Communism in the Bible?

M

Marsh

Disagreeable By Nature
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Not in the Kingdom... yet.
With all the discussion in this forum about end times lately, I thought it might be a good time for me to ask for feedback on some thoughts that I've been allowing to simmer for some time now, regarding the vision of the red horse in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Typically, most of the analysis of the Red Horse indicates that it represents war, because it's rider carries a large sword and takes peace from the Earth. Personally, I think that this is too easy of an interpretation, considering how complicated most Biblical visions tend to be.

Straight to the point: I think the red horse does not represent war, but rather Communism, which as a theory is represented by the large sword the rider is carrying. Remember that Jesus is described as having a sword coming from his mouth, which is not a physical sword at all but a symbol of the truth that he speaks. An ideology of sorts, yeah? Communism has been an extremely important ideology in our time-- a large sword. How many wars can you think of that involved Communist guerillas? And in how many parts of the world? The Soviet Union actually had an organization called Comintern whose job it was to spread Communism to democratic countries. Though this organization was disbanded part way through the Cold War, the spread of Communism and the wars fought over it continued for half a century, and even today.

For the sake of being concise, here's a summary of some of my other thoughts that have taken me down this road:

1. Red is the "official team colour" of communism; thus, the red horse is a match.

2. The Cold War featured the threat of nuclear weapons-- the largest sword any army has even to this day.

3. If one will allow me to compare the vision of the four horsemen to the vision of the four beasts in Daniel, the second beast is a bear, which is traditionally the animal that symbolizes Russia, which was the first Communist state.

4. One of the chief goals of Communism was to "liberate" workers from their colonial overlords, and I see the rider on the white horse as symbolizing Europe's colonial and religious conquest of the world. Thus, it makes sense that Communism would come next.

5. Continuing on with the previous point, the First World War was the culmination of the colonial era, of which Russia was a part. Russia's "conversion" to communism, which begins with the first revolution in 1917), comes at a very interesting time; from that point forward Britain and the other former colonial superpowers will slowly lose power, while the Soviet Union will quickly gain it, making the transition from white to red.

Any thoughts on these ideas would be greatly appreciated. I may be completely out to lunch on this, and I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar by any means. However, the implications of this theory are, of course, pretty interesting because if Communism is indeed the second horse, our current world is likely then pictured by the third horse (Capitalism, anyone?), and since the timeline of each horse's power seems to be diminishing...
 
Communism and socialism are about class struggles.

Jesus was a defender of the oppressed, the poor and persecuted, of those persecuted and oppressed socially, economically, politically and ideologically, so I wonder if Christianity in its essence is something close to socialism (but not quite).

Maybe it's a monotheistic form of socialism, as opposed to the atheistic communism, the idea that through class struggles, eventually when all the class struggles are over, we will no longer need a government. Socialism will be self-regulating. Well, in Christianity it would be God who looks after that, not some communist ideology or political system.:D

When we eliminate the need for government, for ideology, for political systems, we will finally meet God. If he doesn't come, we'll wait for him until he does.

Let the utopia come to us.

I should be getting back to writing my own version of Marxism for Christianity. Expect the Manifesto to be posted here the same time next year. No, sorry, just kidding!:eek:
 
Communism is about imposing the will of a tiny elite upon the population. Want a car? Be in the Party. Want a good apartment--or even a dacha? Be in the party. Want to have food all winter? Be in the party.

I now expect people to come out and try to pull "no true Scotsman" with communism. If the advocates of communism are allowed to point to the ills of other systems as they work in the free world, then they must accept the ills of communism as it has worked in the real world.
 
Saltmeister said:
Communism and socialism are about class struggles.

Jesus was a defender of the oppressed, the poor and persecuted, of those persecuted and oppressed socially, economically, politically and ideologically, so I wonder if Christianity in its essence is something close to socialism (but not quite).
Click to expand...
Indeed, Jesus said, "My kingdom is no part of this world." Jesus was not a politician.

Maybe it's a monotheistic form of socialism, as opposed to the atheistic communism, the idea that through class struggles, eventually when all the class struggles are over, we will no longer need a government. Socialism will be self-regulating. Well, in Christianity it would be God who looks after that, not some communist ideology or political system.:D
Click to expand...
This is an excellent argument of the State trying to be God, imo. God is not a bureaucracy.
 
Saltmeister said:
Jesus was a defender of the oppressed, the poor and persecuted, of those persecuted and oppressed socially, economically, politically and ideologically, so I wonder if Christianity in its essence is something close to socialism (but not quite).
Click to expand...


I see what you mean. The Apostles lived communally in the beginning, didn't they? I seem to remember that anyone who wanted to join them would sell their Earthly possessions and give the proceeds to the community.

In that way, communist is rather fitting on a timeline toward the anti-Christ, isn't it? It removes Christ as the head of the classless utopia and inserts Lenin, who preached equality but created desolation instead.
 
When our technology becomes so efficient that cars and houses can be produced for pennies, only then can we start to pursue real communism. Most things material-wise would seem almost free, only free-will and ego`s would remain in a world like that (new kingdom?:D). It is my guess that we can achieve that kind of level of technology within the next 100 years or so. And our political system may be adjusted towards such kinds of societies, or not.

Anyways, therefore current existing communist states are nothing but a hoax. And the current existing communists who practice and resemble societies that are more like colonies and colonialist, and our free market economy states are actually striving for one kind of high-tech socialist state. People can deny this all they want but it won`t make much of a difference.

And a big question would be what people may do with all this technology, in a time when we don`t really have to work hard to secure even luxuries. Some may choose to build cars for hobbies, some may choose to grow food because they like to garden or build mansions.

Some people, as we always seem to be around people like this, may miserably choose to regulate, limit, build walls, divide, worse yet try to take over the world, and impose their will on others.

Therefore if the red horse is communism, it is likely to be a new breed of communism, whether imposing or not.

TK
 
Interesting, Marsh, but why not capitalism? After all, the US government was happy to over throw democratic governments to promote it's own agenda?

Not being entirely serious as I think there's a serious element of interpretation of convenience that always goes into prophetical writings of any kind.

Perhaps they are less prophecy as much as Rorshach tests. :)
 
I love communism! And you can quote me on that comrade!

Anyway...... IF and when jesus and god take control of the world, it would to a degree be like communism would it not? All mankind would be treated equal and be given equal, there would be no big ass major corporate companies trying to make money and squeeze you for every penny. We'd all work as one for one cause right? Comrade Stalin salutes you :D
 
besides, socialism was basically invented in the "OT" - see the law on providing for widows and orphans and leaving the "gleanings" of the field for the poor - this law, known as "peah", was the basis for the construction of an entire social justice provision in the halakhah. it's not redistribution exactly, but it is about the rich helping the rest.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
I said:
Interesting, Marsh, but why not capitalism? After all, the US government was happy to over throw democratic governments to promote it's own agenda?
Click to expand...

In answer to both yourself and to Bananabrain, it's not actual communism that I'm referring to, but rather the dictatorial, Stalinist/Maoist manifestation of it that absorbed a large part of the Earth between 1945 and 1991, in the same way that militant Christianity absorbed it between 1492 and 1945 (assuming we use that date as the beginning of decolonization). I see a parallel between the first horseman and the colonists who conquered in God's name, and whose empires eventually spanned the globe. Following this line of thinking, I feel there may be a parallel between the second horseman and the rise of Cold War communism, which asserted control in areas of the world that the first colonists couldn't penetrate (i.e. China).

To address your question specifically, Brian, my line of thinking ends with Capitalism being the third horseman. After all, can you think of a better symbol of capitalist democracy than a set of scales?

Marsh
 
Marsh said:
With all the discussion in this forum about end times lately, I thought it might be a good time for me to ask for feedback on some thoughts that I've been allowing to simmer for some time now, regarding the vision of the red horse in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Typically, most of the analysis of the Red Horse indicates that it represents war, because it's rider carries a large sword and takes peace from the Earth. Personally, I think that this is too easy of an interpretation, considering how complicated most Biblical visions tend to be.

Straight to the point: I think the red horse does not represent war, but rather Communism, which as a theory is represented by the large sword the rider is carrying. Remember that Jesus is described as having a sword coming from his mouth, which is not a physical sword at all but a symbol of the truth that he speaks. An ideology of sorts, yeah? Communism has been an extremely important ideology in our time-- a large sword. How many wars can you think of that involved Communist guerillas? And in how many parts of the world? The Soviet Union actually had an organization called Comintern whose job it was to spread Communism to democratic countries. Though this organization was disbanded part way through the Cold War, the spread of Communism and the wars fought over it continued for half a century, and even today.

For the sake of being concise, here's a summary of some of my other thoughts that have taken me down this road:

1. Red is the "official team colour" of communism; thus, the red horse is a match.

2. The Cold War featured the threat of nuclear weapons-- the largest sword any army has even to this day.

3. If one will allow me to compare the vision of the four horsemen to the vision of the four beasts in Daniel, the second beast is a bear, which is traditionally the animal that symbolizes Russia, which was the first Communist state.

4. One of the chief goals of Communism was to "liberate" workers from their colonial overlords, and I see the rider on the white horse as symbolizing Europe's colonial and religious conquest of the world. Thus, it makes sense that Communism would come next.

5. Continuing on with the previous point, the First World War was the culmination of the colonial era, of which Russia was a part. Russia's "conversion" to communism, which begins with the first revolution in 1917), comes at a very interesting time; from that point forward Britain and the other former colonial superpowers will slowly lose power, while the Soviet Union will quickly gain it, making the transition from white to red.

Any thoughts on these ideas would be greatly appreciated. I may be completely out to lunch on this, and I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar by any means. However, the implications of this theory are, of course, pretty interesting because if Communism is indeed the second horse, our current world is likely then pictured by the third horse (Capitalism, anyone?), and since the timeline of each horse's power seems to be diminishing...
Click to expand...
The "white horse" simply moved west and south, and killed the red horse, by attrition and out manueuvring. White horse is still here Marsh...
 
Quahom1 said:
The "white horse" simply moved west and south, and killed the red horse, by attrition and out manueuvring. White horse is still here Marsh...
Click to expand...

Yes, the white horse is still here-- exactly the point. And the red horse, if it really does symbolize communism, has not been killed, Q; ever heard of a country called... China? Of course, Russia itself is overlooked much too much in western media. I taught a student from there once, who was born in 1991 and was thus a child of the "new Russia." He didn't take too kindly to my unit on the Cold War's depiction of the evil empire. Made me wonder how many Russians would prefer being part of the all-powerful Soviet Union as opposed to the current Russia which sits on the margin between developed and underdeveloped.
 
Marsh said:
Yes, the white horse is still here-- exactly the point. And the red horse, if it really does symbolize communism, has not been killed, Q; ever heard of a country called... China? Of course, Russia itself is overlooked much too much in western media. I taught a student from there once, who was born in 1991 and was thus a child of the "new Russia." He didn't take too kindly to my unit on the Cold War's depiction of the evil empire. Made me wonder how many Russians would prefer being part of the all-powerful Soviet Union as opposed to the current Russia which sits on the margin between developed and underdeveloped.
Click to expand...
In a socialistic society, everything is managed by the state government, with the people being the worker bees, producing for the state, what the state determines will be produced. In a Communistic society, the government disappears, and all are considered on even keel, contributing towards eachother and the total well being of the whole (in a walgreen world). It really isn't prudent to compare a Socialistic society with a Communistic society. Nor is it accurate neccessarily to call China Communist and Russia Communist. Both were/are more or less Socialistic.

The difference is that China, embraced a limited amount of Capitalism to augment the coffers of the State, while allowing some entrepeneurs a bit of freedom to make even more money, and enjoy more luxuries, and did so on a slow scale. By doing so, the state was able to keep the populace from revolting (dangling the carrot and allowing others to see the carrot being caught by some, gives hope, so more work is done).

Russia (Soviet Union), failed to see the value in rewarding hard work and allowing other to see it, which lead to the crumbling of its economic infrastructure (The Russians had a joke: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"). By the time the more enlightened heads of state got into power and tried to divert the tide, it was too late, and the infrastructure collapsed.

Cuba, is in the same boat as Russia was, though not for lack of trying. That government's mistake was a none willingness to bend knee a bit to their neighbor up north (it seems holding a grudge does hurt us more than it hurts the one we have a grudge against).

Of the three, none are true Communist societies, but all are definitely socialistic hegemonies (with Cuba having one true dictator running the show).

Your Russian student was born after 70 years of absolute rule by a few in the docha and the politburo, was over. In that case I'd consider the source of discord...

Communism in its purest sense, could be described as an Israeli Kibutz, or a midwestern agricultural collective of the United States. All things being equal, resources are pooled to buy and share the machinery, fertilizer and seed, to assist all of the community in the harvest of the crops, and the wealth then is spread around to insure next year's successful crop as well as basic descent living for all concerned during the rest of the year.

So, the problem lies not in socialism, Communism, or Democracy perse, but in trying to implement these idealogies in their purest form, over a grand scale, such as millions to billions of people...not going to work very well.

I would argue that Capitalism in its purest form would be just as destructive wherein the corporate would become the defacto law of the land, and every man for himself...

I believe your "red horse" is the one of "absolute control"...

The "white horse" is comprimise...

The "third horse" is greed and anarchy, perhaps a type of feudalism...

Hey, you asked for thoughts. :D
 
Sigh... Q, my theory has little or nothing to do with the question of whether a country is or is not communist by strict definition of the term. My theory is about the rise of countries that call(ed) themselves communist, that gained power in the world, and specifically over many parts of the world that were not conquered by colonial Europe. So while I applaud the effort you made to illustrate the shortcomings of twentieth-century socialist states in 10,000 words or less, that particular topic is immaterial-- in fact, I already addressed this when I answered Brian and Banannabrain.

To reiterate, what I am trying to establish is an alternative interpretation of the prophecy of the four horsemen in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and a possible timeline to go with it. If you have any thoughts on that...
 
Marsh said:
Sigh... Q, my theory has little or nothing to do with the question of whether a country is or is not communist by strict definition of the term. My theory is about the rise of countries that call(ed) themselves communist, that gained power in the world, and specifically over many parts of the world that were not conquered by colonial Europe. So while I applaud the effort you made to illustrate the shortcomings of twentieth-century socialist states in 10,000 words or less, that particular topic is immaterial-- in fact, I already addressed this when I answered Brian and Banannabrain.

To reiterate, what I am trying to establish is an alternative interpretation of the prophecy of the four horsemen in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and a possible timeline to go with it. If you have any thoughts on that...
Click to expand...
Well, in that light, it could be that the first horse

(the white horse) was the time of colonialism/imperialism (for example, at one point the sun never set on the British empire), which gave way to the second horse

(the red horse) which was/is the time of revolution/civil discord/turning on each other in struggle and strife (this is to be on a world wide scale). On the outside, all looks to be unified and in order, but in reality factions seethe against each other, and challenges are constantly being made against the established norm. Eventually, this veneer of civil union and actual chaos will be brought under control by the third horse

(the black horse) which will be corporate control of the masses. When corporate financial budgets outstrip that of national governments, the corporations become the new governing bodies, with national governments becoming token or puppets of the new powers. Still there will be strife as pure Capitalism is a cannibal in disguise, devouring every other competitor until one stands in complete authority. For every practical purpose this in effect causes a one world governing authority (of kind of dictatorship), which history shows, never lasts long, can not be maintained for long, and breeds discontent and revolt as people chafe against one vision for all, when we are none of us the same, or robots, and ushers in the last Horse

(the pale horse) which is death, decay, corruption, anarchy, destruction of civil society as was known. A total breakdown of allegience and alliance with one another. If not corrected by a charismatic group of enlightened free thinkers, will lead to another dark age (or worse).

It fits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top