PDA

View Full Version : I heard Tony Blair say last night that Jesus would have been a socialist




Rhys
06-01-2008, 01:43 PM
He was on the BBC talking about his new Tony Blair Faith Foundation. The interviewer asked if he still thinks Jesus would be a socialist today, and he skirted around the answer saying "progressives blah blah" but essentially said yes, he does still think Jesus would have been an evil commie bastard.

MRoCkEd
06-01-2008, 01:46 PM
robinhood would be a socialist
not sure about jesus - seems he would be a pro-life libertarian who advocated personal charity and volunteer assistance to the needy

OptionsTrader
06-01-2008, 01:46 PM
God is a noninterventionist, and so should be the government. Economically and in foreign policy.

born2drv
06-01-2008, 01:50 PM
He was on the BBC talking about his new Tony Blair Faith Foundation. The interviewer asked if he still thinks Jesus would be a socialist today, and he skirted around the answer saying "progressives blah blah" but essentially said yes, he does still think Jesus would have been an evil commie bastard.

Things have changed quite a bit in the past 2000 years ;) People have the ability to go from poverty, to wealth, and back to poverty all based on the fruits of their labor, not on which family they were born into, their skin color, religion, etc. So while he may have been a communist back then, who's to say he would still be one today? Doesn't it say in the bible, "teach a man to fish"?

SLSteven
06-01-2008, 02:27 PM
Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 02:43 PM
God is a noninterventionist, and so should be the government. Economically and in foreign policy.

"God is a noninterventionalist."

Gotta laugh.

Christianalwaysg124RP
06-01-2008, 03:01 PM
Actually the religious leaders of the day historically were people in dealing with the government. Jesus went against this kind of atitude saying "My Kingdom is not of this world."(John 18:36) Jesus had compassion on the poor telling the disciples "whatever you do to the least of these my bretheren you do it unto me."(referring to the Jewish people and all living in the area. Meaning all poor people, essentially)

Jesus set up a system of giving to the poor to the apostles. He did, but Jesus and the apostles clearly taught the the giving was to be done by the church.(not the responsibility of the government)


There is one scripture where you could say socialism was taught. This is in Acts 2 after Peter gave his message on the feast of Pentecost. It talks about the disciples dividing their goods. This does not mean they were socialist. First of all, we have to remember the history of the passage. It was written during the time when money wasn't as it was today.(as most of you know about the FRS know this fact) Unlike today's terminology, wealth and money meant two different things. Wealth was the inheritance you owned. Money was the currency you owned. Some people could be wealthy, but very rich. Usually, in your society, if you are rich you are also wealthy. Secondly, we have to remember that the goal wasn't so that communism could occur. Communism is when there is no rich and poor.(which is impossible) The disciple, even though they divided their goods, always had different wealth when compared to the other. In fact, if you read Acts chapter 5, with Annianias, you can see communism didn't happen.

Christianalwaysg124RP
06-01-2008, 03:04 PM
The founders understood that the bible teaches a constitutional and limited government. Even when Israel was under an earthly King, God gave him a Constitution(the Torah) for him to restrict himself from power. (which is why Thomas Jefferson taught a "wall of separation" between church and state)

Deu 17
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

The bible teaches that Jesus was the only man in history to keep what I call the whole "Jewish Constitution"-the Torah.

MsDoodahs
06-01-2008, 03:07 PM
Anarchist.

:p

mconder
06-01-2008, 03:11 PM
Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"

Which according to the current law (The Constitution) is a hell of a lot less than "Ceasar" should be getting.

AmericaFyeah92
06-01-2008, 03:13 PM
he was mostly apolitical, but he did tell his followers not to worship Caesar as God, so i assume he would come out very strongly against totalitarianism, which is basically state-worship.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 03:16 PM
He was definitely an anarchist.

AmericaFyeah92
06-01-2008, 03:25 PM
He was definitely an anarchist.

of which variety?

The "let's share everything" kind or the "get the hell of my property" kind?

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 03:35 PM
of which variety?

The "let's share everything" kind or the "get the hell of my property" kind?

He was anti establishment, and a man of the people.

This is my interpretation of the scriptures.

Without doubt, many others will quote passages and interpret things differently.

That's Religion for you.

rpfan2008
06-01-2008, 03:40 PM
Sometimes I wonder how Americans are so turned-off by the word 'socialism'. There are many socialist democracies around the world, its not communism. Communism is communism disguised in socialism. Soc is about listening to the poor and providing assistance to the (economically) weaker sections of the society. Gandhi was for a socialist democracy. In my country too food prices soared in the recent crisis but the most unaffected class was the poorest ones, in my state there are big floods every year which destroys the cultivations of many lowly(geographically) areas,but people seldom dies in hunger, because they are provided with subsidized ration at about 10%(net) of market price. And I can only see benefit ofthe system. Poor don't die.

But what holds fit here doesn't necessarily be the same for you.That's why I never criticize anyone for socialism in the forums.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 03:46 PM
Sometimes I wonder how Americans are so turned-off by the word 'socialism'. There are many socialist democracies around the world, its not communism. Communism is communism disguised in socialism. Soc is about listening to the poor and providing assistance to the (economically) weaker sections of the society. Gandhi was for a socialist democracy. In my country too food prices soared in the recent crisis but the most unaffected class was the poorest ones, in my state there are big floods every year which destroys the cultivations of many lowly(geographically) areas,but people seldom dies in hunger, because they are provided with subsidized ration at about 10%(net) of market price. And I can only see benefit ofthe system. Poor don't die.

But what holds fit here doesn't necessarily be the same for you.That's why I never criticize anyone for socialism in the forums.

America is a corporate socialist state with ever increasing fascist leanings.

Now.

Sorry...

pcosmar
06-01-2008, 04:18 PM
Tony Blair is a member of the Fabian Society.
Their symbol and Coat of Arms is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The CFR is a spin off of the Fabian Society.
Their stated goal is a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT under the control of a wealthy elite.

Research folks.

I really don't care what Tony Blair has to say about anything.

Christianalwaysg124RP
06-01-2008, 10:30 PM
Sometimes I wonder how Americans are so turned-off by the word 'socialism'. There are many socialist democracies around the world, its not communism. Communism is communism disguised in socialism. Soc is about listening to the poor and providing assistance to the (economically) weaker sections of the society. Gandhi was for a socialist democracy. In my country too food prices soared in the recent crisis but the most unaffected class was the poorest ones, in my state there are big floods every year which destroys the cultivations of many lowly(geographically) areas,but people seldom dies in hunger, because they are provided with subsidized ration at about 10%(net) of market price. And I can only see benefit ofthe system. Poor don't die.

But what holds fit here doesn't necessarily be the same for you.That's why I never criticize anyone for socialism in the forums.
I believe in welfare too. I believe in charitable welfare, not government controlled welfare. We, Ron Paul supporters like government doing the very least. Only doing what is absolutely needed in a democratic republic.

AutoDas
06-02-2008, 12:48 AM
rpfan2008, what country are you speaking of?

Truth Warrior
06-02-2008, 07:42 AM
Tony Blair is an idiot too, and TPTB sock puppet NWO agenda lackey and public mouthpiece tool.

Alex Libman
06-02-2008, 07:46 AM
Religion has always been the tool of the state. It can be molded into anything.

angelatc
06-02-2008, 07:53 AM
robinhood would be a socialist
not sure about jesus - seems he would be a pro-life libertarian who advocated personal charity and volunteer assistance to the needy


IIRC, Robin Hood stole from the king, who was taxing the citizens into poverty. So that's more civil dosobedience than socialism, me thinks.

Of course, I think most of my Robin Hood knowledge came from the Bugs Bunny version, so I might be wrong.

angelatc
06-02-2008, 07:56 AM
Sometimes I wonder how Americans are so turned-off by the word 'socialism'. There are many socialist democracies around the world, its not communism. Communism is communism disguised in socialism. Soc is about listening to the poor and providing assistance to the (economically) weaker sections of the society. Gandhi was for a socialist democracy. In my country too food prices soared in the recent crisis but the most unaffected class was the poorest ones, in my state there are big floods every year which destroys the cultivations of many lowly(geographically) areas,but people seldom dies in hunger, because they are provided with subsidized ration at about 10%(net) of market price. And I can only see benefit ofthe system. Poor don't die.

But what holds fit here doesn't necessarily be the same for you.That's why I never criticize anyone for socialism in the forums.

Socialism requires the use of force. Using the power of the government to take property away from the owners, and giving it to people who do absolutely nothing to earn it.

I have nothing against with providing assistance to the poor, but I want the freedom to give willingly to those I deem truly needy.

LittleLightShining
06-02-2008, 08:02 AM
He was anti establishment, and a man of the people.

This is my interpretation of the scriptures.

Without doubt, many others will quote passages and interpret things differently.

That's Religion for you.I agree.

Truth Warrior
06-02-2008, 08:17 AM
Religion has always been the tool of the state. It can be molded into anything.

Religion is eons older than state.

BOTH are TPTB "tools".

They are both only means of rule, power and control, by the miniscule microscopic minority, and always will be.

Theocrat
06-02-2008, 08:18 AM
God is a noninterventionist, and so should be the government. Economically and in foreign policy.

God is definitely not a non-interventionist. He's a Theocrat. ;)

Truth Warrior
06-02-2008, 08:21 AM
Robin Hood was just another THIEF. Just like the state, only operating on a much smaller scale.

acptulsa
06-02-2008, 08:22 AM
Anarchist.

:p

Tony Blair is just trying to re-create God in his own image, just like most people do. What else can we understand--and that goes double for an arrogant, self-centered politician like Blair. But he's dead wrong. As Options Trader rightly pointed out, if there's a God out there at all, God is most certainly 99 44/100% non-interventionist.

Sound like a socialist to you?

FindLiberty
06-02-2008, 08:22 AM
LONG LIVE CHRIST, THE ANARCHIST !!! ...and no doubt, he's a Libertarian.

...I thought about this while in silent prayer just yesterday as I took my Son Chip and Jesus Juice in remembrance of Him.

I think Jesus would approve of very little going on these days.

And, He may be a comin' back any day now to open up a big ol' can of WHOOPASS onto those whom have been naughty in deed and not nice at heart!

angelatc
06-02-2008, 08:25 AM
Robin Hood was just another THIEF. Just like the state, only operating on a much smaller scale.

I still think that Robin Hood was a revolutionary. From Wikipedia,
In the oldest surviving accounts a particular reason for the outlaw's hostility to the sheriff is not given [11] but in later versions the sheriff is despotic and gravely abuses his position, appropriating land, levying excessive taxation, and persecuting the poor. In some later tales the antagonist is Prince John, based on the historical John of England, who is seen as the unjust usurper of his pious brother Richard the Lionheart. In the oldest versions surviving, Robin Hood is a yeoman, but in some later versions he is described as a nobleman, Earl of Huntingdon or Lord of the Manor of Loxley (or Locksley), usually designated Robin of Loxley, who was unjustly deprived of his lands.[12]

Truth Warrior
06-02-2008, 08:32 AM
I still think that Robin Hood was a revolutionary. From Wikipedia, Back from the fighting in the barbaric "Christian" :rolleyes: crusades, under King Richard "the Lion Hearted" :p, captured and held for ransom. Robin THE hood merely opposed the OTHER sociopathic temporary "King" (so-called) John.

Thanks! :)

youngbuck
06-02-2008, 08:45 AM
Socialism requires the use of force. Using the power of the government to take property away from the owners, and giving it to people who do absolutely nothing to earn it.

I have nothing against with providing assistance to the poor, but I want the freedom to give willingly to those I deem truly needy.

Exactly. Socialism is basically the forceful (through taxation, etc.) redistribution of wealth. How on earth can that be good?

acptulsa
06-02-2008, 08:51 AM
Exactly. Socialism is basically the forceful (through taxation, etc.) redistribution of wealth. How on earth can that be good?

Theoretically.

The redistribution of wealth is no bad thing (much better if voluntary but still) provided you can guarantee beyond any doubt that this consists entirely of the well to do subsidizing the starving and never consists of the rich stealing from the poor. In the case of socialism, this means that the politicians and bureaucrats must always be pure and not corruptible. And that will make it a good thing in theory.

And prevent it from ever, ever being a good thing in the genuine real world.

Truth Warrior
06-02-2008, 08:57 AM
Theoretically.

The redistribution of wealth is no bad thing (much better if voluntary but still) provided you can guarantee beyond any doubt that this consists entirely of the well to do subsidizing the starving and never consists of the rich stealing from the poor. In the case of socialism, this means that the politicians and bureaucrats must always be pure and not corruptible. And that will make it a good thing in theory.

And prevent it from ever, ever being a good thing in the genuine real world.

"A government ( "system" ) that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul."

"If you take care of the MEANS the ENDS will take care of themselves."

Andrew-Austin
06-02-2008, 08:59 AM
Jesus might have given a homeless man the shirt off his back, but he wouldn't support a government that forces people to do so.

And I'm pretty sure he would be for helping others help themselves, and thus wouldn't support tax funded welfare that only succeeds in keeping people idle.