A New Film Called "Jesus Was a Commie"

Post Reply New Topic

In any case after the first few years passed and the community survived, private property once more prevailed. Communism is the perfect system for an overcrowded life boat following a shipwreck. It is the last system once the people in the boat reach dry land or are rescued.

ruveyn

Why do I need to buy a lawnmower when I can borrow my neighbors lawnmower?

What if no one will lend you a lawnmower? Suppose they want to charge rent for you to use the lawnmower. Then what?

ruveyn

Buying is cheaper than renting. Besides if someone lends me their lawnmower I put good synthetic oil in it and return it with a full tank of fuel.

That is what Conservitive andTea Party Republicans are, to tell you the truth, they hate Freedom of Culture and Freedom of Religion.

More and more, they're revealing themselves to be just that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

First of all there is no "freedom of culture". This phrase has no legal meaning whatsoever. Second, the Tea Party folks have not proposed repealing or modifying the First Amendment. The Government is not in the business of establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof (within limits of course -- sacrificing a virgin to insure good crops is illegal in all 50 states).

ruveyn

Jesus was the ultimate Robin Hood.

Which rich guys did he steal from?

ruveyn

It may not have any legal meaning, but there are plenty of Americans who don't fit in with the Republican/tea party notion of living in rural or small town "utopia," with the accompanying "morals," and "values." Those who don't are viewed with disdain, and are what Sarah Palin doesn't consider to be "Pro-American" parts of the country.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The bandit Jesus told the rich that they would go to hell if they did not help the poor.

My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was not interested in politics or even a fair division of wealth. When someone asked Jesus to tell his brother to divide an inheritance fairly, He replied that this wasn't His business. He did not have a political message other than telling people to obey the law.
His message was spiritual, calling for repentance, loving your neighbor (including your enemies), showing humility, and not loving the world. Heartless rich people were criticized, not because they were rich, but because they were heartless.

Matthew 19:24
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

So it would appear he did indeed have a message to do with wealth.... get rid of it. He also told anyone who wanted to follow him to give up everything they owned.

Funnily enough he also told people that they still had to obey the Old Testament laws that demanded violence... something Christians refuse to admit.

Hi Abacus,
Nice to hear from you. I disagree with both of your statements, but I see how someone can make your interpretations.
Giving up the love of mammon is probably harder for a rich person than for a poor person. I think that is why it is so hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom. I only know of the rich young ruler being told to give up all of his wealth. There could have been many reasons for that, and I suspect that emotional attachment to wealth was one reason.
You are correct that Jesus came to fulfill the laws and prophecies of the Old Testament. Nonetheless, there is no instance in which He participated in or called others to participate in violence. (Except possibly the "swords" as in Luke. I think other interpretations are better there as well.) Jesus came to instill the spirt of Old Testament laws, but I think not the violence. Not stoning the adultress is an example.
My own theology is closest to Mennonite (although there are no Mennonite churches in my county so I attend a non-denominational church). I take the view, however, that different people legitimately make different interpretations of scripture. Our job as fellow-Christians
is not to try to correct them since we may be wrong ourselves. Our job is to love them. Love and humility are much more important than minor theological differences.

On top of that, Jesus had also said that the people had added to God's law out of the hardness of their hearts. I presume that would be where the violence, and just plainly absurd rules, had come in to play.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The thing is that once you start interpreting instead of taking it literally, you are no longer a christian.

You are no longer following the bible, you are following what your own mind tells you to do and you use a book to rationalise it.

By the way, that verse with some more background to it:

21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Note that it says "a" rich man, unless my grammar is way off that would mean that ANY rich man could never enter heaven, because he is rich and has not given all he could to the poor.