A Christian Cannot Be A Marxist Or A Socialist

At least in the Catholic Church socialism has been explicitly condemned going back to Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum (1891). At its root socialism is based on philosophical materialism, which is incompatible with Christianity. Over time, "Christian Socialism" will always tend to become less Christian and more socialist.

To be fair, I would also add that a purely laissez-faire economic ideology (which in many ways is the antithesis of socialism) also runs into problems with Christianity, as it lacks a moral framework to account for basic rights and the common good.

Some papal commentary on socialism:

taylormarshall.com/2017/09/catholic-condemnation-socialism-5-papal-quotes.html

taylormarshall.com/2017/09/can-christian-socialist-popes-say-no.html


And while it's been fashionable in some liberal circles--particularly since the 1960s--to claim Jesus himself as an advocate for socialism, there is really no sound support for this idea:

It seems like pure ideologies of socialism and Christianity should be similar in their desire for a common good.

We go sideways when we introduce people into the mix.

I think the guy you are quoting is attributing to socialists a motivation that they don't necessarily have: that of envy. You don't have to be envious of the rich to support socialism. Why is it not possible simply (and it is simple) to believe that socialism is the most just way for people to live together? Why impute a malignant motivation to them?

Despite the papal encyclical and whatever I just cannot agree that it is not possible to be a Christian and a socialist simultaneously. Marxism is a different philosophy in that in its strict interpretation it is atheist and it does assume an inherent evil in the propertied class, justifying violence against them. Perhaps you could be a really crappy Christian and be a Marxist, but you point is well taken.

I feel this temptation myself sometimes to assume that those holding a radically different perspective than my own must of necessity be motivated by some disguised dark agenda. It's a psychological mechanism to justify your own perspective. But people can be wrong, illogical and even stupid without being ill-intentioned or ill-motivated. They are entitled to their say. Some say that's why God made OCConnect. To paraphrase Rodney King: "Can't we all just disagree together?"

Even if I understood what this meant, I wouldn't understand how it applies here. What is the insight?........................................Luca

You imply that spiritual beliefs/morals and material goods are inextricably combined.

Jesus Christ lived during the period of the Roman Empire, which is about as authoritarian as it gets. I don't recall that he condemned Roman imperialism or stated it was incompatible with following him. You know better than I the quote:


"Render therefore unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's."

This implies to me that he did not see inconsistency between supporting even an authoritarian government and being a Christian. Why do you? Socialism is simply a form of government that controls production. It doesn't imply control of religious beliefs or your behavior towards others. I don't see why if living within and supporting  a socialist government you cannot also be a Christian or a Buddhist or an atheist or a Wabash. Actually, it would probably help to be a Wabash..........................Luca

In my opinion, which has never...ever been believed is canonical, quite the opposite:

You reference an exchange in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 12, when two opposing parties, the Pharisees and the Herodians were trying to trap Jesus.  It is important that these two groups were involved here since they were usually at odds (Pharisees, a religious group, Herodians, a political group) because each group was concerned about the following Jesus was accumulating.  Remember Rome’s practice of leaving the indigenous people’s own ruler in charge of that place they’d conquered so as to help calm the captured people.  So the Herodians were loyal to the Jewish King Herod.

Each of these two groups stood to benefit if Jesus responded incorrectly to the query: Their question was (after sweet talking him) is it right that we (Jews) should pay taxes to Caesar?  If he answered “no,” the Herodians win because they now have proof of his sedition.  If he answers “yes,” the Pharisees win because the Jews, by and large, all hated their own people who acted as tax collectors for Caesar.

but Jesus answered, “show me a denarius... whose picture is on the coin? [Caesar’s] (then Caesar owns it, so) render time Caesar what he already owns, but give to God that which is His.”

it is my observation Jesus was not equating government and Christianity, but drawing a firm line between the two.

Yup. There is too much animosity in all directions. That's why this board even exists, if you recall.

To often people vilify "the left" or "the right" when they actually mean it's the philosophical line of thinking that they dislike. The vilification then tends to get directed towards individuals, with an implicit - sometimes explicit - presumption that if there is something wrong with the philosophy there is also something wrong with the person. Sometimes there is, but overall the animosity just gets tiresome and precludes rational discussion, let alone compromise.

It has been said before that if all these people met anonymously and politics/religion were excluded from any topic of conversation, most of them would get along fine. Of course, the possibility of those exclusions lasting more than a few minutes is virtually nil.

Life is too short, I don't need the goddamm aggravation and at any rate I don't have the time to read all the comments on this board. Just as well.............................Luca