6
6
0
I have two thoughts connected with this video. First, however, allow me a moment to dismiss our friends, such as Capt Gregory Prickett who will want to jump all over this because it is both from PragerU and a religious topic. It is not intended for you. I am speaking to those who use the epithet "What would Jesus do?" (I can't imagine any atheist or anti-theist considering that question) Well, he wouldn't be socialist according to this presenter (and he offers ample biblical evidence to support his claim). Secondly, socialism seems to be a Jewish construct (which seems counterintuitive since Jesus himself was a Jew). I have written on this perplexing question in my own weblog ( https://jackdurish.com/jacks-blog/socialism )
Was Jesus a Socialist?
Posted from prageru.comPosted in these groups: 
Socialism
Socialism
Edited 5 y ago
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 4
7
7
0
And CPT Jack Durish is right, I will jump all over this, both because it is from PragerU and a religious topic.
First, Reed's definition of socialism is wrong, and once he establishes that as his definition, it becomes easy for him to quote-mine Bible passages and to cherry-pick the issues. Second, he ignores the fact that many of the early churches, as described in Acts 2:44–45; 4:32, 34–35. Third, Reed is not a theologian, he an economist who belongs to the Austrian/Mises school of economics.
What Reed has done here is what many on the religious right do--he came to the conclusion that he wanted, and then looked for stuff to support it. That's why he came up with a BS definition (the actual definition of socialism is: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.) And the definition he came up with doesn't come close to the standard definition of socialism.
First, Reed's definition of socialism is wrong, and once he establishes that as his definition, it becomes easy for him to quote-mine Bible passages and to cherry-pick the issues. Second, he ignores the fact that many of the early churches, as described in Acts 2:44–45; 4:32, 34–35. Third, Reed is not a theologian, he an economist who belongs to the Austrian/Mises school of economics.
What Reed has done here is what many on the religious right do--he came to the conclusion that he wanted, and then looked for stuff to support it. That's why he came up with a BS definition (the actual definition of socialism is: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.) And the definition he came up with doesn't come close to the standard definition of socialism.
(7)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - socialism is not solely a form of government. It's also an economic theory, and there have been Christian socialists since the first days of the Church.
The actual reason that schisms happen is that your god, if he is real, didn't have enough sense to make his doctrine clear to the people that he wants to follow it.
As for non-canonical writings? Sure, when it was written by St. Clement of Rome. I could have just as easily cited Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cypian, or Augustine.
The actual reason that schisms happen is that your god, if he is real, didn't have enough sense to make his doctrine clear to the people that he wants to follow it.
As for non-canonical writings? Sure, when it was written by St. Clement of Rome. I could have just as easily cited Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cypian, or Augustine.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - OK, you spoke of magisterial authority, which is a heretical teaching of the Roman church, and used primarily when the Roman church was also part of the government. And you are correct, the Orthodox Churches outlined in Acts were not part of the government. It was still a socialist system.
(2)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - As I said at the outset, there is no universally accepted definition of socialism. Mine includes some implied level of force/coercion.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Why are #Jews drawn to #socialism?
The political compass of most Jews seems drawn to the Left as if it was the North Pole of ideology. Repeated failures of socialism throughout history does not seem to deter the children of Abraham...
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT,
For Christians, Jesus is the Word made flesh. That part of G-d the Father that creates. They are one and the same. G-d had to come into a human body, live a perfect life and be murdered as a scrifice for human sin. Because, breaking G-d's laws require a price. Good works do not get you a pass.
Therefore, G-d has stated man shall work for his bread. But not everyone can work and the Tower of Babel was destroyed, language was confused. So, man would have to populate the world as per the order. Countries?
Socialism, where the State is a god and the individual exists for the sake of the group. This is not G-d given rights to the individual. This reduses man to a cog in a wheel.
G-d is a Spirit. The only way to undertand G-d is spiritually. Even then, it is a learning curve. Human wisdom is foolishness to G-d the Father maker of Heaven and earth.
Jesus was not a socialist. He did not state humans should clash over meterial goods. He did not state they should be a thief. Socialists are thieves and take away what is not theirs. Christ is quite the opposite.
Thank you for asking Sir.
For Christians, Jesus is the Word made flesh. That part of G-d the Father that creates. They are one and the same. G-d had to come into a human body, live a perfect life and be murdered as a scrifice for human sin. Because, breaking G-d's laws require a price. Good works do not get you a pass.
Therefore, G-d has stated man shall work for his bread. But not everyone can work and the Tower of Babel was destroyed, language was confused. So, man would have to populate the world as per the order. Countries?
Socialism, where the State is a god and the individual exists for the sake of the group. This is not G-d given rights to the individual. This reduses man to a cog in a wheel.
G-d is a Spirit. The only way to undertand G-d is spiritually. Even then, it is a learning curve. Human wisdom is foolishness to G-d the Father maker of Heaven and earth.
Jesus was not a socialist. He did not state humans should clash over meterial goods. He did not state they should be a thief. Socialists are thieves and take away what is not theirs. Christ is quite the opposite.
Thank you for asking Sir.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
Capt Gregory Prickett - "Further, how could an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe result in beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Only mind can create mind. Non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists."
I suspect, anything I post will not help you. So, I wish you good fortune in your life.
I suspect, anything I post will not help you. So, I wish you good fortune in your life.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Mark A. Morris - No, that's not the only logical and reasonable conclusion. How did you rule out universe creating pixies? And what created the creator?
(2)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
Pixies? LOL.
Like fairies? I do not know. But it is my understanding, G-d created us and the universe. Someday, I will try to remember to ask G-d that question.
Like fairies? I do not know. But it is my understanding, G-d created us and the universe. Someday, I will try to remember to ask G-d that question.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google