Is Socialism Anti-Christ?

Nope, just idiotic Americans, like yourself.



Christ, you're ignorant. You don't have the faintest idea what socialism is.

JTT, Keep RexRed in line; I'm busy with too many others on a2k to add another one. LOL

Do you read the Bible Rex?



Socialism is Christianity.

I am aware of that scripture.

People gave of their pluralities (what they did not need or was extra) they gave out of their free will and own volition. Unlike others who expect they will dictate what they feel is YOUR pluralities to give away yet they themselves keep a large portion back for themselves, sound like Al Gore?

Correction: signs not sings.

You are all shocked to see the naked truth; yes naked liberal thought is an ugly place.

The problem with far left liberals is that they are aware of only one side of the coin…

These left wing nuts know how to exert and push their own selfish will on others but they are oblivious to the will of some intelligence and standard of living greater than their own.

This selfishness leads to a “nature”, a word liberals and even most conservatives have no clue of what it actually means.

A phrase like “human nature” people say it all the time but have no idea what “nature” means. Ahh nature is the scenery, trees and animas right? No, "nature" in this case means “an inner tendency to go a certain way”… See how little we KNOW about ourselves? But we know where the stock market closes daily.

Like the tendency for a liberal to go a certain way is their nature where the tendency for someone aware of a higher intelligence above themselves may choose to possibly go another way.

So we all are born with a nature to go our “own” way and only when we are born of the “new nature” we then reexamine each of our constituents of thought and propel them in a “new” way based upon the “new nature”.

THIS is only a fraction of the kind of thought that is obliterated by liberal and social thought bombarding our schools and universities without mercy.

I bet none of you reading this knew the real meaning of the word “nature” yet I have understood this word minutely for almost thirty years!

I know what "nature” means to such a degree that I can articulate its meaning to others.

Even further on "nature"…

There are two ways one's life can go, it can get "better and better" or it can get "worse and worse"... When it stays in the same place, this could still be considered, getting worse and worse.

(Worse and worse = corruption.) i.e. like corruption of ideas, corruption of freedoms, corruption of people’s votes, corruption cause by the lawless liberal elite, corruption of wealth, slanted media, godless men of wealth, degenerate song lyrics, mocumentaries, etc...

Or, our country heals and is getting “better and better” tolerance of ideas, consideration, giving out of love without measure instead of giving because it is dictated by Barack Obama and Harry Reid. “Giving out of a free heart” IS freedom...

Corruption represents the erosion of human rights, which is the right to follow the sprit over the letter of the law… Will we still have the right to choose not to bow down and worship Nancy Pelosi’s golden calf?

True liberalism can only be realizes in the spirit.

Yet the future world of the liberals will not reveal truth like this about our own unique “nature”, it will teach you that no one’s head shall stand above the rest and especially not to reproach their God/man messiah. We shall have no choice but to live our lives in absolute submission on our knees worshiping their idol man/God. Forget about “democracy” and your vote, the liberal elite have done all they can to see that what you think or believe no longer counts.

We can all become Joe the plumber like it or not. How dare people dream of hard work, prosperity and success while other are collecting welfare and sitting on their fat asses? (Cynical)

personally I'm shocked to see anything naked, jesus was never naked.

Yes, even naked, Jesus was the way of truth.

Like the word "nature", the word "confess" is another word that people say and do not often pay attention to its subtle meaning.

To confess is to say the same thing that is inside that is also on the outside. To confess is that what you say is parallel to your meaning. For once a person’s real intentions become known often one has already been deceived…

So to confess one’s nature would be to speak on the outside what you believe to be on the inside. To confess = to say the same thing.

To say what you believe…

So a confession of our nature is at the heart of where one turns from good to treachery and from the way of sin and death to the way of holiness.

It is about identity and what one identifies with. There are only three choices, self, other or a greater being. (that should make it easy) The choices; self and other are really the same choice (sin and death). For they both attempt to reach up into a lofty place of worship but eventually come back to the ground never reaching illumination. For with the self we become lonely and with others we are eventually disappointed, only a greater intelligence can be always present and all powerful or “Omni”.

So are we omni or not? What do we confess within in the inner part of our being? What is our nature? Do we act like we are Omni but do a different thing? What is "baptism”? Baptism is the comfort you acquire when you KNOW you have become Omni, for only you know your own heart.

Matthew 6:33 KJV
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

What on earth are you talking about? Read this passage from the Bible.

Matthew 25:31-46



Jesus sends to Hell the very people whose actions precisely fit those of people who today call themselves conservative Christians.

While conservative Christians do give to charity, and many I know are quite generous.

But, we’re not talking about their private charitable giving, but speaking of political choices and activism, and this passage from Matthew does not apply only to acts of individual charity.

So, where does Matthew 25 say or even imply that it only applies to individual actions of a charitable nature?

The proper view is, you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these."

In the analysis directly following, such assertions will be backed up by (1) plain meaning and logic -- analysis of the text itself; and (2) Papal teachings -- citing of relevant elements of the Catholic Church's official written social doctrine.

So let's first look at the Biblical text itself.

Jesus separates the goats and sheep by nations, not by individuals.

Moreover, when the "righteous" -- the sheep -- address Jesus, they ask "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?" When the "cursed" -- the goats --address Jesus, they also speak collectively: "Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?" The righteous and the cursed do not individually ask "When did I…" or even "When did each of us…"

It is true that "nations" as used in Matthew 25 may not mean nation-states as we know them today, but it's still a collective noun. That, together with the "we" language, certainly doesn't militate against responsibility to influence collective action, or excuse its failure.

This textual analysis is backed up by another factor: should a passage such as Matthew 25 really be interpreted narrowly so as to avoid responsibility? To do so would be a perversion of the Golden Rule itself.

Having a narrow, stingy reading of Matthew 25 is, to put it more bluntly, absurd. Would anyone seriously maintain that Jesus would say it’s okay for society as a whole to let people suffer and die, as long as some members give some money to charity?

Even the social doctrine of the Church affirms this textual analysis and examination of Biblical antecedents, and similarly makes clear that individual acts of charity are not sufficient to satisfy Matthew 25.

Let's go through the reasoning process behind the Church's position:

Even the anti-communist, anti-socialist, even anti-welfare-state Pope John Paul II has strongly and repeatedly reaffirmed the Church's Matthew 25-based "preferential option for the poor":

As far as the Church is concerned, the social message of the Gospel must not be considered a theory, but above all else a basis and a motivation for action... Christ's words "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40) were not intended to remain a pious wish, but were meant to become a concrete life commitment... Love for others, and in the first place love for the poor, in whom the Church sees Christ himself, is made concrete in the promotion of justice... in Centesimus Annus.

In this effort, individual acts of charity are not enough:

(In Ecclesia in America)

The reason individual charity is not enough, and that collective political action is required, are the "political and economic structures" referred to by the Pope:



So harmful are these structures that they can even be called "structures of sin":

from Solicitudo Rei Socialis

The Vatican itself will go beyond charitable work and seek to influence governmental and international bodies:

In sum: you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or the lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these" " the "social, political and economic" choices to which the Pope refers. (And no, it meaning doesn’t say government programs are the only answer. Quite the contrary.)

Even if Matthew 25 requires going beyond individual charity, conservative Christians have plans to help the poor, and that certainly satisfies the injunction in Matthew 25. But their "plans" are inadequate to fulfill the Matthew 25 mandate.

Proposing that private charity should do whatever needs to be done, and hoping that there will be enough private charity, isn’t a plan -- it’s a hope. Vague hopes that private charities will take up the slack from decimated or never-enacted government programs are worthless, and have never come to fruition.

Jesus didn’t say “I was hungry and you hoped I’d be fed.” Or “I was hungry and you called upon people to feed me.”

Similarly inadequate for Matthew 25 are the vague hopes that "the market" will solve the problem; or that "competition" will; or even that the seemingly-more-specific, yet just as bogus, long-discredited Reagan-era theory, "trickle-down" economics, will provide the solution.

Vague hopes are not enough: plans to help the poor must be concrete.

Indeed, Church social doctrine makes explicitly clear that concrete action is required:

Jesus would charge the entire society with the responsibility. There's every reason to think that each of us is judged by how the actions we each take influence our government and our society.

What if an individual tries but fails to get the government or society to treat the "least of these" in a Matthew 25 fashion? Is that individual punished because of the collective failure to act properly? I would hope not, but in any case, such speculation is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion, since as be shown above right-wing pseudo-Christians as individuals are on the opposing side of such proper action.

(To jump ahead on another point: this does not call for a government solution to any given problem. It just calls for some solution).

The Bible makes clear that God will hold a nation responsible for its wrongful acts toward the poor -- that is to say, for its political acts of omission or commission.

Anyone can call themselves a "Christian," Rex. But, you are not the only one who considers the words of Jesus Christ in his actions, yet you are the one who uses them selectively to support your greed to your utter shame before the Lord.

This is a fair post and I need to study it more.

You seem to omit a great thing. It is the conservatives who cling to their religion and Bibles remember? It is the liberals who are into themselves more than Jesus.

Jesus said they left HIM starving. You might want to rethink that.

…Although Barack has made no claims to be Jesus...

What makes you think this world today has CHANGED and become any more humble when the conservative are giving Jesus at least lip service and the liberals seem only concerned about getting their pork barrel hands on the money.

When the liberal ideal is nearly devoid of Jesus what makes one think they are worthy stewards of his flock? Liberals nuts have still left the poor starving for the truth. The chaos of liberalism has no concern for anything but itself.

Am I supposed to believe that people who want “in God we trust” removed from our money care about little baby Jesus, the poor or anything other than their own bottom line? Is it not “the poor” that Jesus is talking about that was left in the ditch unclothed naked and but it was God. For all riches in life come from putting God first. When the vertical is in the right place, only then is the horizontal is increased.

Liberals like to appear like they are feeding the world with physical food while they are depriving them of spiritual food.

What is a greater crime to starve the body or the spirit?

RR wrote: You seem to omit a great thing. It is the conservatives who cling to their religion and Bibles remember? It is the liberals who are into themselves more than Jesus.

How do you explain the simple fact that 80% of Americans claim to be christians?

I would offer this, that it was conservatives who applauded the torture of fellow human beings while liberals protested such acts that would rise to the scourging of Jesus.

So tell me again with which group would Jesus Christ side?

I do not consider you a spiritual person of any depth or knowledge about the things you post, so you do not get to argue with authority about the spirituality of others. You have not shown in any single post I have read that you have matured enough as a human being to question the spirituality of others, especially when you use the words of Jesus Christ as a weapon to support your greed.

Even the devil can quote scripture, and that which you refer to as "God" is beyond human imagination, beyond the categories of being and non-being, it is, and is not.... so how can two different people have the same concept of the ineffable? In choosing your God, you choose your way of looking at the universe. There are lots of Gods, choose yours. The God you worship is the God you deserve.

Simply because we all say the same name for God does not mean we have the same relationship to "that", or the same concept of what it is...and this concept of God is only a foreground of the experience.

In the Gnostic gospel according to Thomas, Jesus says, "cleave a piece of wood, I am there; lift up the stone and you will find me there.” in this manner has the historical Jesus identified himself with the Christ... or Buddha consciousness. He is living in terms, not of the ego, but of the Christ, seeing the ubiquity in all of the radiance of that which is the deepest center of being within you. ....you won't find that in the orthodoxy of Christianity, too bad, for it works....hhhmmm, maybe that's why it isn't part of the orthodoxy.

The crux of Christianity is the identification of the historical character as the only incarnation in history of the second person of the blessed trinity. The latter is a theological principle. When Paul said “I live now not I, but Christ in me,” he didn't say Jesus, the historical character, in me, he said "Christ in me.”

The problem you face is your confusion about words of and about Jesus and that you use their denotations, meaning that they are hard facts rather than looking at their connotations... the spirit of the word. The former is the basis for the Christian church... the historical Jesus. But his words, even in the gospel of Thomas have to be seen as their connotation... the spirit of the meaning... and the pointing of a way to lead a good life and to seek the transcendent.

In other words my friend, Jesus called us to a new law, that of love, not of fear, nor of hate. It is one thing to read the Bible, it is quite another to understand its metaphorical connotations, and the remarkable values Jesus’ message shows us all.

This was and is the religious part of the message, a way to a truly religious or transcendent experience.

“ Tut tvam asi” is ancient Sanskrit, from the Chandogya Upanishad, which says "You are it" or "thou art that". That divinity which you seek outside, and which you first become aware of because you recognize it outside, is actually your innermost being. It's not a nice thing to say; for it's not good for institutions if people find it's all within them... it is the God within you coming out... and blasphemy to the western religions.

And is the connotation for Mathew 25 where Jesus states in uncatogorical terms the following



The divine lives within you. The separateness apparent in the world is secondary. Religion is a constellation of metaphors, ones that point to connotations that are of the spirit, not the history books.

By the way, I am a christian, with a small "c.” I believe in the teachings of Jesus as a way to the transcendent or ground of Being, but it is a “Way”, not the only “Way”.

And I would not want to live in a world unshaped by the words of Jesus.

Kuvasz,

I like the way you think. I do not agree with everything but you are very interesting to say the least.

I believe it is you who are still maturing.

It seems you tend to look at life as a superlative (law/flesh) rather than a compromise (liberty/spirit).

Jesus did not strap bombs to himself and blow up little Hebrew children getting on a city bus. So I would think the punishment the world dealt to Jesus did not even nearly "fit the crime"...

Jesus also on the cross only forgave and granted paradise ONLY the malefactor who “repented” of his evil deeds. Does Jesus personally throw the other unrepentant malefactor into the lake of fire? Does that picture of Jesus fit what you are trying to push on honest Christians of faith? Do you expect Christians to be doormats and whips for Jesus?

Also consider there are the least of Jesus’ brethren and then there are those who are not part of the family at all, huh? Thou some are part of the family they may still not be active members in the household…

You ought to note that I never said that my learning was finished; each day upon this earth brings new meaning. I stated that mine was only more considered than your own about spiritual matters.

btw, When did we start discussing comparing the acts of Jesus to terrorists? Our discussion was initiated by having you calling socialism “anti-Christ”

and I disagreed by pointing out Mathew 25, that shows that the passage was based upon Jesus reaffirming the Old Testament passage of :



And directly with



And


And


And by Paul




And stressed by John


The comparison was that your type of Christian supports torture of other human beings; and Jesus never did. Jesus never discussed any such punishments to such violent acts and he forgave all who tortured him.



First, I do not consider that you are an honest Christian of faith or at the least you have been instructed poorly in your faith concerning what is actually presented in the Bible. You are talking about myths and narratives, cobbled together to protect your corporeal being, not reality. Yours is an only somewhat more sophisticated version of believing in fairies, and elves, and Santa Claus.

The teachings of Jesus, His apostles and disciples contain so much more to vivify a man and to reconcile waking consciousness to the mysterium tremendum et fascinans of this universe as it is, AND YOUR PLACE IN IT ALL.

And, yes you might have heard about "Christians being doormats and whimps." They are referred to in the Bible and in church history as martyrs and their personal witness to their love of and belief in what Jesus preached and their own blood painted the way for one half of the world becoming Christian.

The rest of your post is gibberish.

So as long as you pay your taxes to the tax man you have loved one another right?

How do you explain the fact that 80% of the world claim to love the environment?

The liberal scumbag dirtball who decided to put the tag "tiny penis" on my thread, thanks for proving my point about your own tiny brain size. You would stoop low enough to insult my manhood? Is this the liberal love you all act like you are capable of? Well I assure my manhood is fine and quite sufficient, but that does not say much for you! You have to insult my manhood to offset your own lack of spirit hood. Instead of repentance you seem to have taken your own dismal and reproachable way of damnation metered out to apparently all of Jesus' brethren from the greatest to the least. The damnation you dish out unfairly to others will be served upon your own plate. What kind of low life has to take a crack at someone's manhood to stroke their own low self esteem? ANOTHER GODLESS LIBERAL.

It seems your tiny spirit "problem" is leaving you with much to be desired.

sticks and stones, my boy. let us continue our discussion and carry the insult as a cross to bear, because we were begining to approach a basis for negotiation. just remember that i am a liberal because i believe that being so reflects how jesus would want me to behave towards others. i did not start out as a liberal then afterwards attempt to support my philosophy by using the teaching of jesus to buttress my behavior. i use his teaching as my starting point for my personal philosophy ... but i recognize that there is quite a gap between my heart and his soul, but that does not keep me from trying to do better.

calm down and take a chill pill. your best defense is to let your goodness shine through the bullshit that is thrown your way.

ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM

Where did you get that number? Out of your imagination - as usual? LOL