Tuesday, May 7, 2013

No "Jeff," Jesus was not a Socialist

Yep, "Jeff" is back, warping whatever he needs to warp to continue believing in liberalism. It's nothing new. "Jeff" now is claiming that Jesus was a socialist, in this tweet:

Oh "Jeff," seriously? I mean, it's just not possible you equate Jesus giving away what essentially belonged to him with socialism?

Let me ask you a question, "Jeff." If a doctor chooses to treat a patient, FOR FREE, without government compulsion but of his own free will, is that Socialism?

While we're at it, if I have food, and I choose to directly give it to a hungry person, without government compulsion but of my own free will, is that Socialism?  Or, in the case of Jesus, if someone gave me some bread and fish to give to help feed hungry people I distributed them, is that Socialism?

Or if I were to take some wine, which I purchased with my own money, and wrap it up and put a nice bow on it and give it to someone, without government compulsion but of my own free will, is that Socialism?

No to all three, my friends. The first two fall under a very common English word: Charity. The third falls under another very common English word: Gift.

Now none of these are perfect analogies, because what all three of the examples "Jeff" gave were actually Jesus performing miracles. As God incarnate, Jesus took five loaves of bread and two fish and turned them into enough bread and fish to feed thousands miraculously; He healed the sick miraculously; and He turned water into wine miraculously.  Jesus healing the sick wasn't through government compulsion and it didn't confiscate peoples' money to provide it.

Jesus had the ability to heal sick people, so He healed them (similar, if not exactly, in result to a doctor who chooses to give a sick person free care on his own).

A small boy gave (donated) his lunch to Jesus to help feed the hungry crowd. Jesus then miraculously multiplied it to feed thousands.

Wedding patrons gave Jesus pots of water, which Jesus was able to turn into wine and give to the wedding guests.

Now, how is this socialism, "Jeff"? Before you answer let's review how Webster's dictionary defines socialism, shall we?

Socialism (n) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

So, "Jeff," was Jesus part of the government? No, He was not. Was Jesus taking collective goods by means of government and distributing them? No, He was not.

Jesus was privately charitable. And private citizens and charities taking care of the poor is not socialism, nor is it liberalism. It is an exercise of the conservative principle of charity. Plain and simple.


  1. Sometimes I ponder the idea that in order for Liberalism to attract the low-info masses it needs to convince them that Gov't is Wonderful and People are Greedy SOBs.
    So, if a bunch of people are given something for free AND THEY BENEFIT from it, we will label it Socialism (again, stealing the language).

    All Happy Endings Are Caused By Socialism/Liberalism/etc.

    Any charity from an individual (or corp, for that matter) must have a down side, even if it has to be made up. They MUST find a way to conclude that the Gov't could've done a better job with that cash. (see John 12:5-7).

    This is another reason for the Left to hijack Education - simple math disproves their theories.

  2. "This is another reason for the Left to hijack Education - simple math disproves their theories."

    I never understood this train of thought, and I was raised in a very conservative household. This is basically just saying that because higher education often leads to an ideological shift to the left that it's because of "indoctrination" rather than the plainly apparent fact that the more an individual knows, the greater their resources to begin forming ideological views of their own, apart from their parents. There is a joke of sorts at my college that involvement in the "HNGR" program inevitably leads one to hate capitalism on a moral level. It's not because they are being lied to or misled but rather because it opens students up to the nature of poverty and other societal ills and the role multi-national corporations play in contributing to and perpetuating human suffering.

  3. Being shown only one side of an argument...even if the intention is not to directly indoctrinate...still causes indoctrination my friend.

    For example, how much attention is paid to "evil corporations" causing poverty as opposed to communist and totalitarian governments who so thoroughly oppress their people?


All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.

Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.