Syria and the Parable of the Good Samaritan

I believe that the UK government should not arm the rebels in Syria, because violent revolution changes too little, upholding the status quo of the rule by the mighty. Arming the opposition only supports the idea that the sword can solve our immediate sufferings, which is an illusion. How this topic shall be approached is in relation to the Parable of the Good Samaritan, using this story to evaluate the arguments for and against intervening in the conflict against Assad. What shall be presented is a balanced assessment of the various ideas about Britain’s role in Syria.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan was a teaching of Jesus’ in relation to who the golden rule applies too.

Luke 10:25-37

New International Version (NIV)

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’[b]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Footnotes:

Luke 10:27 Deut. 6:5

Luke 10:27 Lev. 19:18

Luke 10:35 A denarius was the usual daily wage of a day labourer (see Matt. 20:2).

 

The Jews and the Samaritans were ethnic groups which loathed each other – there was great racial hatred between these peoples. This is what makes the actions of the Samaritan so powerful, as he alone helped his ‘enemy’, relieving his suffering at the expense of his time and money. It is because we have moral duties over space and time that we agree with Jesus that the Samaritan is the man’s neighbour – he is the one who aided a stranger in need. We are called to follow suit in our decision making.

Syria

Following the tidal wave which was the ‘Arab Spring’, many individuals in Syria rose up in revolt against the regime of President Assad. The causes and facets of this conflict are multiple and complex, with ethnic, political and religious divisions playing significant roles. What is certain is the catastrophe it has been in relation to human life. The Iraq War was a bloody melee, with the Iraq Body Count project putting the 2003-2005 death toll at 67,365 civilians. The 2011-2013 Syrian civil war has a death toll according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights of roughly 94,000, and possibly as high as 120,000. The loss of human life is horrific, with human rights violations by both sides of the war. Furthermore, it has recently been reported there is evidence chemical weapons have been used in Syria. The people of that nation are experiencing immediate suffering, and there cries echo in the news broadcasts around the world.

After the interventions by British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, public opinion is resoundingly against military activity in Syria. There are a few reasons often cited for this, which shall be examined as follows.

We should spend British money on British People

The economy is in a mess. Ever since 2008, the UK has been flailing in a mire of debt, gigantic deficits and a populace who want to keep all the perks secured by borrowed money. Many individuals struggle to find jobs, and those who have them live in fear of being laid off or their firm closing. Poverty is increasing, living standards are going down, life is getting harder for thousands of people. The government’s priority should be restoring economic stability and prosperity to the nation, a thing we would all welcome with open arms.

So when we hear that the coalition is considering investing in the expensive endeavour of arming foreign rebels, many people object. Whilst they struggle to make ends meet, William Hague wants to spend money which could help people in this country on those who pay no tax in this nation. Clearly, this hurts the living of many Britain’s.

However, this argument fails in light of the actions of the Good Samaritan. A member of the community of Samaria, he was from a different society to the Jewish man. Not only were they from different nations, they came from natural enemies, like South and North Korea. Yet he recognised that the minimisation of suffering far outweighs any economic benefit from not acting. He was willing to use his bandages, oil and wine on the man, all costing money. Furthermore, he paid two days wages to the innkeeper, and offered to pay for any further expenses. Clearly, the Samaritan understood that helping others is far more important than keeping resources for oneself. When others are in need, one should offer whatever they can, for wealth can never satisfy our deepest desires, whereas love for another, stranger or not, gets to the heart of what fulfils us. In the same vein, not intervening in Syria because it will cost money suggests one prefers wealth over the wellbeing of others, which is abhorrent. Life is precious, and building relationships with others are far superior to any monetary gain, so we this is a bad reason not to engage in military action.

The Middle East is not ours to Interfere with

It is no secret that different societies have very different values. For example, whereas the Western World lives in an era founded upon enlightenment principles, much of the Middle East is structured around Islam. In light of British colonialism, most contemporaries believe the imposition of one’s own values upon another is wrong, and that it is up to the Syrians and the local region to solve this mess. The West has no authority to police the world, as its values are no more right than those of other regions. The shadow of Ayer’s emotivism is used as justification against being involved in other nation’s affairs.

Yet this decision to do nothing in the face of suffering is also reprimanded in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the Levite both see the injured man on the road, a person they have the skill and wealth to help. However, due to their own reputations and pride, ignore the man, leaving him to go through much pain. Their decision not to act perpetuated the evil that man endured, actively condoning the mugging inflicted on this poor individual. The choice not to intervene in Syria legitimises the violence taking place, just as much as killing innocents would. Just because various communities have different values, it does not follow that the people of Britain do not have a responsibility to help those in need, regardless of their country of origin. Rather, this objection to intervention merely supports the status quo of mindless bloodshed to prevent action offending anybody, just as touching the injured man would have meant hours of purification rights for the Levite. The minimisation of suffering far outweighs one’s own reputation in any respect, and as such this criticism of intervening in Syria is weak.

We do not know who the rebels are

This is the most popular and perhaps pertinent objection to arming the rebels. After 9/11, President Bush declared a ‘war on terror’. Ever since, the USA has been supported by the UK in undermining and attacking those extremist groups which seek to harm the West through violence. In particular, the group Al Qaeda are the prime organisation NATO seeks to destroy, which has claimed the lives of thousands of innocents around the world. Many of these individuals have joined the Syrian opposition, forming Islamist militias in order to throw out Assad and make Syria a radical Muslim country. By arming the rebels, the UK government may inadvertently provide military equipment to those who would seek to harm our nation, which is unacceptable. History has shown this to be bad strategy: when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, NATO armed the Taliban, in the hope they could repel the communist invasion. When the USA and UK later landed in the country to overthrow the Taliban, the very same weapons they had supplied were used against them. Thus, arming radical groups with arms may result in a worse government than Assad’s, which actively seek to destroy the UK and her allies.

This objection also falls down. It relies on the position that if someone may harm you, you should not help them in any circumstance. However, this treats individuals as merely a means, not as ends. It was Kant who recognised this is unacceptable. Every human being as an intrinsic dignity, forged by natural rights to life, liberty and estate (Locke). Actions are right if and only if they treat others as an end in themselves, and are for their benefit, helping them flourish. Without this conception of humanity, the killing, torture and suffering of strangers is legitimised.

Furthermore, the Good Samaritan did not take this approach. He could have justified not helping the injured Jew by citing the fact that Israel was an enemy of Samaria, and this man may one day take up arms against the Samaritans. Allowing this man to die would have prevented him from attacking the Samaritan’s homeland, bringing suffering to his nation. Despite this, the Samaritan understood that no matter whom an individual is or what they have done, they have an intrinsic dignity, whether on account of being made in the image of God, having natural rights or having the propensity to be rational, which means they deserve our kindness and love. If we can help the Syrian people by arming Jihadists and radicals that should be our first priority, not avoiding conflict at the expense of others.

Pressure and Peace

The primary argument for arming the rebels is that this will put pressure upon Assad’s regime, which will make it more likely that peace talks will ensue. As previously stated, the violence in Syria is astronomical, with the death toll nearing 100’000. Providing Assad believes he can still retain power, the violence will ensue. Thus, if one provides military equipment to the opposition, Assad may reconsider his options, faced with a bigger threat. By risking escalation, the killing may in fact be stopped. This is the case William Hague and his followers are making.

The problem with this approach is that it changes too little. If Mr Hague arms the rebels, at best a peace deal will be made by the powerful and violent, and at worse one side will destroy the other by merciless killing. By using the tools of the tyrant, one upholds rule by the self-righteous, and only creates more vengeance and anger. Acquiring power by the means Assad uses to keep control, the opposition would become nothing more than tyrants, continuing the cycle of suffering at the expense of millions. Zealotry merely perpetuates the problem of suffering, it cannot solve it. It will not prevent wars or strife in the future, as it maintains the idea that oppression and power can remove immediate suffering, which is manifestly false. As such, arming the rebels will not provide the radical revolution needed to stop the turmoil in Syria.

An Alternative

Recently, I watched the film ‘Gladiator’, a thrilling blockbluster telling a magnificent story. At one point, the slave owner Proximo tells the gladiators, which include Maximus, that we cannot decide what kind of death we have. However, we can decide how we meet it, as either good or bad people. This thought occurred to me regarding Syria. The argument for intervening militarily is that it could relieve the suffering of thousands of people. However, the cost of that is much further bloodshed of innocent individuals. The fact of life we all try and run from is that one day we must die, no matter rich or poor, black or white, Christian or atheist. No matter what happens, bad things will happen to good people, whether Assad, the rebels or anyone else govern Syria. To think human volition alone can remove the sufferings of Syria and the world is false, the ‘Promethian Illusion’ to which I allude to in my last article. It is pride in our own pitiful achievements, which motivates intervention to stop suffering, and usually it only makes it worse. Death will haunt these people, even if USA drones are on their side.

Christianity has a long history of supporting non-violence. Jesus taught to ‘love your enemy’ and to ‘turn the other cheek’ in the face of oppression. In 1 Peter, the author states we should ‘repay evil with a blessing’. Marx describes this as ‘despicable rubbish’, yet the willingness to forgive and embrace the persecutor is at the heart of Jesus’ ‘Original Revolution’ (Yoder). When violence is met with love, the cycle of suffering comes to an end, with injustice countered with a much more powerful warmth and affection which can change human hearts. This approach can help build relationships anew, start diplomatic negotiations and mend schisms amongst warring peoples. Yet it is only if one refuses to ‘define themselves by their enemies who can bless them’ (Volf). The Christian identity is that of being ‘reborn into a living hope’, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. His love forms the centre of a Christian life, and one’s self-understanding should start from Him. This is a positive identity, independent of other people. By contrast, the Syrian rebel defines herself as an opposition to the current world order, for their identity is moulded around a mission to displace those currently in power to change social structures. Thus, they will always be in conflict with Assad and his followers, pushing them away at every turn. As such, only violence can ensue, once more upholding the existing values of oppression. It is only in forgiveness can this conflict be stopped.

This sentiment has been at the heart of the most successful revolutions. Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mandela all lead peaceful demonstrations against violent oppression. They did not mobilise the will of a nation by blowing up buses, shooting enemies and supplying their allies with weapons. No, they took to the streets, calling for all people to rise up in non-violent condemnation of the behaviour of the ruling faction. In each case, they achieved their aims, and ever since the countries they have lived in have in some way benefited from their actions. Indeed, the Egyptian rebels largely followed this approach, and as a result a more peaceful transition took place. Contrast that with Syria, a nation still in the iron grip of war. It is only through public witness to a different way of doing things can a good peace be achieved in this nation.

Conclusion

In summary, I have analysed the various arguments for and against arming the rebels in Syria and concluded it would be a wrong decision. Using the Parable of the Good Samaritan, I have critiqued the main arguments for and against military intervention in Syria, and then offered a theological response to the issue, claiming only peaceful protest and forgiveness can end this struggle. Thus, Assad and the rebels should be encouraged to put down their weapons, not be given more, and ask them to sit round a table. This will alleviate the suffering in Syria, not more violence and zealotry. Therefore, the UK government should not arm the rebels. 

Was Christ a Marxist?

Karl Marx changed the landscape of human thought forever when he published his radical political philosophy, otherwise known as ‘communism’. Ever since numerous activists, thinkers and rulers have pledged allegiance to the Marxist tradition, attempting to implement the revolution required to liberate the poor. An even more influential man is Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian religion, with estimates projecting almost two billion people today following the teachings of this faith. In the last century, some people have suggested that Christ was a Marxist before Marx, his teachings merely reflecting the truth of communism and that the heavenly kingdom he speaks of is the same as the ideal community Marx described. In this article, I will argue that Christ was not a Marxist, nor is Marxism a palatable philosophy. I shall do this by first pointing out a number of the flaws of Marxism, which Christian ethics does not have. Then, an analysis of what would constitute the ‘heavenly kingdom’ shall ensue, which will rebut the notion that God’s kingdom is Marxist in nature. In short, I agree with Hampson that 'communism has neither as good means nor as good an end as the Christian worldview.'

As this article is already lengthy, I shall not myself offer expositions of Marxism or what Christian ethics constitutes. Rather, if you are not clear on what these terms are taken to mean, you can click on the links for broad guides to these doctrines:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/marx/

http://www.request.org.uk/issues/topics/ethics/ethics01.htm

The first challenge Marxism faces is that if propounds the ‘Promethean Illusion’ (Niebuhr). Christian Realists argue that human beings are insecure, because we are ‘dependent and finite’, relying on God as the source of our continued existence. The ‘noble faith’ recognises are immediate predicament and places all hope and trust in Christ, who has shown his unconditional, unique love for us as the ‘suffering God’, dying on a cross in Judea for the rebel creation (Moltmann). However, out of ‘pride’, humanity often tried to turn its ‘weaknesses into strengths’, attempting to gain security (Niebuhr). Such behaviour leads to power and injustice, oppressing others to secure one’s own safety. It is in ‘trying to transcend our creaturliness’ we not only ‘offend God’ but creation’s harmony and balance. All our attempts are futile in the face of suffering and death, for no act of humanity can eradicate the finite and limited nature we possess. This is the mark of false prophecy: offering security to humans as long as they do such and such. All utopianism, which is trademark of enlightenment thinking, falls into the snare of imagining human volition can reorder the cosmos around us. It is only in recognising we will face immediate perils in that uphold the majesty of the divine.

Communism upholds false prophecy because it suggests alienation and suffering can be significantly minimised if we instigate revolution, a collective human action. Through the will of the many, humanity can reconfigure social structures to rid humanity of the ailments of capitalism. However, the projected Marxist state can solve none of our deepest yearnings. It offers no answers to the intrinsic dependence and vulnerability as part of a cosmic existence. It cannot provide any solution to gaping jaws of death. Worst of all, it actively purports that human action alone can save humanity. Communism presents the illusion that if social relations are corrected, then immediate security will ensue. This pride in human ability is itself the source of moral evil, and not only upholds falsity but encourages dangerous actions of self-righteousness. Without belief in God, hope in humanity’s future is only procured by thinking that humans can change the cosmic order, which is absurd. Perhaps it is out of wish fulfilment that Marxism holds to a utopian future (Feurbach).

By contrast, Christianity openly accepts that suffering and hardship will ensue, no matter the course of human action taken. Indeed, ‘A Christian is someone who shares the sufferings of God in the world.’ (Bonhoeffer) as is alluded to multiple times in Scripture. 1 Peter 4:12–13: ‘Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.’ Clearly, the Christian worldview does not propound a vision of reality where faith removes suffering or evil. Rather, it is the hope and trust in the love of God and the promise of immortality which sustains the faith of the disciple in immediate pain. It is in the realisation of our powerlessness that we begin to undercut the source of moral evil, which Marxism seeks to uphold.

A second problem is that the Marxist holds that one can make a desirable society without the people within that social setup being moral. Communists believe that if private property is abolished, the means of production returned to the proletariat, that if society is structured as a commune, then alienation and other ailments will dissipate. However, this seems to presuppose that living in such a system will configure just people. Yet this seems thesis commits the same fallacious move that many other political philosophies do, that a community can be just without the people being just. If individuals within a system are not good and seek only their self-interest, then it does not matter what their relations are to other people: they will still exploit and damage other people’s livelihoods. If individuals are not virtuous, then it does not matter how they are socially arranged. Moral evil will continue to ensue, taking different forms. Rather, focus should be on the ethical regeneration of individuals, building moral character through loving relationships. Changing social structures has been done before and achieved nothing, for without the people in the system being modified, the system will always be unjust.

The implication of this is that all social constructs, whether it is communist, capatilist, theocracy, feudalist, socialist and even potentially fascist social structures can all be just provided the people within them are just. For example, take Bournville in Birmingham. This area was owned by the Cadbury family, who were the innovators behind the famous Cadbury’s Chocolate. Being Quakers (a Christian denomination), the Cadbury’s believed it was their responsibility to look after the wellbeing of their employees. Thus, they provided homes, health, education and leisure for their labourers, creating a vibrant and happy community. It was this act of kindness, in a capitalist system, which helped make the people of the area just, for the owners used their time and money to improve the welfare of their society. Thus, Bournville was known for its gracious community spirit, always willing to lend a hand in times of need. So clearly, there can be a just community within a framework which is not Marxist, because it is the people, not the system, which determine the goodness of a society.

Jesus recognised that it is people, not social systems, which matter in political and ethical discourse. Thus, when he founded his new community (the Church) it was a ‘distinct community with a deviant set of values’ (Yoder). These values consisted in: 1) it was ‘voluntary’ – one only becomes a Christian if one wants to be a Christian as no one can force you to trust in Jesus; 2) it was of ‘generic composition’ – it was not just the poor, or the rich, or one race or another. It was a society which allowed all groups, the margianlised and the popular, regardless of those things one is born with. 3) It had a ‘new set of values’ – the people in this group put love, faith and hope at the centre of their worldview, using it to direct their actions in every way. It was the commands of Christ to love God with all your ‘heart, mind and soul’ and to love your neighbour as yourself which drove their ethical decision making, reforming their predispositions and enabled Christians to gain a reputation of peaceful and moral folk. Christian society was grounded in sanctification of the individual, a recognition that God’s kingdom could only be on earth when everyone loves one another. Thus, Christianity is once more superior to Marxism, as it recognises that it is people, not social relations, which need to be transformed to make a society just.

Thirdly, Marxism supports the use of violence and conflict to achieve its ends, which is entirely unjustified. Communists are concerned with writing ‘metanarratives’, reshaping the course of history around their political goals (Hauerwas). They want to change the traditions and attitudes of a society, making deep structural alterations which mould a communities past in a new light. They want to redefine and interpret the past in light of a communist society. This is not uncommon for groups who aspire to political revolution: the French Revolutionaries created a new calendar, a new way dividing up time and a new religion. In his ‘Clean Slate Thesis’, Toumlin conjectures such an approach can only lead to ‘rivers of blood’. To overthrow the present narrative, one must remove those who are identified with the current system. This will lead to violence and death, the killing of individuals in order to tinker with history. However, that which endangers life should be ‘oppressed’ (Aquinas), for it is the most apparent truth in nature that life is precious and should not be threatened at any cost. The Marxist violates the natural right to life in order to implement a communist society, which is morally wrong and commits the same crime the bourgeoisie also uphold. The problem is, such ‘zealotry… changes too little’ (Yoder), for the sword still rules and the ‘self-righteousness of the mighty is upheld’. Removing one group by force simply leads to vengeance and injustice, for revolutionaries have used a means of acquiring power which was the same means the previous rulers used, and thus, all they have done is continue the cycle of suffering.

On the other hand, Christianity has a long history of supporting non-violence. Jesus taught to ‘love your enemy’ and to ‘turn the other cheek’ in the face of oppression. In 1 Peter, the author states we should ‘repay evil with a blessing’. Marx describes this as ‘despicable rubbish’, yet the willingness to forgive and embrace the persecutor is at the heart of Jesus’ ‘Original Revolution’ (Yoder). When violence is met with love, the cycle of suffering comes to an end, with injustice countered with a much more powerful warmth and affection which can change human hearts. This approach can help build relationships anew, start diplomatic negotiations and mend schisms amongst warring peoples. Yet it is only if one refuses to ‘define themselves by their enemies who can bless them’ (Volf). The Christian identity is that of being ‘reborn into a living hope’, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. His love forms the centre of a Christian life, and one’s self-understanding should start from Him. This is a positive identity, independent of other people. By contrast, the Marxist defines herself as an opposition to the current world order, for their identity is moulded around a mission to displace those currently in power to change social structures. Thus, they will always be in conflict with capitalists and fascists, pushing them away at every turn. As such, only violence can ensue, once more upholding the existing values of oppression. Therefore, the Marxist identity not only encourages violence but fails to solve the oppression of others by using conflict as a means of revolution, in stark contrast to Jesus’ teachings.

An example of this regards the recent attacks on Muslims in light of last week’s terrorist attack. To counter the EDL, a number of groups, such as UAF, had organised counter demonstrations to voice their opposition. However, these protests actually invigorate groups like the EDL, who thrive on violence and conflict. Forming large groups to challenge them in an aggressive way is exactly what they want, and does little to dissuade those who are fascist from being fascist. By contrast, the actions of a Muslim community in York were far more successful without resorting to violence. Rather than defend their Mosque from the oncoming attackers, they went out to the volatile crowd and offered them tea and biscuits. The EDL gladly accepted, spoke with the Muslims, and then went on their way peacefully, having received the kindness of a group they had sought to attack. This put a stop to the violence in that area, and was a powerful act. It is a testament to the teaching which Christ advocated, that non-violent public witness is a far greater alternative to violent upheaval, as Marxism supports.

So Marxism would seem to endorse a false sense of immediate security, uphold the doctrine states can be just without the people being in them being just and violent methods of usurpation, which Christianity rightly does not claim. As such, Jesus could not have been a Marxist. However, some Christians may argue that whilst Christ is not strictly a Marxist, the communist society is like God’s heavenly kingdom. Marx did not get everything right, but like other secular philosophers, he identified certain truths about reality. Just as he pictured the ideal community as being classless, without private property and arranged on a needs basis, so too the divine society can be thought of in such a way. Since thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, whilst not in entire agreement with Christian doctrine, the essence of what they taught has been thought of as drawing out truths, so too Marx may be seen in the same way. However, in the following passage, I shall argue that in fact the heavenly kingdom cannot be Marxist.

Communism purports that the ideal society is composed of entirely equal members. No one has more rights or property of power than anyone else. All people just take what they need from the commune and contribute the rest to allow others to take what they need. However, this incompatible with Christianity because it would mean the Triune God would be equal with humanity. As the ‘greatest conceivable being’ (Anselm) only God can be Lord, and as the creator of the world, all creation is His property. Thus, Christians believe all things are owned by God, and we are subjects to His rule. The divine community is one composed of individuals who recognise Christ’s Lordship, His superiority and right to use as He sees fit. This is directly opposed to Marxism, which has to have no Lordship or class within its social relations. Therefore, God’s heavenly kingdom cannot be Marxist, for Jesus would have to be equal with humans, which ontologically is absurd.

Furthermore, violence would be the natural result of a Marxist community. Often, thinkers have associated violent behaviour with power. However Arendt has persuasively argued that power comes from the collective will and does not need violence to achieve any of its goals, since voluntary compliance takes its place. This would be the Christian kingdom, where God’s sovereign power over those who conform to His rule. By contrast, violence arises from the absence of power. Marxism envisions a society with the ‘rule by no one’, and as such in the absence of legitimate authority individuals will impose their will on others. With no power base, people will be forced towards violent means to achieve their ends. Yet this is in direct contrast with the peaceful place we think of heaven as being. Thus, Christian society cannot be Marxist.

Drawing the threads of the article together, I have argued that Jesus was not a Marxist in any respect. Firstly, I argued that Christian teachings are superior to Marxist theory because Marxism promotes the ‘Promethian Illusion’, endorses the view that the state can be just without its inhabitants being just and allows for the violation of the right to life, all which Christ rejected. Furthermore, I claimed the heavenly kingdom is not communist, for God stands in a superior position to humans, and the Marxist community would result in violence. Therefore, I conclude Christian ethics is not only not the same as Marxism, but superior to Karl Marx’s philosophy.