Have you heard the left attempt to say Jesus IS a socialist?

[TRFjr]

your confusing Marxism with Communism

Marxism is a unworkable theory a fantasy that could never be applied in reality not in any large numbers

communism is the result of trying to apply Marxism in reality

don't give up your day job

great debating skills

great and utter idiocy-----Marx wrote about an economic theory------"Marxism" is the name of a few million INTERPRETATIONS of the writings of a theoretical
utopian economist. During the time of Marx----there were MANY MANY such
writings-------persons who got educated in the USA ---SHOULD know. Your
statement is banal and shallow minded-------you said NOTHING. Books on the theory of CAPITALISM can be critiqued using the same shallow words you have
employed

Marx believed that people would voluntary give up their labor and fruits of their labor to the collective for the betterment of the collective and only keep or take just what they need and eventually you wouldn't have a need for government
Thats a fantasy an unworkable fantasy because it goes against basic human nature

so for Marxism to work in reality labor and fruits of ones labor has to be taken by the threat of force or actual force and you end up with communism a tyrannical police state which there are no individuals just the collective and everything is done under charade of bettering the collective at the expense of the individual


and as a foot note more then 140 million have been mass murdered under communism over 7 times more then was murdered under fascist rule
Communism/Marxism is the most deadly political and economic ideology that ever graced this earth

Marx & Engels the forebearers of Communusm were idiots.

Adam Smith & Hume the founders of Capitalism were apathetic.

It's not one or the other.
Neither are right.

As for Commies, yes they killed a lot more than Fascists
As
Did the Capitalists particularly British Capitalists in the British Empire & USA Imperialists have killed 10's of millions if not 100 + million.

no what you are claiming were mass murdered had not a dam thing to do with capitalist doctrine

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

don't give up your day job

great debating skills

great and utter idiocy-----Marx wrote about an economic theory------"Marxism" is the name of a few million INTERPRETATIONS of the writings of a theoretical
utopian economist. During the time of Marx----there were MANY MANY such
writings-------persons who got educated in the USA ---SHOULD know. Your
statement is banal and shallow minded-------you said NOTHING. Books on the theory of CAPITALISM can be critiqued using the same shallow words you have
employed

Marx believed that people would voluntary give up their labor and fruits of their labor to the collective for the betterment of the collective and only keep or take just what they need and eventually you wouldn't have a need for government
Thats a fantasy an unworkable fantasy because it goes against basic human nature

so for Marxism to work in reality labor and fruits of ones labor has to be taken by the threat of force or actual force and you end up with communism a tyrannical police state which there are no individuals just the collective and everything is done under charade of bettering the collective at the expense of the individual


and as a foot note more then 140 million have been mass murdered under communism over 7 times more then was murdered under fascist rule
Communism/Marxism is the most deadly political and economic ideology that ever graced this earth

Marx & Engels the forebearers of Communusm were idiots.

Adam Smith & Hume the founders of Capitalism were apathetic.

It's not one or the other.
Neither are right.

As for Commies, yes they killed a lot more than Fascists
As
Did the Capitalists particularly British Capitalists in the British Empire & USA Imperialists have killed 10's of millions if not 100 + million.

no what you are claiming were mass murdered had not a dam thing to do with capitalist doctrine

A lot of genocide is greed driven.
Greed is entwined with Capitalist doctrine & clearly greed is spoken against in the Christian faith.

 

[Care4all]

People come to Jesus in "nations" (earthly groups) but they leave the Judgment Throne in only two groups: Sheeps and Goats--believers and unbelievers.

On that I have to disagree.... He specifically did not separate them by who believed in Him and who did not... That was NOT Jesus's lesson in this Scripture?

If you noticed, BOTH GROUPS called him LORD? Both of those groups knew Jesus as Lord, both of those groups asked of Jesus, "but when did we do this for/to you?" And He said, basically, however you treated those that He mentioned, (the sick, poor, stranger, imprisoned) you treated Him...???

Sweet Sue is right, I think. Only believers inherit the kingdom of God. Calling someone "lord" matters not a whit to people who could care less about that someone, unless they think that doing so might reward them somehow.

I can see that point of view, based on other readings of Scripture regarding who is saved, and how some churches have interpreted such over the centuries of Christianity.

But they did not just call Him Lord, they knew Him in the sense that they are asking Christ basically, ''...when in the world did we deny you food to eat or water to drink etc...?'' It gave a sense in the passage reading, that they knew him more than just at that moment of the Hour of Judgement.

Also, not one single peep from Jesus, on Judgement Day, to all the people in all the Nations of the world itself that He is judging, about whether whom ever so 'Believeth in Him'' or not....? Why Not? IF that is one of the most important parts of Christianity... again, why not mention it or even hint of it, at the Last Judgement?

I just think, there is much more to this Scripture, than we understand on the surface, if we contemplate on it, in depth... piece by piece of what is going on in this scene of the last judgement of Christ...

 

[Care4all]

People come to Jesus in "nations" (earthly groups) but they leave the Judgment Throne in only two groups: Sheeps and Goats--believers and unbelievers.

On that I have to disagree.... He specifically did not separate them by who believed in Him and who did not... That was NOT Jesus's lesson in this Scripture?

If you noticed, BOTH GROUPS called him LORD? Both of those groups knew Jesus as Lord, both of those groups asked of Jesus, "but when did we do this for/to you?" And He said, basically, however you treated those that He mentioned, (the sick, poor, stranger, imprisoned) you treated Him...???

Those on the right have already been pre-ordained to believe. They do the good works BECAUSE they were pre-ordained to do them. Read on:

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on his glorious throne. Before Him will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And He will place the sheep on His right, but the goats on His left. Then the King will say to those on His right: Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...."--Matthew 25:31-34

ok, now we are getting more in depth... TY

it could be pre-destined...

coupled with,

Faith... without works, is dead.

my question is,

Is scripture's ''Faith... without works, is dead'' message suppose to stop before the line of us self governing our own Nations?

We can be good and kind to the starving, thirsty, sick, stranger and imprisoned ONLY on our individual time and not as a society governed by ourselves?

Why not, believe in both?

Did Jesus say anywhere it was a sin, to support both? To be one of His followers in every breath one takes?

 

[SweetSue92]

People come to Jesus in "nations" (earthly groups) but they leave the Judgment Throne in only two groups: Sheeps and Goats--believers and unbelievers.

On that I have to disagree.... He specifically did not separate them by who believed in Him and who did not... That was NOT Jesus's lesson in this Scripture?

If you noticed, BOTH GROUPS called him LORD? Both of those groups knew Jesus as Lord, both of those groups asked of Jesus, "but when did we do this for/to you?" And He said, basically, however you treated those that He mentioned, (the sick, poor, stranger, imprisoned) you treated Him...???

Sweet Sue is right, I think. Only believers inherit the kingdom of God. Calling someone "lord" matters not a whit to people who could care less about that someone, unless they think that doing so might reward them somehow.

I can see that point of view, based on other readings of Scripture regarding who is saved, and how some churches have interpreted such over the centuries of Christianity.

But they did not just call Him Lord, they knew Him in the sense that they are asking Christ basically, ''...when in the world did we deny you food to eat or water to drink etc...?'' It gave a sense in the passage reading, that they knew him more than just at that moment of the Hour of Judgement.

Also, not one single peep from Jesus, on Judgement Day, to all the people in all the Nations of the world itself that He is judging, about whether whom ever so 'Believeth in Him'' or not....? Why Not? IF that is one of the most important parts of Christianity... again, why not mention it or even hint of it, at the Last Judgement?

I just think, there is much more to this Scripture, than we understand on the surface, if we contemplate on it, in depth... piece by piece of what is going on in this scene of the last judgement of Christ...

You can never take the Bible just in one quotation; you must take it in its entirety. So here we have immediately "sheep separated from goats". What are the goats going to say? Imagine it: Lord, we knew you! Everyone will say this. Right? My grandma is a Christian! I went to church on Easter! I gave to the Salvation Army! Or whatever. In this passage Jesus is saying, Did you put your money where your mouth is? Remember the Bible says His disciples will, yes, talk the talk and walk the walk--BOTH--because His presence in their lives is priority number one. "Pick up your cross and follow me" (Daily in Luke 9:23)

But if you look at the Judgment scene in Luke--this is again Jesus teaching--you see the "Narrow Gate" teaching. Here Jesus says you called me "Lord, Lord" but I did not KNOW you. This passage is in Luke 13.

So again, you have to take the totality of the Gospels together, not just one little ripped out passage.

 

[SweetSue92]

People come to Jesus in "nations" (earthly groups) but they leave the Judgment Throne in only two groups: Sheeps and Goats--believers and unbelievers.

On that I have to disagree.... He specifically did not separate them by who believed in Him and who did not... That was NOT Jesus's lesson in this Scripture?

If you noticed, BOTH GROUPS called him LORD? Both of those groups knew Jesus as Lord, both of those groups asked of Jesus, "but when did we do this for/to you?" And He said, basically, however you treated those that He mentioned, (the sick, poor, stranger, imprisoned) you treated Him...???

Those on the right have already been pre-ordained to believe. They do the good works BECAUSE they were pre-ordained to do them. Read on:

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on his glorious throne. Before Him will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And He will place the sheep on His right, but the goats on His left. Then the King will say to those on His right: Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...."--Matthew 25:31-34

ok, now we are getting more in depth... TY

it could be pre-destined...

coupled with,

Faith... without works, is dead.

my question is,

Is scripture's ''Faith... without works, is dead'' message suppose to stop before the line of us self governing our own Nations?

We can be good and kind to the starving, thirsty, sick, stranger and imprisoned ONLY on our individual time and not as a society governed by ourselves?

Why not, believe in both?

Did Jesus say anywhere it was a sin, to support both? To be one of His followers in every breath one takes?

If Jesus/your faith is not top priority in your life, you're not a Christian. That's true. I used to be a "cultural" Christian and now, for about....more than 15 years now, have been a regenerate (born again) Christian. I cannot explain the difference. Do not mistake me, though. I have crap days. Like Paul, I do things I do not want to do (that is easy) and don't do the things I should (cause it's easy to be lazy). If I am in any way a "better person" because of Christ. It's all Him. It ain't me.

On to the main topic:

There is no problem with setting up gov't institutions to help the sick, poor and lonely. Jesus never spoke against it. This is a shrug from me.

The problem comes when unbelievers insist that this is the Christian thing to do--and you are not Christian if you don't think Jesus would want to mete out charity by gov't. People who do this almost always revere government and not Jesus Christ. They are actually USING Jesus to forward their true idol--Government.

That's for starters.

For enders, as charities go, our massive and far-flung federal government is just not the best. It's top heavy and given to corruption. For Christians it's not the best because it separates worker and receiver. We are supposed to be in there, working in the mission field. Not just sending a check and "meh, I"m done"

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

No, because unlike the bible's account of Jesus, socialists themselves live extremely wealthy, pampered lives. What socialists want is for everyone else in society to be equally poverty-stricken while these socialists themselves live it up large. Socialism is the sneakiest scam among greedy, money-hording pigs ever invented.

To Republicans there's just Capitalism, and Communism, no middle ground.
Talk about ignorance.
The middle ground is where people are in less poverty, duh.

 

[norwegen]

People come to Jesus in "nations" (earthly groups) but they leave the Judgment Throne in only two groups: Sheeps and Goats--believers and unbelievers.

On that I have to disagree.... He specifically did not separate them by who believed in Him and who did not... That was NOT Jesus's lesson in this Scripture?

If you noticed, BOTH GROUPS called him LORD? Both of those groups knew Jesus as Lord, both of those groups asked of Jesus, "but when did we do this for/to you?" And He said, basically, however you treated those that He mentioned, (the sick, poor, stranger, imprisoned) you treated Him...???

Sweet Sue is right, I think. Only believers inherit the kingdom of God. Calling someone "lord" matters not a whit to people who could care less about that someone, unless they think that doing so might reward them somehow.

I can see that point of view, based on other readings of Scripture regarding who is saved, and how some churches have interpreted such over the centuries of Christianity.

But they did not just call Him Lord, they knew Him in the sense that they are asking Christ basically, ''...when in the world did we deny you food to eat or water to drink etc...?'' It gave a sense in the passage reading, that they knew him more than just at that moment of the Hour of Judgement.

Also, not one single peep from Jesus, on Judgement Day, to all the people in all the Nations of the world itself that He is judging, about whether whom ever so 'Believeth in Him'' or not....? Why Not? IF that is one of the most important parts of Christianity... again, why not mention it or even hint of it, at the Last Judgement?

I just think, there is much more to this Scripture, than we understand on the surface, if we contemplate on it, in depth... piece by piece of what is going on in this scene of the last judgement of Christ...

Jesus spoke of the judgment day. Thoroughly.

He said the temple would be destroyed; it was. He said armies would surround Jerusalem; they did. He warned believers to flee to the wilderness; they did, for the 3 ½ years of the First Revolt. Etc.

Everything he said in the Olivet Discourse that would happen did happen. The apocalypse confirms it. What more would he have said?

 

[lennypartiv]

Jesus was as conservative as one can get.

He was clearly not a socialist.

 

[Zorro!]

THEY KEEP TRYING TO TELL US THAT JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST, EVEN AS THE REAL SOCIALISTS ARE CLOSING CHURCHES AND REWRITING SCRIPTURE: In China, they’re closing churches, jailing pastors – and even rewriting scripture.

 

[alang1216]

THEY KEEP TRYING TO TELL US THAT JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST, EVEN AS THE REAL SOCIALISTS ARE CLOSING CHURCHES AND REWRITING SCRIPTURE: In China, they’re closing churches, jailing pastors – and even rewriting scripture.

Jesus was a rebelleous Jew. Paul was the socialist.

 

[Zorro!]

THEY KEEP TRYING TO TELL US THAT JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST, EVEN AS THE REAL SOCIALISTS ARE CLOSING CHURCHES AND REWRITING SCRIPTURE: In China, they’re closing churches, jailing pastors – and even rewriting scripture.

Jesus was a rebelleous Jew. Paul was the socialist.

No he wasn't.

 

[initforme]

Jesus was neither a socialists nor a greedy corporatist. You guys love to twist the Bible. Jesus number one teaching is helping the least among us. That was him in a nutshell. He was also about working. I do not think he would be a Democrat nor republican of today. This much I'll bet everything on.

 

[Zorro!]

Jesus certainly wasn't a Socialist.

DEKULAKIZATION: On this day in 1929, Joseph Stalin announced the “liquidation of the kulaks as a class.”

Who were the kulaks? They were “rich peasants” (a bit of a contradiction in terms). Kulaks were peasants who had a little more land than their neighbors … or maybe a couple more cows … or maybe they just weren’t as keen on collectivization as their neighbors.

Soviet leaders called them bloodsuckers and hyenas. (Here in America we might have called them yeoman farmers.)

Dekulakization meant that they would be killed or their property would be seized and they would be sent to prisons or labor camps in Siberia or elsewhere. Some were resettled on inferior land. Robert Conquest, who was pretty meticulous about these things, wrote that as many as five million may have died between 1929 and 1933.

 

[evenflow1969]

Yes, I have seen the left wing losers claim that. I am sure you have too.

Here is a question for you and your knowlege of religion. What governemnt executed jesus?

 

[B. Kidd]

THEY KEEP TRYING TO TELL US THAT JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST, EVEN AS THE REAL SOCIALISTS ARE CLOSING CHURCHES AND REWRITING SCRIPTURE: In China, they’re closing churches, jailing pastors – and even rewriting scripture.

No surprise.

Big Gov't is God to Commies (and today's Democrats)!

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, I'm sure no expert on the Bible (I leave that to Trump and our USMB Trumpsters, of course), but something tells me he'd be repulsed by our politics, and in particular the behaviors of our wingers.

As I understand it, he wasn't big on lying, hypocrisy, distortion and general bullshit. But that's just what I've heard.


.

 

[Theowl32]

Yes, I have seen the left wing losers claim that. I am sure you have too.

Here is a question for you and your knowlege of religion. What governemnt executed jesus?

My sin (our sin) crucifies Christ. Period.

 

[evenflow1969]

Yes, I have seen the left wing losers claim that. I am sure you have too.

Here is a question for you and your knowlege of religion. What governemnt executed jesus?

My sin (our sin) crucifies Christ. Period.

So you do not know, yet start this thread what a laugh. Answer the question dumb fuck. What governemnt killed jesus? Answer or let it be known by all you do not know your ass from the grand canyon!

 

[Zorro!]

Yeah, I'm sure no expert on the Bible (I leave that to Trump and our USMB Trumpsters, of course), but something tells me he'd be repulsed by our politics, and in particular the behaviors of our wingers.

As I understand it, he wasn't big on lying, hypocrisy, distortion and general bullshit. But that's just what I've heard.


.

I'm sure he isn't a fan of PP running baby part chop shops