everyone gives according to his ability. Some people--no, lots of people--are lazy. Thus Paul had to suggest, "If anyone will not work, let him not eat."We've found that a mix is essential. There really has to be some reward for working harder. That reward does not have to be monetary. In fact, a worker that has worked his rear end off helping to get a business off the ground for very moderate wages--by American standards--and no overtime occasionally gets discouraged. It is amazing, though, how almost everyone is encouraged once they realize they are creating a future for children growing up and helping support a lot of single moms (America has plenty of those, and plenty of those are needy). Once their basic needs are met, they are quite willing to make sacrifices that they can see are helping people.To tie this back to the point of the thread, my answer would be that Christ was not a communist by definition. Christ made a family out of his followers. They were, all of them together, a family. Just as most any parent would take in a grown child, with their family, that had lost a job and fell on hard times, and would help them however they could, the whole family of Christ helps each other in just that way.So I would add to your Scriptures the one that says that giving is so that one person's abundance supplies another's need and later, perhaps the second will supply the need of the first. It is mentioned that there were rich people in the church, and they were not told not to be rich. They were told to be eager to share. This is the principle of Christ, that his disciples would be united as a family, taking care of one another, and using whatever excess they had, not for worldly pleasures, but to help the poor.

i don't recall jesus saying anything about divorce. i could be overlooking something. i'm sure it's been on this board and i blocked it from my memmory. jesus spoke to a divorced woman once and his only criticism of her was that she was living with a man she wasn't married to.

Matt 5:32 and a similar passage in Luke.

Ha ha ha. I have a bad head cold, so forgive me. Ringo had made those the words of Jesus in the post above mine, and after I had responded, I edited because I knew it wasn't from Jesus. I was too lazy to scroll to the top and find the source, so I guessed Paul. But I get your point. And yes, I read the article and I see the connection. The only point I am trying to make is that many systems may result, both of government and economics, from implementation of Christian teachings.

I imagine I am pretty conservative in ways. I was questioning what exactly conservative is? IMO it is a state of adherence to a 'norm' which in Christianity is monogamy, marital fidelity, etc...but in another religion the norm may be something else. To say that a Christian is conservative is redundant. You are essentially saying a Christian is a Christian. All conservatives aren't Christian, most Christians are conservative. I am not disagreeing that we aren't...but I am saying that being conservative is totally relative. Early Christians were radicals...Christians didn't change. Society changed so much so that now Christians look like the conservatives.

Sorry about your cold, we all know how it feels.I wasn't laughing at you, but at the situation. There's no reason why any of us should know where quotes come from. That line "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is probably the best known brief summary of communism, but what I liked (and understood) about your mistake was that it's easy to believe that it came from someone like Jesus or Paul or any number of well known Christians, Benedict or other Saints for example. But the twist is that in a sense you weren't making such a big mistake, because the basic sense of the quote could have its origins in Christianity long before the modern secular communism. All of which explains why a mistake can sometimes be a positive thing, because by chance it illustrated what this thread is about very well.Of course I don't think that Christ was a communist in the way the word is so often understood today. He wasn't campaigning for a politically organized communist Israel, or world! But all communism really is is just what that abilities/needs line says, and it can be argued that that fits fairly well with His general ethos. It really is something that people would have to do voluntarily, otherwise it wouldn't work.A bit off topic, but it's occurred to me that "Was Christ a pacifist" would make a good thread, and would be much easier to argue. There'd be loads of support in the scriptures. "Love thy neighbour", "love thy enemy", "blessed are the peacemakers", and the ultimate "turn the other cheek". But most people who call themselves Christians are not pacifists (and certainly don't turn the other cheek), so I'm sure I'd fail to convince any Christians on that one as well. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Hi, truthloverSorry about the delay in replying. Families and hunter-gatherer tribes are good examples of units that operate a high level of the "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" system. Both Christianity and biology tell us, in their different ways, that we are really one big family, so political communism could be regarded as an effort to extend our perception to the level of being part of a family of 6/7 billion!Your experiment with communalism sounds interesting. Perhaps studying the remaining cultures of hunter-gatherers might help in finding out ways to deal with "lazy people". But it might not, because you're dealing with people who are the product of a culture which requires a certain level of self- interest, and who are brought up to the idea of financial incentive. Although I'm sure there are people who are inately lazy, and we all have different work rates, to some extent our behaviour is cultural, and it can be hard to distinguish this from basic human nature, because we're a very cultural animal.The Australian aborigines were astonished by the concept of land ownership when the Europeans arrived, just as we'd be surprised at a culture in which people routinely bought up bits of the sky, or outer space. The concept comes with agriculture, and I think that the early theistic religions, including whatever was the base of Judaism, may have arrived with early agriculture.Ideas like communism and socialism are ancient, but seem to have picked up momentum with industrialisation. Every single Christian contributer to this thread believes that Christ was not a communist, and in the normal modern usage of the term, at least, I think you're all probably correct.This won't greatly effect the future of the world, as co-operative ideas won't go away. It's the agricultural epoch religions, like Christianity, which show signs of being in the process of becoming obsolete. Edited by bluegenes, : Missing word!

Well, when I say Christ was not a communist, I only mean that in a political & legalistic sense. The idea behind communism, from each according to his ability & to each according to his need, is a Christian idea. Though Christ addressed issues that were political, it seems to me he avoided politics altogether. Note his famous statement about taxes paid to Caesar. Well, ok, Christianity is an agricultural epoch religion, but that's unavoidable when you live in an agricultural epoch. I certainly don't believe Christianity only applies in an agricultural setting. Our village is as close to a tribal setting as you can get in the United States, and nothing would change if our method of sustenance were switched to hunting & gathering. I understand why everyone says this, but it's only partly true. Indians, aborigines, etc. were astonished by the concept of *individual* land ownership. While they might not say they "owned" land, a tribe would most certainly defend its territory, not only against invasion but also against the raiding of its resources, which is awful close to the equivalent of owning land.

Yes, I meant individual land ownership. I mentioned the Australians particularly because some groups had huge areas about the size of an average country in Europe. But within each tribe (or nation or people, as they put it) the land was common to all. So when someone put the first fence around a sheep farm, it would've looked weird to people who don't have a "fence" concept in their heads!I didn't mean that people couldn't apply Christianity outside agricultural economies, I was just observing that the old religions (which may have been triggered by early agriculture and its effects on people) are showing signs of dying out. This country is about 40% theist, 35% atheist, and 25% agnostic. Some European countries are more religious, and some less, so we're probably about average for the continent. 5% of the population are regular church goers. Europe is the least religious continent of the world, but there are signs of other areas, including the U.S., heading the same way. It's not just Christianity. There are growing numbers of Islamic and Jewish apostates, as well. But you probably know all this.The reasons why are probably complex and interesting.

Well, that is already a common argument, and there are probably people who consider themselves Christian hippies. There are Christian denoms who don't practice politics, who will not go to war, vote, receive government aid, pay taxes, etc.Christ taught love, peace, and cooperation. He did not tell us how we should build our political structures. I can't accept that Christians who fail to turn the other cheek is any proper argument against Jesus' pacifism. It is only an argument against their own Christianity. But I believe that attempting to pin Jesus down to any of our systems is still putting the cart before the horse. We are working to put His ideals into practice, and we will have countless failed or half-good moments. We don't see Jesus as the product, but the material. We build from Jesus' teachings, and can not therefore turn around and call Jesus the same edifice which we construct. It is like looking at the earth and calling it New York City.I am sure there is a fair amount of bias in that opinion. If I was not such a big fan, I would probably explain Jesus in much more human terms. I think I would be content with 'visionary', still a person who has a dream which it is up to others to enact in the various forms. He gave the tools, we build. It may be that the need for Jesus is becoming obsolete, at least in appearance. We use the tools on our own now. Of course, being Christian, I don't believe that we can get far without guidance. All of our systems fail when we lose sight of the ideal, including communism and monasticism. I have a sort of *admiration* for those who feel that they can still make a perfect world that will be waiting for the return of Christ. Very ambitious of them. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.