Jesus was a commie...

[Diuretic]

Not sure what a welfare state means to you but I do know that poverty rates have fallen in the US from roughly 22% in 1959 to 12.7% in 1998. Somewhere in that time period -- the sixties, I believe -- there was a big push to end poverty in America by the Democrats, Bobby Kennedy comes to mind, and I think that is when they started giving aid to families that were under a certain income level.

It was even worse during the depression, something like 40% of Americans were living in poverty.

Not sure what Allie is talking about, how it was better before.

Got it, thanks for that information. I do know that Germany introduced the welfare state under Bismarck (not out of charity but for a sort of insurance for the ruling classes I think) and in the UK it didn't appear until the Attlee Labour government after WWII and in Australia it didn't appear until about the same time or a bit later perhaps.

I do know that I think it's better for a society to have a government-administered welfare state than to rely on private charity. Not that I'm proposing that private charity stops, I mean, the more the merrier, but that a government-adminstered system is constant and consistent and not subject to whim.

 

[Ravi]

I agree. As much as I hate paying taxes, it's pretty much the price I pay for being an American. I accept they're going to take it from me, so the more people it helps, the better.

And the worst idea yet, IMO, is what we call faith based initiatives. The government (us) gives money to churches to use for their good works. Trouble is, there is not much direct accountability. One can vote politicians out of office just because you believe they are mismanaging spending, but when you turn the money over to churches, you have to first prove they are mismanaging funding before it can be taken away.

In my business I have some churches for clients. They get money from the government, which they probably do spend in a charitable manner. But at the same time, the money they raise from their flocks now is used at their discretion to purchase big ticket items for the churches...it makes me laugh, in a way, but it's also pretty damn sick.

 

[Diuretic]

I really don't know if we have direct government funding to the churches here, I think not because a couple of diocese have gone perilously close to bankruptcy (sexual offences compensation). I can't see the Catholic Church going bust though, I've been to St Peter's Basilica, they could easily hock the stuff they have if they go bad

 

[midcan5]

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=KEv0qWi_AeE&feature=related[/ame]

Because Christianity is hard stuff, it is much easier to steal, rob, pillage and pretty much be corrupt and then tell God you are really trying see I go to church and I give money to the poor so God I'm just human and plus pastor Osteen and Hagee tell me all all I gotta do is be born again and so I accept Jesus as my savior praise Jesus and all that stuff alleluia.

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." Gilbert K. Chesterton

 

[frazzledgear]

...or at least his teachings seem to be considerably more consistent with socialist ideology than capitalist ideology.

So how come there aren't more Christian socialists?

Jesus would never have been a communist or a socialist. Let's put aside the harsh reality that communism has its own built-in fatal flaw that insures its demise. Communist doctrine clearly states it is the best interests of the collective that counts -even at the expense of the individual and that individualism is to be vigorously discouraged. In practice and theory, communism is fit only for an ant colony, but not human beings. As opposed to our own founders who said government exists to serve the will of the people and not the other way around, communist doctrine says the individual exists to serve the collective, that the individual is a fungible cog in the wheel of government and government does not exist to serve the individual but only what it deems to be the best interests of the collective.

But that isn't true of Christianity at any time. Christianity is about the individual's use of his free will to do the right thing by his fellow man and his relationship with God -not a government's coercion of that individual and somehow he gets bonus points if the government he lives under coercively taxes that person and then spends it in a way God approves. The individual will ONLY be judged for his own actions -not whether he lived under the "right" kind of government or not. There are no "brownie" points in heaven for the person who lived under communism and that government used the coercion of taxation to provide for the poor while the individual chose to do nothing, figuring government took enough anyway. His choice was removed by that government.

Then you add in the social agenda of socialists and communists and I just don't see Jesus becoming a political animal hot for either system. Both socialists and communists have a very clear humanist agenda that believes the highest authority is man, therefore whatever man decides is in his own best interests is all that counts. Do you picture Jesus standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building holding a sign that says women have a right to kill their unwanted, unborn children? How about insisting that embryonic stem cell research is the wave of the future and hey, it isn't as if God considers those embryos to be REAL. How about arguing for the legalization of street drugs, prostitution or campaigning for gay marriage?

Since Jesus said a man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery -I just don't see Jesus insisting marriage must now be redefined to mean any two people who want to cohabitate. In fact, I don't see Jesus even supporting no-fault divorce.

Jesus was not a social revolutionary, His teachings clearly show He was a conservative Jews in nearly all things except whether non-Jews could attain salvation. He repeatedly said those who chose salvation over damnation should follow God's Commandments and that just doesn't sound like He was encouraging a political overhaul so that a faceless government could do that for the individual and the individual need not worry about it again.

Jesus' intent was not to remake society as He thought it should be and not one of his teachings were about what kind of government people should live under as soon as they got the chance. His was a message for the individual regarding using his free will to choose salvation or choose damnation.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you picture Jesus standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building holding a sign that says women have a right to kill their unwanted, unborn children? How about insisting that embryonic stem cell research is the wave of the future and hey, it isn't as if God considers those embryos to be REAL. How about arguing for the legalization of street drugs, prostitution or campaigning for gay marriage?

Actually, I do. From what I've read about Jesus, I see him as a liberal, which is why the conservative Pharasees wanted shot of him. Remember, liberals are all about changing as the wants and needs around them change. Conservatives are there to conserve the status quo. Jesus was not about the status quo...

 

[jillian]

Jesus' intent was not to remake society as He thought it should be and not one of his teachings were about what kind of government people should live under as soon as they got the chance. His was a message for the individual regarding using his free will to choose salvation or choose damnation.

You don't think he intended to remake society? Then why would he rail against the religious hierarchy of the day? throw the money lenders from in front of the temple?

no... he didn't care to remake roman society, but that wasn't the governmental hierarchy that affected him and other jews of the day, was it? Nope... it was the San Hedrin and the priests of the temple. And THAT society he absolutely DID intend to change.

Do you know WHY it was such a big deal that he healed lepers and the sick? Because they weren't allowed in the Temple. They were considered impure.

 

[frazzledgear]

Okay, then I need to ask a question. When did the welfare state appear in the US?

We don't have a welfare state. We only have welfare programs for the poor. A welfare state assumes financial responsibility for everyone, not just the poor or those unable to financially provide for themselves. Don't know about you but I never want to live in a welfare state. Anyone who decides a bunch of strangers -just because they got hired by the government -somehow knows what is best for you over your own judgment -deserves what they get.

 

[Dr Grump]

We don't have a welfare state. We only have welfare programs for the poor. A welfare state assumes financial responsibility for everyone, not just the poor or those unable to financially provide for themselves. Don't know about you but I never want to live in a welfare state. Anyone who decides a bunch of strangers -just because they got hired by the government -somehow knows what is best for you over your own judgment -deserves what they get.

The term welfare state was invented by the Brits. It does not fall under the definition of what you call a welfare state. The Brit definiition is also used by Aussie (where Diuretic resides) and NZ (where i do). If you want to redefine it, chose another term, don't take ours...
As for your last sentence, you don't think that happens stateside???

 

[Diuretic]

We don't have a welfare state. We only have welfare programs for the poor. A welfare state assumes financial responsibility for everyone, not just the poor or those unable to financially provide for themselves. Don't know about you but I never want to live in a welfare state. Anyone who decides a bunch of strangers -just because they got hired by the government -somehow knows what is best for you over your own judgment -deserves what they get.

As Dr G pointed out, welfare programmes for the poor is a welfare state. It's voluntary though, getting welfare I mean. If you don't need it you don't have to take it.

 

[Dr Grump]

You don't think he intended to remake society? Then why would he rail against the religious hierarchy of the day? throw the money lenders from in front of the temple?

no... he didn't care to remake roman society, but that wasn't the governmental hierarchy that affected him and other jews of the day, was it? Nope... it was the San Hedrin and the priests of the temple. And THAT society he absolutely DID intend to change.

Do you know WHY it was such a big deal that he healed lepers and the sick? Because they weren't allowed in the Temple. They were considered impure.

Exactly...when will they get that aspect of it..or that fact that up until the day he died he was Jewish...

 

[frazzledgear]

You don't think he intended to remake society? Then why would he rail against the religious hierarchy of the day? throw the money lenders from in front of the temple?

no... he didn't care to remake roman society, but that wasn't the governmental hierarchy that affected him and other jews of the day, was it? Nope... it was the San Hedrin and the priests of the temple. And THAT society he absolutely DID intend to change.

Do you know WHY it was such a big deal that he healed lepers and the sick? Because they weren't allowed in the Temple. They were considered impure.

Well, first of Jesus didn't RAIL against the religious hierarchy and the religious hierarchy didn't make law then -the Romans controlled, ruled and made law. How many of Jesus' messages involved overthrowing the Romans and setting up shop themselves as communists or something similar? In fact, he spent many years with rabbis before His own ministry began. His dispute with the religious hierarchy was over ONE issue only and nothing else. Whether non-Jews could enter heaven or not. Not whether the Ten Commandments as given to Moses were still in force -Jesus repeatedly said they were. Not whether Jews should keep kosher or not -Jesus kept kosher. Only whether non-Jews could enter heaven and how that could be done. Jesus insisted and taught that non-Jews could enter heaven by means of salvation while Jewish teachings at that time said only Jews were going to heaven. (That is no longer part of Jewish teachings anymore, they now teach that gentiles MAY be judged worthy of heaven in spite of not being Jewish.)

Jewish teachings were never about the individual's personal relationship with God. Instead they were instructions that as Jews, they were obligated to abide by certain teachings and ritual. Jesus' teachings said a personal relationship with God was possible and that which was done by rote or ritual while the heart was empty -was meaningless to God.

As for throwing the money lenders out from in front of the temple, that wasn't about remaking society either. It was for religious reasons and it was because people had set up shop to profit from people entering to worship right at the doorstop of God's house and it caused great offense to God. Not offense to society, government or man -but ONLY because it offended God. In fact, for those who like to pretend that Jesus was a totally nonviolent peacenik - it is the ONLY time He was violent. He wielded a whip to chase them off. But in spite of all the inequities Jesus saw, the only time He was violent was with regard to an offense to God, not an offense to other people or society.

At no time did Jesus encourage people to remake government, declare new "laws" and instead repeatedly said God's Commandments must be followed. He encouraged people to individually and voluntarily CHOOSE to do the right thing and voluntarily CHOOSE salvation and how to do that.

You just can't voluntarily choose anything if a government has stripped you of that ability through onerous taxation and does it for you though, can you? It can't possibly count in favor of the individual if the individual has been stripped of the ability to exercise his free will to CHOOSE to do it.

 

[jillian]

Exactly...when will they get that aspect of it..or that fact that up until the day he died he was Jewish...

They'd have to understand the Jewish community of the day. But it would mean that Jesus didn't send them out to create a whole new religion.

 

[jillian]

Well, first of Jesus didn't RAIL against the religious hierarchy and the religious hierarchy didn't make law then -the Romans controlled, ruled and made law. How many of Jesus' messages involved overthrowing the Romans and setting up shop themselves as communists or something similar? In fact, he spent many years with rabbis before His own ministry began. His dispute with the religious hierarchy was over ONE issue only and nothing else. Whether non-Jews could enter heaven or not. Not whether the Ten Commandments as given to Moses were still in force -Jesus repeatedly said they were. Not whether Jews should keep kosher or not -Jesus kept kosher. Only whether non-Jews could enter heaven and how that could be done. Jesus insisted and taught that non-Jews could enter heaven by means of salvation while Jewish teachings at that time said only Jews were going to heaven. (That is no longer part of Jewish teachings anymore, they now teach that gentiles MAY be judged worthy of heaven in spite of not being Jewish.)

Jewish teachings were never about the individual's personal relationship with God. Instead they were instructions that as Jews, they were obligated to abide by certain teachings and ritual. Jesus' teachings said a personal relationship with God was possible and that which was done by rote or ritual while the heart was empty -was meaningless to God.

As for throwing the money lenders out from in front of the temple, that wasn't about remaking society either. It was for religious reasons and it was because people had set up shop to profit from people entering to worship right at the doorstop of God's house and it caused great offense to God. Not offense to society, government or man -but ONLY because it offended God. In fact, for those who like to pretend that Jesus was a totally nonviolent peacenik - it is the ONLY time He was violent. He wielded a whip to chase them off. But in spite of all the inequities Jesus saw, the only time He was violent was with regard to an offense to God, not an offense to other people or society.

At no time did Jesus encourage people to remake government, declare new "laws" and instead repeatedly said God's Commandments must be followed. He encouraged people to individually and voluntarily CHOOSE to do the right thing and voluntarily CHOOSE salvation and how to do that.

You just can't voluntarily choose anything if a government has stripped you of that ability through onerous taxation and does it for you though, can you? It can't possibly count in favor of the individual if the individual has been stripped of the ability to exercise his free will to CHOOSE to do it.

The Romans made secular law. Jesus didn't care about secular law (give unto Caesar...). He cared about the Pharisees. The priests of the temple whom he felt were false. He railed against the wealth of the cohanim (again, the priests of the Temple) and their distance from the poor, the sick, the lame. THAT was his dispute with the priests. why do you think Caiphas and Annas sent him packing? It was a POLITICAL dispute. I'm not sure where you're getting the concept that he only cared about whether gentiles could get to heaven. That's untrue. Jesus was a jew until he died and while it may be true that he felt the righteous could get to heaven even if they weren't jewish he certainly never encouraged anyone to not be a jew, nor did he stop observing (hence the Last Supper being a passover sedar). The irony, to me is that some people who profess to be Christian don't think Jews can get to heaven. He did say that G-d's laws had to be followed... but what WERE those laws? They were the laws of the Old Testament.

And you're right. He saw the money lenders as an offense to G-d. But who allowed them at the Temple Mount? That's right... the priests.

One does not have to incite new laws in order to be a radical. One only has to fight for the change of those at the top of the hierarchy...and Jesus did that. If you get rid of all the deity stuff, he actually had it down right.

*Edit* One last thing. The Jewish G-d has ALWAYS been a personal G-d. The rules you talk about were to allow one to be worthy of that relationship. Don't forget, in Judaism, G-d spoke to his flock... he spoke to Abraham, Isaac, Moses. etc. ... and to the Jews through them. There isn't any intermediary between Jews and their G-d, unlike Christianity. It's a one-to-one thing. Especially at that time, when the Temple still stood. It was a Jew, his animal sacrifice and his G-d on the place where Abraham took Isaac to slay him.

 

[frazzledgear]

But isn't that substituting private charity for a welfare system?

Jesus said it was the responsibility of INDIVIDUALS, not some faceless government that merely taxed it from people who had no say in where the money went. Individual responsibility can never be replaced by a faceless bureaucracy and have it "count" with God.

 

[frazzledgear]

The Romans made secular law. Jesus didn't care about secular law (give unto Caesar...). He cared about the Pharisees. The priests of the temple whom he felt were false. He railed against the wealth of the cohanim (again, the priests of the Temple) and their distance from the poor, the sick, the lame. THAT was his dispute with the priests. why do you think Caiphas and Annas sent him packing? It was a POLITICAL dispute. I'm not sure where you're getting the concept that he only cared about whether gentiles could get to heaven. That's untrue. Jesus was a jew until he died and while it may be true that he felt the righteous could get to heaven even if they weren't jewish he certainly never encouraged anyone to not be a jew, nor did he stop observing (hence the Last Supper being a passover sedar). The irony, to me is that some people who profess to be Christian don't think Jews can get to heaven. He did say that G-d's laws had to be followed... but what WERE those laws? They were the laws of the Old Testament.

And you're right. He saw the money lenders as an offense to G-d. But who allowed them at the Temple Mount? That's right... the priests.

One does not have to incite new laws in order to be a radical. One only has to fight for the change of those at the top of the hierarchy...and Jesus did that. If you get rid of all the deity stuff, he actually had it down right.

*Edit* One last thing. The Jewish G-d has ALWAYS been a personal G-d. The rules you talk about were to allow one to be worthy of that relationship. Don't forget, in Judaism, G-d spoke to his flock... he spoke to Abraham, Isaac, Moses. etc. ... and to the Jews through them. There isn't any intermediary between Jews and their G-d, unlike Christianity. It's a one-to-one thing. Especially at that time, when the Temple still stood. It was a Jew, his animal sacrifice and his G-d on the place where Abraham took Isaac to slay him.

I think you and I are probably in agreement on most points while not expressing ourselves clearly to each other. I find it difficult to see Jesus as a social revolutionary when His teachings aren't really about that unless you think His exhortations to people to do the right thing by each other and encouraging them to understand their salvation was an individual choice are some kind of social revolutionary thought. The part about salvation being the choice of individuals was certainly a religiously revolutionary thought -but not the part about doing the right by each other. That has always been part of Jewish tradition and teachings. So I just can't see it as a "social" revolution. Even you agree that His concern was not with secular law, even though that law contributed to much of the inequity He saw.

In nearly all ways, Jesus remained a conservative Jew and did not deviate from the most basic Judaic teachings, law, tradition and ritual. His message was not primarily regarding the Pharisees by any means, although He certainly directed quite a few that direction. But in fact, most of His teachings harkened BACK to the practice of Judaism as He believed it should be practiced -with the exception about His teachings that salvation was attainable for anyone and their choice. But most of His teachings were not with regard to the religious hierarchy. It was directed at, to and for individuals -bypassing the religious hierarchy.

As for God speaking to specific people like Moses, Abraham, etc. -I agree and with those individuals He certainly had a personal relationship. But Jewish teachings do not emphasize that each and every Jew can also have such a relationship with God. No religion teaches that if a person tries hard enough, they can get God to appear as a burning bush or some other object that actually talks out loud to them. The kind of personal relationship that is emphasized in Christianity is not emphasized in Jewish teachings for obvious reasons. Jews already KNOW God, come from a long lineage that already established a relationship with God. Gentiles don't have that history, so the Christian religion places more emphasis on the fact a personal relationship with God is possible than does Judaism.

Because you wrote G-d which is a sign of respect among Jews so that others cannot misuse the name for their own purposes, I suspect you are Jewish? If so, then you certainly understand and know your own religion far better than I do and I apologize if I have misstated anything that is in disagreement with your own understanding of it. But I also know my own better than you do and Christians are never going to agree that the primary message of Jesus was with regard to Pharisees or that his verbal attacks regarding their wealth, distance from those who most needed their aid etc. is what disturbed the religious hierarchy the most. Christianity teaches and believes that what disturbed the religious hierarchy the most was the fact Jesus was teaching that salvation was not the sole domain of Jews alone.

As for whether Jesus remained a devoted Jew -of course He did. Most Christian religions know that Jesus was a devout Jew and He died a devout Jew. His followers were all Jews for the next couple of centuries and it wasn't for nearly 400 years that the majority of Christians had not been born Jewish. Christianity was considered a Jewish sect for several centuries because of that fact and it was not seen as a religion separate from Judaism until the majority of its followers were not Jewish.

BTW -only Catholicism involves an intermediary between the individual and God, not the others. And the majority of Christians are not Catholic.

 

[Diuretic]

Jesus said it was the responsibility of INDIVIDUALS, not some faceless government that merely taxed it from people who had no say in where the money went. Individual responsibility can never be replaced by a faceless bureaucracy and have it "count" with God.

If you want a system that's consistent, regulated and just works, you'll get government to do it. Relying on the kindness of strangers is always dodgy, feast or famine at times.

 

[frazzledgear]

Actually, I do. From what I've read about Jesus, I see him as a liberal, which is why the conservative Pharasees wanted shot of him. Remember, liberals are all about changing as the wants and needs around them change. Conservatives are there to conserve the status quo. Jesus was not about the status quo...

What a hoot. Jesus, who said that if a man divorces his wife and marries another woman, that man is guilty of adultery would be insisting that it is a "right" for a woman to kill her unwanted, unborn child? Give me a break.

Jesus' teachings did not involve changing secular law. It involved personal responsibility and the exercise of free will in a way that was pleasing to God and in accordance with God's Law as given to Moses -the Ten Commandments. What could possibly be pleasing to God about a woman killing her unwanted, unborn child?

Jesus was NOT a social liberal. He was a conservative Jew who REPEATEDLY said that the Ten Commandments were God's immutable law, repeatedly said that the violation of those laws offended God. Jesus was a conservative Jew (with the exception regarding salvation being available to all) who made it pretty clear that the Pharisees had deviated from the practice of Judaism as God intended it to be. Now if you can find ANY text that shows Judaism was once a "if it feels good, do it" religion that Jesus wanted to see people return to -I'd like to read that. But I'd be happy to show you the texts that show when Jews engaged in "if it feels good, do it" attitude, God got very unhappy and made no bones about it.

 

[frazzledgear]

If you want a system that's consistent, regulated and just works, you'll get government to do it. Relying on the kindness of strangers is always dodgy, feast or famine at times.

Don't study much history, do you.

 

[frazzledgear]

They'd have to understand the Jewish community of the day. But it would mean that Jesus didn't send them out to create a whole new religion.

What other result do you see if the fundamental differences between the followers of Jesus and Judaism cannot be bridged? Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah -Jews don't. Jews believe that Jesus was a lesser prophet, a mortal and not the Messiah -Christians don't. That is a pretty darn HUGE gap there for which there is no compromise. It could only result in a new religion. Whether Jew or Christian, we have to believe that God knew that Jesus' message would definitely result in a new religion.