Jesus says, “Socialism or hell!”….what?

Whoa? What? That’s harsh!!!!

Yes, but these are not my words. If they were, they would have Oreo crumbs and chocolate spittle, but since they don’t, they aren’t mine. They are the words and definitely a sentiment I have heard before and now am hearing with fanatical fervor.

What do I say? “Hands off my cookies! Damn it.”

So, the other day there I was sitting on B&N minding my own business, reading random books and essay and dreaming of the sweet creamy filling that inhabits the paradise between two cookie layers and this is what happened:

“Mmmmmm Oreo cookies….. Jesus is a socialist!”

What? What? What? Whose thoughts were those? So, I snap back to ‘reality’ and I find myself confronted with a neighboring table with people blabbing away about politics.

Person 1 “It’s not exactly redistribution of wealth that bothers me it is the lack of control of where my money goes.” {Cookie commentary: And you control where it goes with the current tax system – the usual cop out answer of someone who doesn’t want to get involved}

Person 2: “So what? The rich are sitting all high and might on their thrones they can do no good with all that cash! Give it to those in need.” {Cookie commentary: Fallacious to paint with a broad-stroke all the rich as if they do no good with their money. Rich is an ambiguous word. Fallacious to believe putting cash in other pockets will lead to a healthier state of being. While food and shelter are necessary for those without, handing out money without education is a pandering recipe for disaster….ask Rome.}

Person 3: “What? Can you really say that? I mean this is not about taxation this is about ideology. Those proponents of socialism want power. They want power by destroying land rights, inheritance rights; they believe it’s a struggle against old money. If they, the gov’t officials, are in power then they are the new ‘rich’. You think it will be better to be socialist and have the ‘high’ pounded down at the expense of lifting others?”
{Cookie commentary: Hmmmmm. Rather logical argument. The issue at hand then usually becomes a battle of another question: Should we help those ‘lower’ than us and do the ‘high’ deserve it??”

Person 2: “Look. Jesus was a socialist. He wants us to share our property with those in need. Look at the book of acts, the eye of a needle quote, and such…” {Cookie commentary: HO HO HO! Wow, I have a lot to say about this which will undoubtedly tick so many Oreo lovers and haters alike. SO, I shall hold it for now.}

Person 1 looks shocked and uncomfortable.

Person 3: “What? What does this have to do with Jesus?”

Person 1: “I am just saying. There is a good example of socialism.”
{Cookie commentary: Cannot give an example that appeals to an authority without describing why the authority might have such views. Cannot retro-fit ideas into a subject matter that would not have coined nor understood the full implications of the term.}

So, this is the point where my mind went reeling from the bliss of books, coffee, cookies, and solitude to the utter intrusion of a bazillion differing opinions and ideas about life.

Ok, so now that I have held myself until this point let’s examine two quotes that I have been hearing a lot of lately and look at them from two different perspectives:

Act4:32: “And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.”

Interpretation 1: If I were to take this passage literally and out of context of the entire book of Acts I would have to say that this sounds like a completely justifying line for promoting socialism.  Sure, these apostles are sharing all that they have so that a centralized organization can then ‘redistribute’ the apostles wealth for the benefit of the poor they come in contact with and for the benefit of each other’s longevity.

What if you are not an apostle? A Christian? Or any type of believer? Well, then you didn’t give them your property did you? No.  Does this mean that if you are to become a Christian you would have to give up your possessions to avoid damnation? Some would agree with that.

Others wouldn’t.

Interpretation 2: Then there is the camp that believes in a historical perspective and a metaphorical belief of what is said or done in much of the scriptures.  So, those people tend to say a few different things.

1) That the book of acts is a story about the Apostles ‘AFTER’ Jesus and although usually attributed to Paul might be either written by Paul or by his followers in the years between 55-90AD.  They continue to say that Paul also never met Jesus.  Paul calls himself an apostle but only ‘met’ Jesus in a vision while being knocked off a horse as he was traveling to Damascus.

2) Scholars also say that at the time of these acts there was a great need for a centralized command structure in order to preserve the faithful and their teachings.  If you have followers scattered all around with differing beliefs and no command then the faith can be mopped up by an opposition or hijacked by swindlers.  Therefore, some of the desire to collect land was to form a pool from which the cost of operations was taken from and to make sure there would be recourses for the followers.  Not to mention an attempt at keeping the faithful in groups to better avoid misrepresentation and persecution.

3) The line quoted above is a metaphorical reference.  The point being that you cannot be a follower if your heart is not completely in it.  God knows all things and will know if you are faithful to him or to possessions.  Not to mention the line appears to reference earlier events and sayings i.e. ‘Serving God vs. Mammon”

4) It was a story that was to highlight the gifted and blessed nature of Jesus’ apostles.

Ok, whatever camp you are from you have a choice but either way if you are a staunch proponent of either camp you have to be wary of the most common error: Generalizing your views and making it the ONLY view.

Ok onto the next quote:

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

If we took this literally it would be the most absurd of tasks…….the impossibility implying that it is a pre-requisite for heavenly existence: poverty or detachment………If you tried and realized you couldn’t fit a camel through the eye of a sewing needle and concluded that is the point of this statement: that it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven….well then that is your desired belief.  Ironic though that prior to this wealth was a sign of Godly favor.  So, what could the real message be? God’s acceptance of all vs. prioritization based on disposition? Well, let’s leave that debate to the scholars, shall we?

 

Also, some scholars believe that the eye of the needle was a passage way near Jerusalem that was very difficult for an unencumbered camel to pass through let alone one what is weighed down with baggage. As a result the interpretation would then mean that one has to be ‘free’ or ‘unencumbered’ in order to enter into heaven.

Then again there is the interpretation, one that is much more difficult to defend, that Jesus’ response to the rich man in the ‘eye of the needle’ passage was not about wealth but about keeping the commandments.  The persistence of the young rich man in continuing a line of questioned can be interpreted as ‘showing off’ and as a result Jesus was making an example of the young man to show that ‘insolence’ will not be tolerated. Or that we all have things we are not willing to give up and if given the opportunity none of us will be ‘naked’ entering into the kingdom of God: i.e. none of us are perfect.
What is the point of all this God forsaken seriousness?

THAT IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO SAID WHAT AND WHEN IN TIME IT HAS BEEN SAID!

We humans have a great knack for bickering all day long about this or that other thing.  We can argue until the Cows, Jesus, or any other being comes home and it won’t make a lick of difference.
Therefore the best thing to do is eat your Oreos and share with your friends.  Children are taught this yet we adults think it’s childish? Do you actually think that the need for socialism or class struggle would be necessary if we shared FREELY (That is the most important part, the word freely).  Does it mean that there would be a Utopia? No. Does it mean that there would not be the poor? No, but there would most likely be less poor. Does it mean that we would live happily ever after? No.  Does it mean that there would not be wars? No, but maybe less wars….maybe.  Does it mean that our friends and we would enjoy each other more? I think so.  Does it mean it would end greed? No, but it might lessen it.  Does it mean that we would have all that we ever wished for? Nope, but we might have more of what we wished for.

People want to be free. Free to choose and free to reign over their little lives. Freedom and its exercise tend to be in greater supply in a free society/market.  Does that mean we should run freely over all that makes sense? Heck no! Does that mean we need SMART regulations and honest looks into minimizing the abuse of the greedy or cutthroat? Yes.  But, let me tell you, as soon as you give up your freedom of choice in order to be safer and/or wealthier then you have just freely chosen to become less than human.  I might not agree with Socialists or the super-free market capitalists, but I would share my Oreos with them and entertain a real discussion with them any day.

But, the gods help anyone who comes in and grabs my whole bag of Oreos! There will be hell to pay; the hills will run brown with chocolate milk!!!!!

 

Good luck tomorrow, America.

 

Advertisement