Was Jesus a communist? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Was Jesus a communist?
in Religion

By JGXdebatePROJGXdebatePRO 168 Pts edited March 19
Tanner S writes, “I've always been fascinated by the parallels between the teachings of Jesus Christ and Communism. The allegory of the good Samaritan, loaves and fishes, and the beating of bankers comes to mind, as do the frequent tirades against the rich and powerful. Do you see parallels between Jesus' message and communism?” A famous quote pointing out the ethic challenge us atheists propose to christians; Is Jesus a communist?
Debate away!


ONLY USE BIBLE QUOTES IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!!!

Image result for communist jesus memes
TKDB
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Nah, more of an anarchist or some proto-form of social-democrat than a communist... Jesus didn't care about the "means of production" or governing in general, remember that the world was suppose to end, be destroyed and remade so anything material was irrelevant according to Jesus...  He was probably anti-capitalist though, well not "anti" per se but since capitalism aims at the accumulation of wealth and that Jesus disregarded this futile accumulation well, you can see he was certainly not a capitalist...
    Happy_KillbotAlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "


  • I just love it when Christian nationalists project their own views and morals onto their lord and savior Jesus, instead of actually trying to understand what he was saying. That is the thing about gods though, when their message is so vague, people can say what they will and claim that god told them, when the reality is that they put their own morals into gods words.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIJGXdebatePRO
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 20
    I would say that there is a lot of parallels between Christianity and communism, but Jesus' message was quite different from both. Jesus' basic idea was that everyone is responsible before god, but no one is responsible before other humans - hence he essentially advocated for the "animal kingdom anarchy", but with the caveat that people who did not abide by certain moral standards were going to suffer in the afterlife.

    It is quite different from Christianity and communism, that both advocate for a collectivist structure of the society, where the collective can force its members into certain behaviors. Jesus believed that humans should not have such power over each other; he would certainly, for example, oppose welfare programs as abuse, while communists embrace them, and Christians are lukewarm towards them.
    He also did not vilify wealth, contrary to the popular opinion; what he did vilify was greed, but not wealth per se, and, according to some sources, he even saw wealth as a boon: a wealthy person can help others more than a poor person. And, again, it came down to the fact that he did not believe it was up to humans to judge other humans.

    The guy had some good ideas, especially by the standards of the time he lived in. He was fairly impractical and idealistic, however, and it is not clear how a system (lack of system?) he advocated for would work. Sure, in the society full of people like him it could - but in a real society? Well, it only takes one person to refuse to turn the other cheek and, instead, take a machine gun to demolish everything.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 552 Pts
    No, certainly NOT a communist. I would say a socialist, for sure. Mark 10:21-25: Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him, and said unto him "One thing thou lackest, Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross and follow me."
    And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved, for he had great possessions . 
    Then there's the camel and the needle story, etc., etc.. I wouldn't swear to the words, but, that's what I heard. Definitely a leftist, a bleeding heart, long haired, peace loving, anti-establishment liberal hippie freak with strange ideas … for the time …. everything conservatives hate.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    Jesus Christ was the first communist. The ideals of communism are just the institutionalized "ideals" of Christianity. Jesus was no different from Che Guevara. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Matthew 6:24 (jesus said)

    No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.


  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 21
    @MayCaesar

    Jesus made it quite clear that if you follow him, you must abide these rules. You must serve others and love them more than yourself. If you do not abide by those rules, you are not a messenger of the word of God, nor a servant of Jesus. To serve Jesus is "to give [your] life a ransom for many." To serve Jesus is to "honor one another above yourself." It mattered not about Jesus's feelings of forcing people to be charitable, because if you are not charitable, you do not serve Jesus anyway. Notice in Hebrews 6:10 how those who serve Jesus are Gods "people." It seems quite clear that Jesus thought that those who do not adhere to the collective are the enemy, or not God's "people" . Che Guevara thought that those who do not adhere to the collective are the enemy and not Che's "people." I think the two had quite a lot in common. Nothing more than communist rats were they.     

    Mark 10:45, KJV: "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

    Hebrews 6:10, NIV: "God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them."

    1 Peter 4:10, NIV: "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God's grace in its various forms

    Romans 12:10, NIV: "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 21
    I'd like to point out that it's kind of unfair that I will be hated on by mostly everyone here because the conservative Christians won't like that I'm calling Jesus a commie, and the leftists won't like that I'm harping on communism (even though they'll all claim they're not communist). I don't think I'll be getting many "agree" points on this thread, even though I'm right. Everybody hates libertarians.  
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @piloteer

    You seem to conflate Authoritarianism with Communism, and God with State... At best you could say he was an authoritarian theocrat but that would not be exact either since his prophesied Kingdom is in the afterlife where there are no physical needs... Find me a single verse where he speaks of the importance for the Proletarian State to control the means of production? 
    Grafix
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    The question in the title of the topic is an oxymoron.  Communism is not only a political system it is also an anti-theocratic system, meaning an anti-God, anti-Christian system.  The mandatory State "religion" in every Communist nation is atheism.  It is a complete contradiction in terms to suggest that the Christian religious founder could be the leader of an anti-theist, anti-Christian philosophy.  Clearly the answer to the question raised in the topic's title must be a definitive NO.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    That's a tad bit unfair because there was no "means of production" in Jesus's time. But as far as his feelings for the proletariat, I thought that was a given. 

     

    Luke 4:17-19 (NIV)

    “[Jesus] stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’”  

    Luke 6:20-21 (NIV)

    “Looking at his disciples, he said: ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh."

    2 Corinthians 8:9 (NIV)

    “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.”

    Job 34:17-19 (NIV)

    “Can he who hates justice govern? Will you condemn the just and mighty One? Is he not the One who says to kings, ‘You are worthless,’ and to nobles, ‘You are wicked,’ who shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?”


  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 21
    @Grafix

    You assume that karl marx created communism, but if you read his manifesto, you'd know that even he admits that he didn't create communism. He just put it into a context of political philosophy. And he just so happened to be atheist, but that was only a reflection of his beliefs. The true manifesto for communism is the bible. The apostles lived according to jesus's wishes after he died. They knew that to serve jesus meant to disregard any thoughts of individualism. jesus was the original communist. 

           Acts 2:44-45, "All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need."

    Acts 4:32-35, "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."[15]   

    jesus said "honor one another above yourselves". karl marx had a word to describe loving others more than yourself. It's called collectivism. If I have to choose between serving your "lord", or serving money, I think I'm gonna go with the one that actually matters. MONEY!!! 
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    @AlofRI - You wrote ...
    No, certainly NOT a communist. I would say a socialist, for sure. Mark 10:21-25: Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him, and said unto him "One thing thou lackest, Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross and follow me."
    You misinterpret the meaning of this and the lesson regarding the camel passing through the eye of the needle. Socialism wasn't the intent.  There is no mention of any suggestion for the rich man to distribute his possessions among the poor.  Christ simply said to him go and sell them and then start helping the poor by following Him. Socialism doesn't do that.  It robs us all by State mandate, then re-distributes the proceeds from our labor to everyone.  Christ's lesson has none of that in it.  It must be a personal desire to help the poor.  The lesseon requires that we straighten out our priorities, to not place an importance on material possessions, that they have no relevance in the Kingdom which  God is offering to us, whereby helping the needy will reap far greater rewards from God.  Christ's message on this was consistent throughout, epitomized in His own words:

    Matthew 19 : 23 - 24   "Truly I say to you, it is extremely difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God".

    In His wisdom, Christ knew that a love of money, wealth and material possessions polarizes our wants around protecting it all and we put that ahead of caring for others, which usually leads us into corrupting our moral base, because wealth often means power and power corrupts, so the rich are more likely to have that obstacle in finding God's grace than the poor are likely to.  The poor help each other much more than the rich help them.  And, No, Conservatives don't "hate this".  You're conflating Christianity with a non-Conservative politic.  Christianity and Conservatives have a great deal in common, including "Love thy neighbour as thyself."   Socialism and Communism do not espouse that moral.  Instead they dictate that the State play God and re-distribute everyone's wealth. The religion of both is Marxist atheism, which is the worship of materialism and is anti-Christian.

    AlofRI
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • I think there needs to be a very important qualifier for anyone who takes a position in the affirmative.

    Which would simply be that Jesus was not a communist because communism as a political ideology was not around 2,000 years ago thus Jesus could not have been a communist by means of not coexisting at the same time.

    However, I think if one argues that if Jesus was alive today that he would be a communist that would be a much stronger position.

    Jesus was definitely into sharing wealth and not caring about material goods because they didn't matter, but I don't really see that an argument can be made that he would advocate for the collectivization of the means of production. He would certainly take one look at our capitalist system and denounce it as being excessively greedy and shallow, being much to concerned with material wealth and not at all concerned with spiritual wealth. However, just being not a capitalist does not a communist or a socialist make.

    There are parallels, but that doesn't really mean much. I am not really convinced that Jesus was particularly concerned with the economic model of nations, because he was more about getting people to indulge his narcissistic tendencies. Perhaps he would support communism on the grounds that it would allow people the time to take care of what was most important, but this is all very speculative. A theocratic-communist state doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but there is nothing in principal preventing its existence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @piloteer

    I was talking about the actual historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, though. The image of Jesus depicted in the Bible has little to do with what he was like according to historical evidence.

    Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ are two very different individuals, and only one of them actually existed.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    @piloteer ; - You wrote ...
    You assume that karl marx created communism, but if you read his manifesto, you'd know that even he admits that he didn't create communism. He just put it into a context of political philosophy. And he just so happened to be atheist, but that was only a reflection of his beliefs.
    I didn't even mention Karl Marx.  I mentioned Communism, the mandated religion of which has always been atheism.  The definition of atheism is a denial that a God exists, which is a denial of Christ.  So as I said, it is a complete oxymoron to conflate the two.  Totally.  Unequivocally and undeniably.  Then you write the wierdest and strangest conflation of all, with this ...
    The true manifesto for communism is the bible. The apostles lived according to jesus's wishes after he died. They knew that to serve jesus meant to disregard any thoughts of individualism. jesus was the original communist. 
    I repeat.  Communism defies God, defies Christ, is anti-Christ. Communism's self-confessed ideology is a   G O D L E S S   society, a Godless collective.  Communism has its own identity - an authoritarian and dictatorial Politburo, ruling over the collective commune of the proletariat, which must be, by mandate, a Godless community under a Godless State.  That's the full definition of Communism.  Communism is not a blanket definition for the concepts of either a "commune"  or a "collective".  It is more than that.  It is an entire political and anti-religious system as well, whereby a "commune", which is what you are really describing may well be supported by a Christian outlook.  Marxism embraces atheism as its religion.  Marxism is very real, very visible in its manifestation, although very invisible in its operation - a politic of stealth.  That's why people deny its existence.  Neo-Marxism is what operates today, commonly termed as "Cultural Marxism".  It's Agenda is to undermine the culture of its target, a perceived competitor or enemy - happening right under our noses as we speak, without the people even aware of it.  That's why it is so successful.  It "creeps" up on society.. Then you try to justify your claim with this ...
    Acts 4:32-35, "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."[15]   
    That's the definition of Christianity.  It is not the definition of Communism or Socialism. They manifest an authoritarian secular State mandating redistribution of wealth without any calculated measure according to need - a one size fits all approach, reducing all to a single common denominator.  God gave us our inividualism, not to be coralled into a herdlike existence with no capacity for our talents or "gifts" from Him to be useful to society at all.  These are suffocated by Communism and Socialism, because one size has to fit all and the all are reduced to a single common denominator - working for the State to finance the State..  If we resent being compelled to hand over the fruits of our labor to the State system, then it is not a voluntary system, is it?  To meet the challenge of God, our will to give to the poor must be voluntary, not a State mandated redistribution of wealth - nothing like that.  The passage you quote is a manifestation of the Commandment, "Love thy neighbour as thyself"  and of the teaching to put oneself last not first, in that "he who is first will be last and he who is last will be first", [in the eyes of God].  Meaning, if we put ourselves first above others we will be last in God's Kingdom.  Then you completely twist the Karl Marx philosophy on its head with this ...
    jesus said "honor one another above yourselves". karl marx had a word to describe loving others more than yourself. It's called collectivism. If I have to choose between serving your "lord", or serving money, I think I'm gonna go with the one that actually matters. MONEY!!! 
    Marx was an economist.  He had no religious ideology or charity in mind.  He simply resented Capitalism and the class system and sought to eradicte it.  You completely overlook the actual definition of Marxism.  It places humans at the center of the universe to worship themrselves, that we are our own God.  This is completely contrary to Christian teachings which teaches by putting ourseves last in this life, we shall be first in the next.  Below is the definition of Marxism as Karl Marx himself defined it..   Are you prepared to dispute him?

    Marx said: "Philosophy makes no secret of it", following up with the words of Prometheus: "In sooth all gods I hate",  declaring such to be the philosophy of Marxism, "By its own admission, by its own motto against all gods, heavenly and earthly, who do not acknowledge the consciousness of man as the supreme divinity. There must be no god on a level with it.”
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    edited March 21
    Let’s look at what the pope the leader of  1:3 billion Catholics has to say .......

    Pope Francis has consistently criticized the human and spiritual damage caused by global capitalism, widening inequality, and corporate sweatshops. Last week, he blamed the “god of money” for the extremist violence that is taking place around the world. A ruthless global economy, he argued, leads marginalized people to violence.

    In 2013, he released a remarkable 84-page document in which he attacked unfettered capitalism as “a new tyranny,” criticized the “idolatry of money,” and urged politicians to guarantee all citizens “dignified work, education and healthcare.”

    “Today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills,” Pope Francis wrote. “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

    Sounds like Jesus was certainly not a capitalist to the Pope anyway 

    Of course it’s deemed Anti American by a sizable amount of poisonous American “Christians “ to give free healthcare and education to those less well off and these very same Christians resist strongly the notion of a minimum wage and applaud billionaires who are given massive tax breaks proving most are only “Christian” in name 

    piloteer
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    @Dee - Good points, Dee, not that I am a fan of Pope Francis.  I think his thinking is deeply rooted in Socialism and that he is a traitor to the Church, a false Pope and uses the vehicle of his Office to peddle Socialism, which is the enemy of God.  Nevertheless, if we put aside Francis' Agenda of a one-world religion, socially engineered through a Socialist politic and which is anything but the original Christianity that Christ taught, the reason he is a traitor to the Church and instead just take his words on their merit, then I actually agree with them.  How come?

    The globalist capitalism of today, the multi-national corporatism which dominates market sectors world wide, is not representative of free-market capitalism at all.  it must be properly defined for what it really is.  It is anti-competitive because it seeks to dominate market sectors and gobble up competition as fast as new competition appears in any sector where it has interests already operating.  This globalist capitalist system does so via the mechanisms of mergers, acquisitions, amalgamations and take-overs.  Take-overs and acquisitions are frequently hostile, taking control of companies which it has forced into dire straits, while amlagamations and mergers are moves to consolidate power in single sectors of the market.  A good example of that is Disney merging with Warner to control the entertainment sector.  In this way huge conglomerates are built in each sector of the market, which no-one can hope to compete with, thereby realizing the ultimate goal of crony-capitalist globalism - the removal of all competition.  That is always the ultmate goal of the globalist capitalist system, a complete distortion of free-market capitalism and not only its opposite, but also its Nemesis.

    The original and only true model of the free-market capitalist system operates in an opposite manner to that of the globalist capitalist system.  It welcomes competition and thereby provides to the consumer a wide range of choice as well as great value for money, because the more competitors in the market, then the greater the competition for the consumer dollar and therefore an ever-present and natural mechanism which demands better quality and fair prices.  In vying for the consumer dollar - for the consumer to buy their product - producers of any product are forever under the consumer whip to produce better quality at a better price in order to produce a product which is better than a competitor's product.  If they don't or can't then they will not survive.  The whip of competition thus drives the incentive for advancements in research and development of better products and more efficient production methods with greater yields for the producer and cheaper and better quality for the consumer.  It is a win win for all.

    This is the natural order of competition and why it is so healthy for consumers and serves them so well.  Crony-capitalist globalist capitalism does the opposite.  It pushes out competition by brute force, might and power until it dominates a market sector, leaving the consumer with no choice and poor quality products, because the competitors cannot compete against the globalist cartels' cheap labor costs, obtained in off-shore sweat shops located in third world economies.  Nor can local producers compete with the globalist product offered with a slimmer profit margin per item, compensated for by sheer volume of production on a global scale, meaning that the globalist operators undercut local production in price per unit, until they all but bankrupt them. Globalists then wait in the wings to make their move on the businesses they've pushed to the wall, by then making hostile take-over bids for those businesses and thereby expanding their stake in the sector.  That done and dusted, they then enter into cross-ownership arrangements with one another to shore up the market.  

    Once any real competition is sidelined, the globalists then raise their prices at will, with no fear of competition undercutting them and no pressure to improve the quality of their product.  Everyone loses except the globalists and guess which political parties support globalism?  All of the Socialist left parties across the Western hemisphere, including the U.S. Democratic Party, it relentlessly swiping at Trump for his "Nationalist notions" and forever calling him an "isolationist".  LIberals can't have the argument both ways.  They're either for conservative nationalism and free-market capitalism or for anti-competition, anti-jobs, anti-consumer globalism.  Which is it?
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    edited March 21
    @Grafix

    *****  Good points, Dee, not that I am a fan of Pope Francis.  I think his thinking is deeply rooted in Socialism and that he is a traitor to the Church,

    A traitor to what church? 1:3 billion Catholics don’t agree with your contention. Why is it so many Americans detest Catholicism can you guys not even stand united in your belief in a god 

    ***a false Pope

    Give me an example of a “genuine pope”?

    ****and uses the vehicle of his Office to peddle Socialism, which is the enemy of God.  

    The pope is not nor ever has prompted socialism , you’re totally confused what he says into something it’s not , he pushes for social policies as in caring for and having a duty to fellow humans , exactly as Jesus recommended unless you argue the opposite

    ****Nevertheless, if we put aside Francis' Agenda of a one-world religion, socially engineered through a Socialist politic and which is anything but the original Christianity that Christ taught,

    Well you would say that yet Catholicism has a rightful claim to be oldest and as they say“the  one true faith” and practice of Christianity as approved by Jesus , your objections are again based on the searing hatred of American “Christians” which emanates from various rabid anti Catholic sects that Americans seem to love 

    **** the reason he is a traitor to the Church and instead just take his words on their merit, then I actually agree with them.

    Again merely your church line regards the pope and Catholics do you really hate your fellow Christians that much?

    Your other debate regards the capitalist system and socialist systems is a whole other debate 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    @Dee - 60,000 Catholic clergy and 800,000 Catholics have risked their positions to express their criticism of the current Papacy, as do other more numeous and different enclaves within its teaching fraternity of the different monasteries and convents, likewise quietly express it.  In other words, there is termoil and revolt going on within the Church itself, mounted against this Pope and has been ever since he deposed the previous Pope, that in itself indicative of foul play from the get go - the first time in the history of the Roman Catholic Church that a Pope has ever been forced to resign to be replaced by another.  The routine practice of electing a Pope has always and only ever been upon the death of the encumbent Pope.  Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, (now Pope Francis), did not wait for that.  Instead a bunch of rogue Cardinals forced the position upon Pope Benedict XVI.  Below are examples of what the Church's own clergy has to say of Pope Francis, indicative of the turmoil he is creating, along with the heresies he utters every other week  ...




      



       





    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    *****  60,000 Catholic clergy and 800,000 Catholics have risked their positions to express their criticism of the current Papacy, 

    I don’t know where you get your figures from but  they seem grossly exaggerated and you state.......and different enclaves within its teaching fraternity of the different monasteries and convents, likewise quietly express it. .......“Quietly express it “ 
    yet you know this how? 

    The popularity of the pope waned mainly because of his handlings of the sex abuse scandals and his moving bishops and clergy implicated in such around the world , the biggest fall in popularity was amongst American Catholics who felt he handled it very badly , amazingly though his popularity rose with American Protestants 

    Leaving this aside you haven’t addressed my main points which were to do with his push for social policies as in caring for and having a duty to fellow humans , exactly as Jesus recommended unless you argue the opposite , do you argue the opposite? 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    @Dee - The statistics are in the material I posted.  Read it, as too are the comments you question.  My wife is a Catholic and teaches at a Catholic University, goes to meetings and conferences, meets with clergy regularly and is up with what is going on and then we discuss it at home.  Every day, there is someone in the clergy commenting on the horror show of Pope Francis.  It doesn't need to make the papers for Catholics to know about it.  It is her job to know what is going on and I hear all about it from her.

    The popularity of the Pope with the uninformed leftist public may have waned according to your understanding, but I have no clue what they think in their ignorance.  I am not talking about them.  I am talking about the scholarship of Christianity, both inside and outside of Catholicity.  ALL  pretty much have been horrified by the line he is pushing.  He is the most political Pope we have ever seen and that doesn't sit well with the congregation or the clergy, either.  The below caper, is just one of hundreds of examples of the type of things he says and does regularly, which has the wider Church and Churches up in arms.  The Koran exhorts the slaughter of Christians.  What is this fool of a man thinking?  Islam is the arch Nemesis of Christianity and is the Beast, prophesied in St. John's Book of the Bible, Revelation.  Francis is an imposter.  All of this is in the prophecies, btw.

    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    @Dee - I did comment on your remark regarding Francis' socialist politic.  I said he uses his Office to do that.  I dedicated a whole bloody post to those comments of his and said although I disagree with his Agenda, I agreed with his words.  What is wrong with you?  Still only reading the first four lines of everyone's post, because you are still the lazy debater I picked you for the first time I ever had a discussion with you?  Dee, reading others' posts is a requiremnt to make a salient rebuttal.  If you can't be bothered reading them, which I have established that you can't and don't, then you will just be ignored, because what that does is compel people to  RE-STATE what they have ALREADY written in their posts to point you to their arguments which you can't be bothered reading.

    You're not interested in debate to learn from it.  Your only interest in debating is to hold your line and prove everyone else is wrong, that you're the only one right.  It demosntrates a problem with pride, arrogance, ego and blind hubris.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    The Catholic Church is riven by an internecine power contest between conservatives and liberals this has been going on since the foundation of Catholicism as religion like everything else either evolves or perishes , Francis proved very unpopular amongst those most highly placed in the Vatican by making sweeping changes and voicing concern about gossiping bishops which caused yet more internal wrangling.

    You and I unbelievably have something in common my wife is also Catholic , I’m a former devout Catholic schooled by the Jesuit’s 


    *****   The Koran exhorts the slaughter of Christians.  

    Yet any Muslim I know over here will disagree with that assessment the very same way you denied the Bible approved of slavery, that is not to say that yes militant Islam would agree with the slaughter of Christians , yet mainstream Muslims will  say they are not “true Muslims” , this is the very same thing you say of other Christians who disagree with your take on Christianity is it not? 

    *****What is this of a man thinking?  Islam is the arch Nemesis of Christianity and is the Beast, prophesied in St. John's Book of the Bible, Revelation.  

    Again that’s a rather far fetched claim and only proves you can use sacred books to say anything you want reallly

    ****Francis is an imposter.  All of this is in the prophecies, btw.

    Again I’m no fan of any religion as you know and here’s yet another reason why and  that is if Christians are not attacking other Christians they’re attacking other religions , why can you all just not agree to disagree and worship your god in your own way?

    I’m more interested in your take on the Popes particular stance on social justices 
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    @Dee - Spare me your ignorance on what you think are the inner machinations of the Catholic Church of which you are clearly ignorant desmonstrated by your own comments.  This strife is the first of its kind since the schism with the Byzantine Church hundreds and hundreds of years ago.  Francis is the problem here.  Not the Church, but true to leftie atheist form, you just cannot help yourself, can you Dee, to take every opportunity to bash Christianity and then sanctimoniously and parsimoniously knock Christians for knocking Christians, which I have yet to see.  Cearly Francis is not a Christian and clearly he's  the worm in the woodpile here.

    I don't give a rat's arse what every Moslem "over here" thinks or says, which I'm quite sure you've done the rounds among and spoken to every one of them.  What they think, just like what you think is totally irrelevant.  What is relevnt is what the Islamic doctrine T E A C H E S  and it is to slaughter any who do not subscribe to Islam.  It's primary focus has always been Christianity, including the historical record of Christianity, which libraries and centres of learning and archives Islamic armies have gone out of their way to totally obliterate.  It even built its unholy den of inquity on top of the oldest Abrahamic Temple in the world to give the Christian God a nose thumb.  Islam absolutely from the soles of its feet to the last hair on its head preaches the most diabolical  H A T R E D  of Christianity in its mosques, schooling kids into Jihad from the age of six years old.  There are no excuses for Francis and his abomination brigade.  None.

    Francis is an imposter.  He was elected under false pretences and engaged a counter-policy to usurp another Pope, his predecessor.  Never done before.  Every other week he utters a heresy and teaches moral codes completely repudiated by ALL Christianity, not just the Catholic brand, worse even issues scholarly writings applauding same.  You don't have a clue.
    ,
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    So if your "wife" is Catholic then you must be a Lesbian.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    @JGXdebatePRO

    Various anti Religious philosophers have made it a near daily ritual, to brainstorm from the depths of their pro anti Religious imaginations to use Jesus, God, the Bible, and Religion in general, as their verbally created fodder, to ritualistically platform their pro anti Religious stances from?

    "Was Jesus a communist?"


    No, he wasn't a Communist, and if some are thinking that, where in the Bible, does it diverge into any details, about 20th century Communism in the Bible at?

    Where's the evidence? 
    Grafix
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    Yet another anticipated rant , you’re totally unbalanced the way you fly into a rage at any perceived threats to you BS and as usual all because you cannot answer a simple question I’ve asked 5 times now.

    Every time you’re asked a question you flee here is the question you refuse to answer ..... Leaving this aside you haven’t addressed my main points which were to do with his push for social policies as in caring for and having a duty to fellow humans , exactly as Jesus recommended unless you argue the opposite , do you argue the opposite? 

    **** Spare me your ignorance on what happens inside the inner machinations of the Catholic Church of which you are clearly ignorant desmonstrated by your own comments.  

    *Spare me your ignorance on what happens inside the inner machinations of the Catholic Church of which you are clearly ignorant desmonstrated by your own comments.  



    ****This strife is the first of its kind since the schism with the Byzantine Church hundreds and hundreds of years ago.  Francis is the problem here. 

    Right this is the first ever sign of strife in the Catholic Church .....sigh ...You hate Francis I get it 

    ****Not the Church, but true to leftie atheist form, you just cannot help yourself, can you Dee, to take every opportunity to bash Christianity

    Actually you’re the one bashing Francis not I 

    ****and then sanctimoniously and parsimoniously knock Christians for knocking Christians, which I have yet to see. 

    Yet here you are doing it 

     **** Francis is not a Christian and clearly he's  the worm in the woodpile here.

    And again above 

    ***I don't give a rat's arse what every Moslem "over here" thinks or says, which I'm quite sure you've done the rounds among and spoken to every one of them, because what they think, just like what you think is totally irrelevant.

    Yet you have spoken to them all and like the bigot you are deemed them jihadists .....interesting .....

      ***/What is relevnt is what the Islamic doctrine T E A C H E S  and it is to slaughter any who do not subscribe to Islam. 

    If you take it out of context isn’t that what you also state when it comes to biblical slavery 

    ****It's primary focus has always been Christianity, including the historical record of Christianity, which libraries and centres of learning and archives Islamic armies have gone out of their way to totally obliterate, even built their unholy den of inquity on top of the oldest Abrahamic Temple in the world to give the Christian God a nose thumb. 

    Nonsense, your lot destroyed classical civilization if you cared to open a history book 

     ****Islam absolutely from the soles of its feet to the last hair on its head preaches the most diabolical  H A T R E D  of Christianity in its mosques, schooling kids into Jihad from the age of six years old. 

    Right let’s use your own words back at you ..... which I'm quite sure you've done the rounds among and spoken to every one of them, because what they think, just like what you think is totally irrelevant

    ****There are no excuses for Francis and his abomination brigade.  None.

    Right you hate him and his “abomination brigade “ you mean fellow  Catholics like your wife 

    ***Francis is an imposter.  He was elected under false pretences and engaged a counter-policy to usurp another Pope, his predecessor.

    Yet another conspiracy theory 

      *****Never done before.  Every other week he utters a heresy and teaches moral codes completely repudiated by ALL Christianity, not just the Catholic brand, worse even issues scholarly writings applauding same. 

    Absolute BS 

    ****You don't have a clue.

    You don’t have a clue 
    ,
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    **** So if your "wife" is Catholic then you must be a Lesbian.
    .
    That’s right I’m a male lesbian ......I know you’re a rube but even that doesn’t excuse your stupidity 
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    **** So if your "wife" is Catholic then you must be a Lesbian.
    .
    That’s right I’m a male lesbian ......I know you’re a rube but even that doesn’t excuse your stupidity 
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    LOL!  I just read ONLY the first line of your usual trailing digital dance of  "Hey everyone, look a me, it's Dee.  Make sure you don't miss my post",  crapola. and what did I see?   In the first line the first words which jumped out at me were "unhinged", "rant", "fly into" and "rage" - accusing me of all.  Then I pissed myself laughing, for isn't such language demonstrating exactly that?  Then you set to and posted a full paged "rant", which debated zero. making hollow declarations.  LOL.  I do attempt to inform and provide facts.  You don't.

    Let me buy you a new navel.  You've worn the other one out gazing at it too often.  See you around.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    @Dee

    "Was Jesus a communist?"

    No, he wasn't a Communist, and if some are thinking that, where in the Bible, does it diverge into any details, about 20th century Communism in the Bible at?

    Where's the evidence?  

    @Dee

    Do you have any evidence to support the speculative statement that Jesus was a Communist? 
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @TKDB

    ***** Do you have any evidence to support the speculative statement that Jesus was a Communist? 

    No I don’t as I never said he was you rube 
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 21
    @Dee - You have a li'l problemo.  LOL!  I know you're not a male.  Hee.  Hee.  So who's telling porkies.   Hee.  Hee. 
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    ***** You have a li'l problemo.  LOL!  I know you're not a male.  Hee.  Hee.  So who's telling porkies.   Hee.  Hee

    You have a li'l problemo.  LOL!  I know I’m a male.  Hee.  Hee.  So who's telling porkies.   Hee.  Hee
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @Grafix

    If you readily agree that karl marx did not create communism, why would you use his definition as some sort of objective definition of what the particular ideals of communism are? Maybe karl marx thought communism needed to be anti-religious, but the term communism was used long before your boy marx got a hold of it. Communism was used in a social manner before it became a political ideology. The root words that make up the word "communism" are derived from the French word "communisme", which is derived from the Latin word "communis", and the Latin prefix "isme". When those two Latin terms are fused, it can be interpreted as meaning "the state of being of or for the community".

    There is nothing in that classic use of the term that suggests anything having to do with anti-religious sentiments. It's also true that marx was not the first person to reinterpret the term communism as a political ideology instead of a social "ideal". It just so happened that marx's version of communist ideology was the one that inspired nations to adhere to those gross standards. Had the inspiration come from a different political philosopher, perhaps you would be arguing that communism is the only true political ideology of christians. But your argument that because marx said it must be anti-religious for it to be communist is baseless. Because of the fact that communism doesn't actually need to be anti-religious for it to be a true communism, the rest of your entire argument has become moot. This coupled with the fact that there are indeed christian communists further deflates what ever kind of an argument you thought you had. jesus was no different than che guevara.
    God gave us our inividualism, not to be coralled into a herdlike existence with no capacity for our talents or "gifts" from Him to be useful to society at all.  
    Oh, but to follow and serve jesus, one is expected to do exactly what you say we are not asked to do. If you do not serve all of society with your "gifts", then you do not serve jesus. This is demonstrated by multiple verses I've posted on this thread, but most especially this one.   

    1 Peter 4:10, NIV: "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God's grace in its various forms.

    If you do not love and honor everyone else above yourself, you do not serve jesus. That same exact narrative can be used in the idealism of communism. If you do not love and honor everyone else above yourself, you do not serve your patriotism. As far as people who live in a "communal" setting, it could easily go either way. They may worship jesus, or they may worship lenin, or they may worship both. One thing that's certainly true is they will absolutely not worship my hero, Ayn Rand. 

    Ayn Rand used the term altruism often. It is the antithesis of greed. It means to live only for the sake of others, and disregard any thoughts of individual pursuits or possessions. She also often used the term collectivism, to demonstrate her distaste for such egregious "ideals". Collectivism and altruism go hand and hand, and was extolled by St. Marx as a fundamental pillar of social morality. Strangely enough, it was also extolled by jesus himself. He made it quite clear that if you do not disregard yourself and consider only the needs of others, then you do not serve jesus. Whether it may be christian collectivism, or communist collectivism, it's still the same immoral basis for life that is expected of us by christianity and communism. Collectivism has everything to do with communism and christianity.

    The only word that can be used as an antithesis of collectivism, or altruism, or communism, is Greed. Communists will seethe at the thought of self serving capitalists. christians will wave their finger in your face for giving into your self serving sinful pursuits. Both christianity and communism hold altruism on a pedestal of morality, and both besmirch the name of Greed by calling greedy people evil. They have the same moral hero of collectivism, and the same immoral demon of Greed. jesus was no different than che guevara.                    
    MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @piloteer

    I would clarify something (I agree with virtually everything else you said): there is a difference between the implications of Jesus Christ's narrative and Che Guevara's narrative.
    Jesus Christ believed that only the god can judge the individual, but not other human beings: that is, if you lived not according to his teachings, then you would not be punished in life, but only in the afterlife - considering that afterlife likely does not even exist, that means that, in essence, you can behave however you want with no repercussions.
    However, Che Guevara believed that it is the moral obligation of every true communist revolutionary to deal with reactionary forces with extreme prejudice, here, in life. Where Jesus would denounce any violence in the name of moral values, Che Guevara would encourage it and even demand it, punishing those who refused to partake in communist violence.

    Both had highly collectivist mindsets, which makes them morally comparable - however, the implications of their narratives are quite different.

    Of course, if we assume that the afterlife does exist, then the implications of Jesus' narrative might be far worse than those of Che's. It is one thing to simply be tortured and then shot here in life; it is another thing differently to be subjected to eternal torment.
    However, since there is no evidence of the afterlife existing, this possibility may be dismissed without further consideration.
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Admittedly, I only compare jesus with che simply for shock value. I just had a feeling that comparing those two would be the most offensive comparison to christians and communists alike. Sometimes I just like to try and enrage people for fun. In all truth though, I highly doubt jesus of Nazareth was anywhere nearly as egregious of a "human being" as che guevara. Whether it is the real jesus of Nazareth, or the legendary religious icon of christianity, he was still probably not as terrible as che. che guevara was a gifted and worldly doctor who had once traveled through south America by motor cycle. Yet, when he devoted himself to the Cuban revolution, instead of trying to convince his fellow doctors of the benefits of his revolution, he opted to hunt them down and shoot them without a trial. As was seen in many communist "revolutions", it's always the professionals and intellectuals and artists and disciplined clergy who are automatically the enemies of the revolution because it is they who are seen as the most prone to resist any violations of human rights. Knowing full well that che was a doctor himself, and that he murdered other doctors is absolutely egregious. jesus and che were not alike in that respect at all. 

    I understand that jesus didn't preach an institutionalized form of charity and devotion to others. He preached that it wasn't actually charitable if you didn't want to actually do it. That being said, jesus did preach that if you didn't devote yourselves endlessly to the benefit of others, you did not follow or serve him. Some may consider that an act of drawing a line in the sand and claiming- "There are those who are with me, and there are those who are not". I'm not sure I'd go as far as to claim that jesus thought that everyone who didn't follow his creed was his enemy. But I would assert that even someone who is unaware of what is expected of being a proper servant of jesus and doesn't realize they are not living up to his standards is not a true servant of jesus (according to the bible). So it can be argued that those who do not adhere to a strict doctrine of servitude to humankind, can pretty much count themselves out as a proper servant of jesus. They are not his people. jesus only called on, and expected those "ideals" from his people. Everyone else could go sit on a spike as far as he was concerned.                      
    MayCaesar
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Communism as a political ideology is thought of as 20th (or 19th) century creation. But as I pointed out, the word communism was not always a political ideology. It used to be a word to describe the social standard of altruism, and had no political affiliation whatsoever. christians were often describe as being communist, or of having communist qualities, because it just meant "the state of being of or for the community." That is definitely an ideal that is espoused as a moral quality in the bible. My argument is pretty much that the communism that we know today is simply the institutionalized ideals of christianity.

    Serve others, disregard yourself, greed is evil, devotion to others is good. Was I talking about christianity in that last sentence, or communism? I think we both know the answer is both.       
  • @piloteer While that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, I think it is a little irrelevant since the picture in the OP suggests we are talking about the political and economic system rather than some abstract concept of communal ideas or collectivism.

    That being said, I still think that a much more interesting topic of discussion would be "If Jesus was alive today, would he be a communist?" rather than: "Was Jesus as he lived a communist?" or "Do Jesus's teachings embody communist ideas?" Specifically for the reasons I listed above. I think that this is not only a more constructive thing to debate given the Christian belief that Jesus will come back one day.

    To answer your question, you are talking about communism because Christians don't teach servitude or devotion to others, nor do they teach you should disregard yourself. They teach servitude and devotion to god and Jesus and that this should happen at a personal level. There are authoritarian parallels, but these are not sufficient to denote positive correlation, as Plaffelvohfen suggests above. It simply doesn't make any sense to ask if Jesus was a communist/communal, because the systems simply were not around to make such a determination, however moving Jesus into the modern world does at least in a very superficial way make sense.

    So, if Jesus was alive today, do you think he would he support communism as a political ideology and economic system?
    piloteer
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @piloteer

    It is not just Communism or Christianity; it is every ideology that promotes a servitude to some general goal/idea at the expense of self-interest. Christianity, Communism, Islam, Hinduism, Fascism, Shinto, Statism, National-Socialism - all of these ideas are fundamentally collectivist, proclaiming that the individual's worth is determined by how they contribute some interpretation of the "collective good" at the expense of their own good.

    Now, there is nothing wrong with benefiting others or helping others with no material gain - but it must come from the genuine desire, not from allegiance to some abstract doctrine. The problem with altruism is that it proclaims that you have a "duty" before others, which leads to you helping others by means of self-sacrifice out of desire to avoid feelings of guilt and worthlessness.

    Individualism does not exclude serving others, but it excludes serving others as a result of moral or physical compulsion. As Ayn said, the individual is not a sacrificial lamb and has inherent worth.

    People will often try to use others' emotions against them, and one of the most common ways of doing so is to entice guilt in them by appealing to some alleged moral obligation they might have that they have not been fulfilling.
    One should make no mistake: guilt-tripping is a vicious manipulative act and has nothing to do with some high moral values. One of the biggest problems in the US as I see it is that, over centuries, the society has guilt-tripped itself into believing that their individual freedoms are secondary to their fellow human beings' well-being. Most people see it as some noble moral stance, but it really is just obedience as a result of emotional manipulation and propaganda. Actual noble moral stances come from abundance, not from scarcity; they come from the place of fulfilment and wanting to share it with others, not from the place of lacking and longing and wanting to cover for it by self-sacrifice.
    piloteer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Marxist communism has not been around for long, but communism as a general idea of shared property has been around forever. Historians sometimes call Ancient Egypt the first communist state in the history of mankind, and primal tribes also had a lot of communist elements.

    Jesus was against plan sharing of property; he supported people helping each other, but he did not see it as mandatory, although he highly encouraged it. Communism or even socialism would likely cause strong resentment in him, as he would see it as nothing more but tyranny of the mob (which, to a large extent, it is).

    What makes his views collectivist is that, ultimately, he believed that everyone is responsible before god, and everyone's life's worth is measured by their devotion to god's morals. He did not see pursuit of individual happiness as a worthwhile goal and thought that every individual had to serve an idea greater than themselves.
    Communism promotes a similar idea: that everyone's worth is determined based on how much they have contributed to the collective, and pursuit of individual self-interest at the expense of the collective (which, by the way, is the only way to do so in a communist society) is vilified and is even punishable. The collective sets the rules, and you either obey those rules or perish.
    These are two different forms of collectivism, with a lot of parallels, but also significant differences.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    **** Then you set to and posted a full paged "rant", which debated zero. making hollow declarations.  LOL.  I do attempt to inform and provide facts.  You don't.

    You’re defeated again , all one has to do is ask you a question and you post up a novel in reply that’s just a personal rant .

    Now you’re actually arguing that Francis calling for others to do as Jesus stated in the Bible is actually Anti Christian......

    you haven’t addressed my main points which were to do with his push for social policies as in caring for and having a duty to fellow humans , exactly as Jesus recommended unless you argue the opposite , do you argue the opposite? 


    I see as usual you’re doing the same avoidance dance with everyone on this thread who as usual all disagree with your repetitive BS and you claim your wife works in Catholic school and therefore has “ inside information “ she sounds just about as brain dead as you , what a perfect match .



  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    I would hesitate to claim that all ideology and religious teachings stress a commitment to collectivism (except Ayn Rand of course). Even among your list of religions, it would be rather difficult to prove Hinduism stresses collectivism. Hinduism stresses truth, and and yearning to release our soul from the imprisonment of the body. Hinduism does believe in Dharma and Karma, but different regions of India practice different Hindu traditions and interpretations as there is no real set law or principles to abide by in Hinduism. And even though Ayn Rand did not consider charity to be a bad thing, and she thought it could be righteous, she certainly didn't stress it. And she also preached against charity being a form of redistribution, even if that charity was of someone's own accord. She did not believe charity, whether forced or not, should be a viable form of income for those less fortunate.      

    Furthermore, it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible for you to establish a collectivist guiding principle in existentialist thought. Although existentialism was an inspiration for communism, so to was it an inspiration for Ayn Rands principles of Greed. I would agree that there aren't many ideologies that preach any kind of nihilistic disregard for others, but still some do exist. Optimistic nihilism is a thing now, and I guess it has guiding principles. Last year I read a book about using nihilistic behaviors to get what you want. It was absolute garbage of course, but it is a thing.    

    Your argument is more of an appeal to popular opinion rather than truth. There are ideologies all over the board and across every spectrum. The collectivist ones just happen to be the popular ones, but there are other ideologies that do indeed stress greed as a guiding principle.                  
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    I believe that if jesus christ were actually able to return to earth like so many mythologists believe, he would indeed preach for some form of communism. I'm not so much trying to say that karl marx had jesus christ in mind when he made his "manifesto." Mine is more of an argument that the ideals of communism (collectivism, altruism, charity, love for the sick and the poor) have been in place since the beginning of society, and christianity plays a HUGE irreplaceable role in not only the modern doctrine of communism, but also the traditional social meaning of the term "communism" before It became a political philosophy.       
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @piloteer

    Rereading my comment, I see that the wording is a bit ambiguous; I did not imply that absolutely every ideology is collectivist, and the complete description of all such ideologies I made is this: "every ideology that promotes a servitude to some general goal/idea at the expense of self-interest". If an ideology states that there is something that is more important than your self-interest and that you have to make personal sacrifices for, then it implies that the main purpose of your existence is to serve something or someone else that is not you - this means that you as an individual are secondary to some larger goal, so it makes sense for the collective to dismiss your individual freedoms and put you to work towards that goal. This, I think, is something Jesus of Nazareth did not realise: while he claimed that every person should be only accountable before god and not other people, the implication of his philosophy is that the individual exists to serve some higher purpose than themselves, and there is no reason for the collective to not self-organise in a way that forces all individuals to serve that purpose, since, again, individuality is irrelevant and is secondary to the duty before god.

    Hinduism is no different: increasing the abstract "currency" called "karma" is one of the supreme values there, and it makes sense for the collective to compel its members to act in a way maximising their karma.

    All these ideologies have the same thing in common: individual's interests are put behind some larger goal. While in, say, Ayn Rand's ideology the individual's interests are more important than any other consideration, and everything, including even charity, must serve the individual.

    I think the problem she saw with non-altruistic charity is that it weakens the recipients and makes them dependable on such help, hence taking away from their independence and making them into a servant of charity distributors. Which is something I can get behind: I believe that charity helping individuals meet their basic needs is helpful, but charity can easily go too far. One must be careful to give the beggar a fishing pole - and not a fish that looks like a fishing pole and contains addictive substances.
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 22
    @MayCaesar

    Perhaps you have a better understanding of Karma and Dogma because like a typical westerner, I have no true understanding of what those terms really mean, and there is no equivalent English term to describe those terms. I plead ignorance on that, but it's worth noting that Hindu Gods are somewhat separate from human beings, and they have their lives and desires that they serve. Not to say there is no Godly interactions with earth or humans, but it is certainly not the same as the Christian God who we are all made of (his rib). In Christianity, God created us from a part of himself. We are literally all a piece of him according to the bible. In Hinduism, our souls are eternal and have always, and will always exist. So we were not created by the Hindu Gods, because we always existed. Our bodies are the material imprisonment of our souls, and we will continually be reborn into another material body until we find the "truth" that will set us free from our imprisonment. Charity and love for humankind is obviously a part of karma and dogma, but there's a lot more to it, and we do have a sense of independence in Hindu belief. The main goal of Hinduism is to be released from our imprisonment. In other words, it's to become independent. Collectivism is present in Hinduism, but so is independence.

    I think much of Ayn Rand's philosophy is just an observation of natural undeniable truths rather than a simple set of ideals (although, she did have a system of ideals). But her argument that a truly charitable act has a self serving interest on the part of the person being charitable is just an observation of an undeniable truth. Nobody chooses to donate to the poor if it makes them feel terrible. They obviously do it to make them feel good about themselves. "Feeling good about yourself" is the paramount intent when it comes to unbound charity.

    There are definitely limits to Ayn Rand's self serving ideals, and violating other people's abilities to serve themselves is not an ideal that Ayn Rand extolled. So obviously some sort of putting our self interests into perspective when it comes to others self interests does not allow for an unbound commitment to our self interests. Rands ideology is similar to Nietzsche's self serving ideals in so far as putting your self interests into the perspective of all of society. How do your self interests fit in to the "big picture" of all of society? The main difference between Rand and Nietzsche here is Rands rejection of any kind of social hierarchy whereas Nietzsche preached a kind of adherence to those things, which made his philosophy kind of complicated. He said our self interests were important, but we need to consider our self interests in the big picture of society, and not violate any natural hierarchies. Rand thought that all self serving interests that do not violate others abilities to serve themselves are inherently good, or at least neutral, so don't worry about the "big picture".                                  

    I believe jesus had an understanding of the free will granted to us by god. Because of that, he didn't want to people to force others to follow his creed because that would violate our free will. But he certainly did differentiate those who serve him and those who do not. This differentiation was applied on an administrative level because those who did not serve jesus were not welcome in the kingdom of heaven. He basically said, do what you want in this life, but if you don't sacrifice yourself and love and honor all others above yourself, you can count yourself out as being invited into the kingdom of heaven. Those who serve society first and embrace jesus as their Lord and savior will go to heaven. Those who hold onto their self serving interests are not truly able to embrace jesus as their Lord and savior and will go to hell, and eventually suffer the consequence of "true death." In Christianity, Collectivism=good, greed= evil.

    In communism, those who do not selflessly serve all of society do not deserve to live in society. Some factions of communist politic will interpret what is deserved of greedy people differently, but the common thread is a want to remove those who serve themselves. The expectation to serve others in communism is applied on an administrative level just like in Christianity because if you don't sacrifice yourself and love and honor all others above yourself, you can count yourself out as being invited into membership in society. In communism, collectivism=good, greed=evil.                   
    MayCaesar
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    @piloteer

    What are you basing your below rationalizations on?

    (Other then self thought up speculation, hypothesis, or what genre of Science did you use?

    Because I would like to be able to cross reference your Referenced Sources?)

    "I believe that if jesus christ were actually able to return to earth like so many mythologists believe, he would indeed preach for some form of communism.

    I'm not so much trying to say that karl marx had jesus christ in mind when he made his "manifesto."

    Mine is more of an argument that the ideals of communism (collectivism, altruism, charity, love for the sick and the poor) have been in place since the beginning of society, and christianity plays a HUGE irreplaceable role in not only the modern doctrine of communism, but also the traditional social meaning of the term "communism" before It became a political philosophy. "


    @piloteer

    Who did you interview?

    What are the titles of the books that you utilized, to help individually formulate your three paragraphed statements? 

    Or do you maybe have some links to the videos on YouTube, that you used to help think up, your individual rationalizations? 
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 22
    @TKDB

    You are a poster child for the consequences of lead poison in the water supply.


     I used the bible as my reference to prove your Lord was a communist.


    Who did you interview to prove my assertions are "self thought up speculation, hypothesis"?


    There are no literary references that prove my proofs are "individual rationalization", or that you have any understanding of the bible or who jesus was.


    The fact that you can't even write an entire coherent sentence is proof that you cannot even comprehend an entire paragraph, let alone three paragraphs, therefore you do not understand any of my arguments.


     So it's obvious that you cannot comprehend the undisputed evidence in my historical research. 


    I hope this single sentence platform is easier for you to understand.       


    There are several references that serve as proof that your Lord was a commie.

     
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism


    http://www.alestlelive.com/opinion/article_0c1a4cdc-50e3-11e9-8cb7-431158b2e213.html


    https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2017/11/13/france-jesus-communist


    https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2019/07/23/catholic-case-communism


    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jesus-was-a-socialist_b_13854296



  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    edited March 22
    @piloteer

    You can't verbally enslave me with your Atheist Dictatorship rhetoric, being that I'm not using the internet like to Host to administer your Atheist Dictatorship posturing with, right piloteer? 

    More of your Atheist Dictatorship messenger posturing:

    "You are a poster child for the consequences of lead poison in the water supply."

    "I used the bible as my reference to prove your Lord was a communist."

    "Who did you interview to prove my assertions are "self thought up speculation, hypothesis"?"

    "There are no literary references that prove my proofs are "individual rationalization", or that you have any understanding of the bible or who jesus was."

    "The fact that you can't even write an entire coherent sentence is proof that you cannot even comprehend an entire paragraph, let alone three paragraphs, therefore you do not understand any of my arguments."

    "So it's obvious that you cannot comprehend the undisputed evidence in my historical research."

    "I hope this single sentence platform is easier for you to understand."

    "There are several references that serve as proof that your Lord was a commie."


    @piloteer

    How many laptops do maybe rely on to push your Atheist Dictatorship campaign with on the internet?

    2, 4, or maybe 10?

    Could it be, that your Atheist Dictatorship is being spread via of other debate websites? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch