Because South Carolina’s higher education system needs more excuses to spend taxpayer money, a forum is being held on the campus of Clemson University this week that seeks to answer the question “Was Jesus A Socialist?”
Debating this premise will be Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, and Ron Snider, a professor of theology at the Palmer Theological Seminary.
South Carolina’s social conservatives are ready to stack the crowd in favor of the Godly.
“Let’s pack Clemson out with Palmetto Family folks and cheer on faith and free enterprise!” Palmetto Family Council president Oran Smith wrote in an email to supporters.
So … what’s the answer?
Well, those who claim Jesus was a socialist frequently cite his exhortation to a rich man to “go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”
But this was a voluntary divesture – which we know because the rich man declined to follow Jesus’ advice.
In fact the whole thing was a test of the man’s ability to break with what mattered most to him – his wealth. A test he failed.
And while Christianity is rooted in contempt for materialism, that by no means implies that its namesake was a socialist. Just the opposite is true, actually.
Jesus frequently spoke out in favor of paying workers the wages they were due, and in one famous story – the parable of the talents – he spoke of a master chiding his servant for producing no return on an investment.
“You ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest,” the master said.
Yeah … that sounds like a real socialist to us.
Oh well …
The biggest irony of this totally pointless taxpayer-funded debate? It’s being sponsored by a so-called “Institute for the Study of Capitalism.” At a government-run school.
Sheesh …
What do you think? Vote in our poll and post your thoughts in our comments section below.
68 comments
The parable of the talents is just about all you can point to, and you are missing the point if you think that vindicates capitalism. Even his fair wage comments are at odds with pure capitalism. I don’t know if he was a socialist. But i am certain he wasn’t a free market capitalist.
RHood2 is on point, the parable of the golden talents was essentially to say to whom much if given, much is asked. Not about investment capital or ROI exactly Folks.
Also, the story of the wages was about the fact that getting what you are promised is a fair bargain (e.g. the kindgom of heaven for worshipping since boyhood, or mid life, or even just being saved at the end of life).
I think it is ludicrous and pointless to try and come up with Jesus’ political, economic or social philosophies – and doing so is about as important to understanding his teachings as discerning John Maynard Keyens favorite chess tactics to understanding Keysian economics. Jesus probably had a religious philosophy…now if there were just some book we could go to lean about it and study it if we so chose…where would you find something like that….?
“Jesus probably had a religious philosophy…now if there were just some book we could go to lean about it and study it if we so chose…where would you find something like that.”
The DSM-5, under the entry for “Schizoaffective”?
If you think the “Parable of the Talents” is the only “…text you can point to…” in the Bible about money, the use of money, the pursuit and accumulation of money or a man’s relationship with others in regards to money you might ought ot try attending an adult Sunday school class at just about any church iin Columbia where the Bible is still taught. Money may be the single most discussed topic in the Bible.
Jesus was a Voluntaryist more than anything else.
He might have been considered a anarcho-syndicalist by some.
One thing we should all be able to agree on, is that he continued the old Testament concept behind “Thou shall not steal” and was certainly a proponent of the non-aggression principle.(maybe you could argue otherwise on the money lender scenario, although he would have claimed ownership rights to the temple and justified the overturning of their tables probably…lol)
It’s plain and simple. Don’t steal, don’t cause harm, etc.
Being a former Catholic myself, the whole “social justice” thing that many Catholics and the new Pope seem to be embracing freaks me out.
This is an old rehash of a familiar argument that I have seen debated on the web for about 10 years now. It appears to be a favorite topic among Libertarians, most of whom are probably atheists or agnostics.
I have way too much to say about this to post it here. Instead, let me offer you a piece I wrote about this subject in a blog posting titled “Rethinking Scrooge: Was Tiny Tim the Real Villain?”
http://2big2fall.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/rethinking-scrooge-was-tiny-tim-the-real-villain/
you mean our own Tiny Tim Scott? we do know he loves to put the Scrooge to the voters like all good Republicans
For someone that comes here to tell us how bad Will is, especially for taking money from Howard Rich to keep his blog afloat and earn an income, and then post a link to his blog- Well that’s a special kind of hypocrite.
If I could give you some kind of prize or crown you king of hypocrites I would.
Maybe you can spend some of your precious time making us a photoshop pic of you sporting a crown labeled “Hypocrite” so we get something for our taxpayer dollars in return for once.
Whodafukru? I post a link to my free blog and you call me a hypocrite for doing so? I didn’t start writing to satisfy my economic needs. I did so to satisfy my creative drive.
Oh, I get it! Now you’re going to say why would somebody create something for the simple joy of expressing oneself. Any good right- winger knows you don’t do anything unless you expect to make money. Baloney.
And what the heck are you taking about when you say “we get something for our taxpayer dollars in return for once.”???
Either you are drunk or you are a complete imbecile…or both.
Both.
GG,
At least he knew your “urban nickname”…..
I’m fairly certain that’s yet another of Will’s fake IDs.
You can believe what you want because this is a free country, right?
I believe that if Jesus was a girl her name would be Shejus.
What silliness. Everyone knows that Jesus would be a republican.
Jesus often said that the poor were shiftless moochers who should be left to starve.
Sometimes He said it in phony black dialect, for laffs.
2 Thessalonians 3:9-11
King James Version (KJV)
9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
It’s probably just you doing the “phony black dialect”.
I agree, but the speaker is Paul, not Jesus.
Fair enough.
He definitely never fed five thousand people for free, they would’ve become reliant on Him rather than learning to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
It didn’t cost him anything either though.
He also didn’t take the food from 5000 other people to feed the 5000 in need.
Those 5000 people showed up ill-prepared, though. He’s clearly rewarding bad decisions! Not only that, his disciples promoted allowing the people to purchase from the free market, but he instead gave them free food.
And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
Matthew 14:15
He didn’t take food from 5,000 people, but he took profits from several village merchants and likely others who would have benefited from selling food.
I demand to see Jesus’ long form birth certificate.
“He didn’t take food from 5,000 people, but he took profits from several village merchants and likely others who would have benefited from selling food.”
Can’t make profits on people that have no money, so you are incorrect.
“Those 5000 people showed up ill-prepared, though. He’s clearly rewarding bad decisions!”
He’s Jesus, he forgives everyone for their transgressions. That’s different than rewarding them for slovenliness for example.
Can’t make profits on people that have no money, so you are incorrect.
So, the disciples told Jesus to let them go to the village to buy food knowing they had no money? Where did it say they had no money?
Go read Matthew 14. Jesus explicitly says that they don’t have to leave because he will feed them, not one word about them not having the money to do so themselves.
“So, the disciples told Jesus to let them go to the village to buy food knowing they had no money?”
Possibly, let’s also reflect on this statement:
“Philip replied, “Two hundred silver coins worth of bread would not be enough for them, for each one to get a little.”
So my assumption is that money was an issue, which is why Jesus fed them(aside from the opportunity to teach and heal them while they were there).
He wasn’t rewarding bad decisions, he was tending his sheep – they had stayed to listen to him preach, they weren’t at Burning Man.
…they weren’t at Burning Man.
*Sudden inadvertent beer on keyboard/possible ruptured spleen. *
Mad props, Sir. Mad props.
“Sometimes He said it in phonyPalestinian/Arab dialect, for laffs.”
Fixed it fer ya!
Whatever happened to praising the good Samaritan? Not serving two masters? The Prodigal Son? The fact that Jesus praised the poor person giving a tiny amount despite it being far more significant than a bunch of rich people showing off their wealth? Camel through the eye of a needle? Lazarus and the rich man? The fact that he told people to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?
I’m pretty sure Jesus would greatly approve of society choosing to create social programs that care for the sick, the old, the poor, the weak, and the downtrodden, and it is pretty evident that Jesus said people should willingly help their fellow man. I don’t think that wanting various social programs destroyed works toward that goal, quite the opposite actually.
I can’t see Jesus justifying theft to help the poor and downtrodden myself. I can see him asking others to do so voluntarily, not forcibly though.
I would argue that when Jesus remarked whose visage was on the currency and said to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” he pretty much was accepting that you should pay your taxes. I don’t think he was saying so much that paying your taxes is awesome and you should want to do it, but that you should obey the law and pay to the government what you owe.
The tax wasn’t popular among the Jews, and people were amazed Jesus said you should pay it. The Roman government wasn’t exactly overly kind or philanthropic to the Jews. If Jesus told the Jews to pay their taxes even though the Roman government wasn’t exactly great, I’m sure Jesus would tell us to pay our taxes when some of that go towards helping the needy. I think that would fit into the whole “love others as you love yourself” thing too.
Yea, I don’t know…mind you I’m coming for an agnostic angle but I’m always fascinated by the whole debate about Jesus, government, socialism, etc. because a lot of “believers” justify theft(and sometimes killing) with the Bible.
Now all that being said, let us remember that a couple of things about the situation you just referenced:
Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
I don’t think this is any “ringing endorsement” for paying taxes, quite the opposite really.
Here’s another tax situation though(temple):
“What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”
“From others,” Peter answered.
“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
So not only did he not pay the tax, he conjured it out of thin are AND PAID PETERS.
I’m pretty sure Jesus would greatly approve of society choosing to create social programs that care for the sick, the old, the poor, the weak, and the downtrodden, and it is pretty evident that Jesus said people should willingly help their fellow man.
Like…um churches and charities.
Spot on.
The Colonel, Ron Paul and TBG in lockstep again.
*smiles*
Ol’Ronbo’s a Southern Baptist as well.
We break cadence there…but RP was raised Lutheran, as was TBG.
It is a fool’s errand to attempt to ascribe a political ideology to Jesus. The New Testament is about the Kingdom of Heaven, not a political tract on how to recreate it here on Earth.
Others have responded to the taxes point, but I think the camel gets misconstrued a fair bit as well. It is a lesson in where salvation lies. It is an implication to seek God’s grace, not to think you can achieve salvation through one’s own acts. Thus it is not only a stretch to try to base economic policy off it, it gets the point backwards by focusing on acts (i.e. giving away wealth).
The arrogant rich man brags about his fidelity to the commandments and asks Jesus what else could be required of him. The rich man is asking what acts are required (“what good thing must I do…”). Jesus’ response was “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The word perfect there is important. No one was perfect, or without sin, besides Christ. Jesus was mocking the young man’s smugness. He knew the man’s heart and that his greed and vanity would never allow him to do as Jesus demanded.
But Jesus’ response to the rich man and his statement about the camel and the needle certainly grabs the disciples’ attention. They ask, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus’ response was not to say “never gain wealth and give everything you acquire away so that you may be perfect.” His answer gets to the whole point of the episode:“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” The point is that nothing the rich man could physically do (other than achieve the impossible – perfection under the law) could bring him salvation. Only surrendering himself to God could achieve that.
In fact Smirks, you are correct – the church was supposed to take care of its widows and orphans and did so well into the 1800s – since those times “gubamint” has usurped that responsibility. James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Who has the WWJD bracelet concession at that debate?
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With
great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them,brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it
was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 4:32-37
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Notice that no one came to the owners and said, “Sell your property so we can feed people.”?
Or even further, said “You will sell your property so we can feed people, or we will take it.”?
“No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.”
Know what that means? That means people had stuff, but they VOLUNTARILY let other people have it.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
That’s Karl Marx/Louis Blanc, not Jesus. Let us not falsely equivocate.
If you want to live in a commune with others willingly wanting the same thing I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is you taking my shit and calling is Christianity, Jesus like, or any other bullshit. That’s called “theft”.
1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?4 Didn’t it belong to you
before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing?
You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church
and all who heard about these events.
Acts 5:1-11
Doesn’t sound voluntary to me, but you’re the scholar
So did god kill them?
Doesn’t seem clear to me. Let’s for a moment say he did though, which would be in CLEAR VIOLATION of his “rainbow treaty”.
Did he kill them because they withheld the money or as the verse says “lied to the Holy Spirit”?
I’m going to go with the verse, as a “scholar” since you deemed me as such.
What if instead, they simply said “We made this and are giving you this much”? What if, what if.
Romans 16:23 Gaius, whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings.Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings….”
Erastus was a known entity in Rome – a very wealthy known entity. In fact, archeologist have uncovered a road dating to the appropriate period and inscribed as having been paid for by Erastus. He supported Paul’s mission. There were many wealthy folks who did this. Some of the early church members deciding to band together in “communes” is simply a reflection of the economic reality of the times – and an admonition to work cooperatively. There were just as many “Erastuses” out there as there were communites
Where’s the option for who gives a fuck?
You can up vote me for that option.
AAAACK!
TBG thought he smelled oregano.
Pastafarians!
One thing is for sure, Jesus never would have said, if you like your plan you can keep it, period. That alone tells me Jesus was not a socialist.
Who does Jesus have in the 5th at Belmont since you are in speaking for him?
I’m not speaking for anyone, this is an opinion page is it not. As far as the 5th at Belmont, don’t bet on Obamacare, can’t get out of the starting gate.
“One thing is for sure, Jesus never . . . ” – – – Sure sounds like you’re speaking for him to me. And by the way, do you EVER, EVER have anything to post except something about President Obama or Obamacare. Obviously your OBS is off the charts, my friend.
12And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13And He said to them, “It is written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER’; but you are making it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”…
Jesus was trying to destroy free markets, calling job creaters robbers
He was pissed because they were doing business in his “house”, without permission.
“His” also indicates property rights, a staple of the free market.
Jesus was a liberal.
Socialism? Why would the Lord and Savior of Mankind preach a pathetic, failed economic system?
Methinks the citizens of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany would be willing to tell you why…providing, of course, that you were willing to listen.
Yes, you are an ass.
Can’t answer my comment regarding socialism in the Nordic countries?
Let me get this right. You have claimed in your posts that you are the recipient of the other half of Rush Limbaugh’s brain and then you emulate him by ballooning your own body weight to over 310 pounds…and you are calling me an ass?
Then you accuse me of posting comments that I went to some length to prove to you were made by another poster on this site. You responded by refusing to retract or apologize for your accusations (just like Rush).
I have seen your site. Nothing original there. Just spewing out the garbage that lying fascists like Rush feed you.
Occasionally you post a comment in Russian (? or some other slavic dialect) proving to anyone with a real half-a-brain that you are genuinely stupid in more than one language.
“That’s the best you got?”
Against you, it’s all I need.
It really is pointless. Arguing with idiots is a complete waste of time.
Another of Will’s instant fake IDs.
Another nana nana boo boo response from Lard Man…
All of the above comments clearly reveal that, while most everyone is familiar with what is written in the Bible, people will interpret the Bible from their perspective on the world and how they approach life.
I recall reading somewhere in the New Testament, although I don’t remember exactly where, that Jesus was quoted as saying “Fuck Socialism”.
Uh… Thare wuz no sucha thing as Socialism at dat time, so how could da Good Lord bee a socialist? Its like axin’ if Alexader Hamiltoun was a Republican or a Demicrat? Couldnt bee– thare werent none!
This heer iz pure nonsense! Presentism.
Seeing how socialism didn’t come around till about 2000 years later, I don’t see how he could be considered such. Hell, Jesus wasn’t even christian. Also, he’s not nor was he ever a real person.
Real Socialists drive Yugos, Trabants, Old VWs, and Priuses and such.
Since the Gospel of John informs us that at least two members of the Trinity drove Hondas, TBG believes that means capitalism.
John 8:42: “For I come not of my own Accord, but of my Father’s.”
Jesus was also had a second car….he was a fan of Detroit muscle cars, apparently, as ITBGRC he drove the moneychangers out of the Temple in a Fury.
The question is absurd. For Christians, the statements of Jesus are not political opinions they are simply statements of fact. Jesus said earthly treasure is unimportant and that god’s children should not waste time pursuing it. He made it clear that the pursuit of temporal treasure will put you at risk of being rejected from admission into the Kingdom of God.
When Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. He was saying, “all Ceasar wants is gold, and gold is of no value in the Kingdom of God. Therefore let him have it, and render your soul to God.” As he did later. “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”
Many “Christians” believe that God rewards people on earth with wealth. They fall into the trap of believing that concentrating their efforts on the accumulation of wealth and the teachings of Christ are not at odds. They grasp on to statements about money in the Bible in order to convince themselves that they are among the wealthy people god will usher through the eye of the needle. They somehow believe being rich will not diminish the likelihood of their salvation, even though that is exactly what Christ said. They believe they will somehow be the exception of the to the rule.
Christ said, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” While it is true god can fit a camel through the eye of a needle; one must take from Christ’s words that it is highly unlikely he will do so. i.e. the camel passing through will be a rare exception to the general rule.
I do not believe Christ intended for his followers to take from his words “so there is a way for me to be rich and get into the Kingdom of God.” The lesson he intended was that worldly wealth is unimportant and an obstacle to salvation. You should divest yourself of it for the good of others and concentrate your energy on the salvation of your soul. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
The effect of works on one’s entry into heaven are often much debated among Christians. But I would point out that while works alone cannot get you into heaven, no where in the bible does it say works cannot keep you out of heaven,
“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in; I was naked and you did not clothe Me; I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.
Then they also will answer Him saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.”
Christ did not consider earthly wealth a reward. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required…” To me Christ is clearly saying the wealthy will have many more opportunities to fail in their duties to God than the poor. So unless you are truly prepared to fulfill those duties it is wise to rid yourself of them and concentrate on the salvation of your soul.
I.E. Sitting on the deck of your 2 million dollar beach house when children are starving, is most likely not what God requires of you, and surely not doing much to expand the eye of that needle enough for you to pass through it.