Was Christ a communist?

I am not afraid of any bashing, but with a self-proclaimed provactive question, backed up by purposeful provocation, the question of the thread loses some of its integrity. IMO the question has been answered. Here is your version of the answer. Communism is an ideal. If there is anything true or good about Jesus. there will be possibly many over-laps in world ideals and His teachings.But technically, Christ is an ideal, and communism is an attempt at a workable system based on some of what Christ has said. Having one or more things in common doesn't make Christ communist, or communism christain. It only makes them two ideals with some things in common.Perhaps the OP should have asked if Jesus would have approved of communism. I am sure that in its pure sense He would not disapprove. But brenna has a point. I don't think that Jesus was concerned with the over-all system as much as the person. You said a version of this also. If His ideas caught in a big way, I am sure things would work out, and maybe similar to the monastic life-style. Monasticism has not been tried on a large scale, and essentially it gets into the rich/poor thing anyway. The superiors eventually are seen as the prestigious, there is an unequal distribution of 'wealth' and power, and the positions of authority are often abused. Relative to the lowest nun, the superior has 'more'. They have freedom to decide what to do with the money. They lead, they promote, they control. Someone must. Leadership and its benefits will never be abolished even in the monastic lifestyle. Only the individual can truly uphold the ideal. As long as there are leaders, there will be followers. If a person is a leader, they must also give, not always money, but time and advice. Compassion, all of that. I don't think that Jesus predicted a failure of Christianity. He knew there would always be room for more giving.

It says it is harder, not impossible.It is important to note.Riches do not keep a person from heaven. I can't say anyone actively believes this. There have been canonized saints who were kings and queens.What Jesus is talking about, is the mindset which can come with riches. Corruption, plain and simple. We don't have to think too hard to find examples of corruption in high places. You may take the passage as a warning against being rich, or as a warning about attachment to riches, which is what Ringo is saying. The Jews did not believe they would take possessions with them as did some cultures, as far as I know. They also did not have our current concept of heaven. But the point is, an attachment to riches will make you forget about everything except your own power. That may be true, but altogether capitalism is not anti-christian, nor is communism, and it is not the economic system that Christ was concerned about. So imagine the whole world became Christian. You cannot possibly say it would therefore become communist. If everyone was giving and giving cumpulsively, it would just be chaotic. Somewhere an organized system would have to result. You can see that there might be some communists. But I am suspiscious that those who call themselves Christian communists aren't thinking about the same passages we are at all. They are emphasizing equality of members under Jesus' rule. They wish to do away eventually with heirarchy, and much of that is based on end time prophecies if I am thinking rightly. Christian communism and Christian communal monasticism differ in their ideas about leadership, not so much economics. As I see it, any group with a heirarchical type of leadership has the same pitfalls as a capitalist society where gain is for one and not all. The RCC has a leader, and the supposed wealth of the Pope is one of the things which other christians despise. But, obviously, the RCC sees itself as completely in line with the teachings of Christ.We see good popes, and we see corrupted popes, and I still believe that following the Bible is not about a social system. I believe you are correct that the different sects will have different supported positions. But they are all based on what WE think Jesus would like as a society. Jesus advocated a personal code, not a political one. If you get too uptight about it, you might conclude that 'selling what you have any following' does not apply to beggars. Therefore, beggars can't be Christians, the rich don't get to heaven, and the message of Jesus was only for the middle classes.The point is, we all have riches, even in a perfectly eqaul society we will all have the sick and the imprisoned, the lonely, the 'poor' of many descriptions. The systems of God don't begin or end with actual money. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Are conservatives Christian, or are Christians conservative? Again, are you putting the cart before the horse?It is nice that you are getting all philosophical, but no one is trying to change Jesus, they are trying to imitate Him. This includes non-religious idealisms, because as I said, ideals can have some things in common.All in all, it is as everyone says. Jesus is republican and democrat and capitalist and socialist, and more. But what sense would it make if I asked you whether Jesus was a monk?

I have heard somewhere that the 'eye of a needle' is a reference to one of the low-arched doorways that you see in Jerusalem and surrounds. Ever heard of this? If that is true, it makes the passage a bit more literal.

When people set up a topic like this the case seems over before it starts. Premise, conclusion, game over. But the more I keep looking at this passage, and excuse me if you have said the same, there is nothing about financial equality in there. Jesus is saying we all have different abilities. He is saying that the beggars and the wealthy alike should give according to their abilites, not that we should all have the same abilities, not that the result of our giving will somehow strike a balance between classes. The point is that our responsiblity to each other is the same.P.S Wasn't this from Paul?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I think the point flew over you. Christianity is not particularly conservative. It was founded by somewhat of a radical. Christianity became conservative after years of equating certain behaviours with it. In other words, conservative is our term and mean nothing. It is entirely subjective. I don't get that. Well, we do believe He is God and we aren't, so how do you expect us to be all one way if we all have limits? No, I am trying to be more than all of these things. They are our terms and have nothing to do with the real Jesus. Good, so Jesus was not a monk, even though moasticism flows right along with His teachings. He was also not a communist. Did He live in a socialist state? The most you can do, like I said, is ask if He was advocating communism, not if He was communist. And honestly, no one believes that Jesus was advocating monasticism; we call it a vocation, not a maxim. We can be whatever we want and still follow Christ.

I mentioned it. I said poverty goes beyond finances, and extends to sickness, lonliness, imprisonment, all of the classics.

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.

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.

I thought of that myself, and I hate abbreviating, but when you post about religion, religion, religion...Anyway, yes, I agree with you, and the thread seems to have gone berzerk since I last checked.On a side note, I watched a rerun of a Fatima documentary today, and JPII and the RCC were the sworn enemies of the Communist Party in Russia, obviously. I'm not really going anywhere with this, but, eh, I thought of you all.

You have two main definitions for communism. One is pertaining to the political party, the other to a communal life-style. What is the difference between this commune, and a family? Or a tribe? Basically, there is no difference between a monastery, a commune, a family, there is only the matter of blood relation.We all have communes of some kind or another; groups united by more than blood. We have communities of faith, car pools, teams, and companies. All groups benefit from sharing, from essentially 'giving up' you self identity and working together. I think that Christ wanted everyone to live in this type of harmony, and primarily to see the world as family, not just those in one class or race.This is a useful goal, and if you want Jesus to be communist, or communal, no problem. He pointed out the need for share and share alike, and if a certain political party or otherwise wishes to try to implement this on a large scale, good luck to them.