For all their “christianity”, republicans in the US are pretty hypocritical.
Jesus actually teached that everybody deserves to get fed and housed. That everybody deserves healthcare. That people should care for other people in their community. That is essentially the core principles of socialism.
I always think of Jesus as a Buddhist Jew.
Socalism is about owning a share of your workplace. Its got nothing to do with free healthcare or caring for the community
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
Socialist Jesus is
- anachronistic (property+ownership, private vs social don’t make much sense 2 kya),
- incongruent with most of Christianity and Socialism,
- propaganda.
Lot of people during history fought for socialism but they always ignore that part somehow.
Aristotle discussed some ideas central capitalism. Why don’t we start a new cult around him and his ideas? We could eventually use the cult to exploit vulnerable individuals, brainwash innocent people, commit human rights violations, incite people into committing hate crimes, start wars and promote chaos and suffering in general.
Religion isn’t about actually helping people. It’s used to control the masses with shame, guilt and the threat of eternal damnation. It’s used to abuse and fleece the weak and the poor.
People holding onto “that’s not what Jesus would do” are just in denial about the cult they participate in.
Jesus is just a tool used to dupe rubes. If you need a fictional character to tell you to act like a decent human being then you’re not a good person.
You can’t call every christian a rube and then make such a simplistic accusation about organized religion. Yes there are (major) flaws with organized religion, but surely you realize your statement is at best hyperbole and at worst moronic
Dawg I ain’t saying organized religion is innocent. But it is false to claim that the sole purpose of religion is to control the masses. Your original comment was also just wrong like bruh, how can you claim that a figure like Jesus (the guy flipping tables in the marketplace, preaching ab how the poor are the most holy, saving the lepers, etc) was actually an evil psychopath who had a long game where he was going to fleece the poor of their wealth and threaten people with eternal damnation so they would follow him. That’s just some braindead conspiracy shit where you’re afraid everyone is out to get you. Grow up
Whatever jesus the human did in the past is irrelevant. He is used as an icon to control people by those who built an organized cult around him.
Why didn’t you start with that 😭 your original argument sounded so silly. Hell you could’ve said smtn interesting like how an originally innocuous scripture was co-opted for nefarious purposes but instead you just wanted to sound like an 8th grader who found r/atheism for the first time 💔
The over 100 upvotes say otherwise…
Religion is a cult that’s actively making the world a worse place.
“The over 100 upvotes say otherwise”🤓 grow up lmao
And buddy we literally agreed ab how scripture/prophets/religious ideas are often co-opted for power over a group of people.
I’m just tryna let you know that your argument sounded stupid lol. Try using specific evidence for arguments next time.
For example “religion is a cult…” is an awful start to an argument. 1) wtf is religion, that is a very broad term 2) the religion you’re mentioning is written in the singular, are you trying to say that all world religions are actually the same religion? 3) what about this (singular?) cult is actively making the world worse?
Instead try saying something like “Zionist politicians purposely mislead their constituents through well chosen scripture in order to garner support for the genocide of thousands.”
See how my statement was the effectively the same as your argument, but it uses more precise language and points to a specific modern day example.
IMO it made sense in the times when enforcing the law was harder to do. But a lot of time has passed since then, religions (as in whole communities, priests and followers) somehow made it their point to not change much
“Enforcing the law” a.k.a. “opressing people”
What is “A saying used until someone commits a crime against the speaker” Alex.
Not necessarily. Punishing theft or manslaughter is not oppression. And it makes sense to have systemic safeguards against those
Why do people steal?
People do not necessarily do reasonable things. A lot of society is built on the assumption of people doing reasonable things.
Not being able to cook and eat humans make some people feel oppressed, too, and it’s still the law. I think cultural context also matters. Jesus, if he existed as a singular person, was certainly ahead of his time, and imo, when he said he came to fulfill the law (old testament) rather than abolish it, that meant it was completed, thus over. It was time for a new law. Plus I’ve also done a lot of reading at early Jewish writings.com, earlychristianwritings.cim, the Ethiopian Bible in English, my Jewish learning.com, Jewish encyclopedia, etc, so there are a lot of mistranslation, too.
I would argue that the verse where he said I am here to fulfill the old testament is more proving that christians should follow the old testament. There is not much in bible canon to suggest the old testament was vetod by Jesus, I would say there’s more than enough evidence in bible canon that old testament rules still apply to all christians.
Almost everything Jesus taught was in contradiction to the ot.
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill”
When you fulfill a contract, you’re no longer bound.
Constantine left a lot out to solidify his rule too.
threat of eternal damnation
And that’s what a lot of people get wrong about christianity. Jesus literally said “everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die”
And what happens with those that don’t believe? Those that doubt for even a second? Burn in hell for all eternity!
Believe in us or you are forever doomed.
It’s an ultimatum designed to terrify and control people.
And what happens with those that don’t? Those that doubt for even a second? Burn in hell for all eternity!
Even the apostles doubted many times and nobody thinks they burn in hell right now.
It’s an ultimatum designed to terrify and control people.
If somebody calls himself christian out of fear and terror, then I’m afraid we believe in different gods.
Even the apostles doubted many times and nobody thinks they burn in hell right now.
Nobody thinks or do you mean you think? Cause you have to be joking yourself if you think there are no worshippers that fear burning in hell for their sins.
If somebody calls himself christian out of fear and terror, then l’m afraid we believe in different gods.
How do you know which one is correct? Yours is just an interpretation of another person’s interpretation of events that happened ages ago. The writing in the bible is clear about burning in hell for all eternity and now you are cherry picking what parts you believe in?
How does any of this shit have any kind of credibility with that level of brain gymnastics.
I don’t believe in any gods. There are hundreds of versions of god that you don’t believe in, only difference is I don’t believe in one more.
Even the apostles doubted many times and nobody thinks they burn in hell right now.
Nobody thinks or do you mean you think?
I mean… they are literally called “saint” and guess what it means.
Cause you have to be joking yourself if you think there are no worshippers that fear burning in hell for their sins.
Surely there are. If I met such person, I would gladly talk with them, or recommend some literature on this topic.
How do you know which one is correct? Yours is just an interpretation of another person’s interpretation of events that happened ages ago. The writing in the bible is clear about burning in hell for all eternity and now you are cherry picking what parts you believe in?
It’s not my interpretation, it’s the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (and probably other “variants” too, I’m just not aware of the differences).
I don’t believe in any gods. There are hundreds of versions of god that you don’t believe in, only difference is I don’t believe in one more.
Okay, that’s your choice ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Fair enough, but try to answer the question: what does happen to those that don’t believe in Jesus?
Religion isn’t about actually helping people. It’s used to control the masses with shame, guilt and the threat of eternal damnation. It’s used to abuse and fleece the weak and the poor.
There are a lot of different religions and beliefs in the world, right? Christianity and similar religions are not the only ones that exist, and many religions originated from ancient human primitive tribes.
Yes and we don’t practice many of those anymore because we know we don’t have to sacrifice people to make sure the sun rises. These primitive ceremonies and practices go away with education and science.
What’s left are grifters, pedos and people abusing those that are desperate and superstitious.
In your mind there are only monotheistic religions practiced in modern times, and the only other religions practiced in the world involved human sacrifice and those practices are no longer present in modern times?
Harsh but true.
But a little besides the point OP is trying to make - which is about Jesus’ teachings themselves, not the cult that grew up around it - as far as we can deduce what Jesus actually did and said of course. Which isn’t much but enough to come to a similar conclusion as OP claims.
Which is why he had to be made an example of and executed. It took a few hundred years for his brand to be perverted into funding a gilded palace in Rome.
If you need a fictional character to tell you to act like a decent human being then you’re not a good person.
What happens when you need a real person to tell you to act like a “decent human being” like every human in existence today? Are we all by nature “evil” because we require third parties to dictate what “good” is?
Nobody needs third parties to dictate what good is, it’s embedded in our genes.
This is incorrect. You likely have learned little on your own, especially true regarding behavior.
I’m not arguing against that, but there definitely is a moral compass embedded in our genes. We’ve evolved to work and live in a society. Otherwise we would be extinct. You may be taught things that “feel” wrong.
You appear to have never raised children. Being empathetic and kind to children is key so they can learn what empathy and kindness is; without the demonstration (and for many children, the reinforcement) children’s instinct are to resort to violence to get their way. Infants start out in the world copying the perspective of their parents, which is It is so critical to be expressively empathetic with infants so they can learn the appropriate mapping of experiences with feelings.
Children don’t just pick up these values from their parents, but from everyone around them; and in a social group where everyone balances their values against everyone else, norms and traditions form, and now there is an informal religion; and where norms and traditions transcend generations of those practicing, social structures are inevitably built to reinforce the norms into future generations, and now there is a formalized religion.
Any social structure can be corrupted by power. To say religion is inherently amoral because it is corrupt is put on intellectual blindfolds to how social values and norms are shared
We may be speaking of different things. Let me ask you something: do you think the warm feeling you get when you help someone or share a moment of achievement with another person is taught by society?
There definitely is no evidence to support an inherent “moral compass” in humans or any other animal because there is no evidence to support genetic memory which would be required to pass information without teaching it.
The obvious response to this is “companions in guilt”. It’s a meta ethics argument that essentially points out that moral reasoning is no different than other types of reasoning. There is no need for “genetic memory”, when like logic it’s simply a consequence of how human minds are structured.
Genes are a type of memory. Instincts aren’t taught.
Define instincts and provide an example of them being inherent.
For all their “christianity”, republicans in the US are pretty hypocritical
No, no, you were indoctrinated by people with agenda
Jesus was saying, and everyone was obeying, like a good person does/s in case it’s not clear
Jesus also teached to devote live to a fictional character and to respect judaism traditions. And in the apostols carts there’s homophobic rants.
That’s not socialist in my book.
And in the apostols carts there’s homophobic rants.
Saulus/Paulus. Yeah it all went downhill pretty quickly.
they know christianity is bullshit but it’s great for getting votes
The early Church is recorded as living that way:
"44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 ¶And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, " ( Acts 2:44-46 KJV).
However, tearing a political philosophy away from its associated worldview leads to trouble.
This is one of the things I find strange about the political parties in the U.S. the Republican party, which seems to claim the majority of members who claim to be Christians, largely espouse a capitalist economic system. Capitalism is much more congruent with a Darwinist world view than a Christian one.
Meanwhile, the Democrat party, at least the more progressive wing, espouse more of a socialist system but seemingly oppose Christianity and claim a world view more congruent with a capitalist system.
Yeah that’s interesting. Though I do think the Bible is big enough and vague enough for either tribe to exploit. I’m convinced the Left could have sided with Jesus’s ways of life and been the Christian nation, while the right rejected it.
100%. I’ve been reading about early christianity for the last 20 months and a major characteristic was shared meals. They were absolutely following a socialist model. But we do capitalism. Woohoo.
But we do capitalism. Woohoo.
yeah, but who will all that wealth go to if not the billionaires?
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
That’s pro dictatorship in perpetuity, aka fascism.
Jesus wants people to help each other voluntarily and not by the power of the state.
Jesus also hated the Nicolaitans. And if you want socialism without a revolution, which is also not OK, you need yo go the Nicolaitan way.
What is the Nicolaitan way? Wikipedia is quite short on it.
If only t said anything about democracy instead of divine rights of kings, some of it might have been implemented.
Submission to a single all-powerful ruler seems like textbook authoritarianism
Jesus Christ believes himself to be the Jewish Messiah. The man literally was going to be king of Israel after kicking the Romans out of their land. So like… Yeah. He was also an authoritarian.
after kicking the Romans out of their land
citation needed
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A13-20&version=NRSVUE
Matthew 16:13-20 NRSV
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist but others Elijah and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[a] the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[b] and on this rock[c] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was[d] the Messiah.[e]
But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah,[k] the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you,
From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death.” 67 Then they spat in his face and struck him, and some slapped him, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah![l] Who is it that struck you?”
From the NSRV, one of the preferred standards of Biblical scholars. A few places where Christ, if not outright says, heavily implies he is the Messiah, which is the reason the Jewish leaders wanted him put to the death.
I do not have access to the full article to give, but Bart Erhman also goes over some of these points in the free point of this article: https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-claim-to-be-the-messiah/
Of most interest to my point is this bit:
Jesus’ proclamation was all about the coming kingdom of God. He was an apocalypticist who believed that God would soon intervene in the course of history, overthrow the forces of evil, and establish a good (and very real, political) kingdom here on earth. His listeners had to turn to God in preparation for this imminent end.
There is also this summary from Wikipedia regarding a King Messiah, which is the one I believe most Christians believe Christ was laying claim to:
In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah is a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come.[1][2][8] The Messiah is often referred to as “King Messiah” (Hebrew: מלך משיח, romanized: melekh mashiach, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: מַלכָא (הוּא) מְשִיחָא, romanized: malkā (hu) mšiḥā[9]).[10]
The link is here if you would like to see the sources : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism
In general, we can also see in both Jewish and Christian scripture that a Messiah was a figure that would rise up and deliver the Jewish people from their oppressors. Depending on your religion (or lack there of) and theology, the expectations vary. Earlier in Judaism it could be anybody who freed the Jews such as Cyrus.
However, as time went on, the Messiah became a cosmic figure who would not only restore Israel’s independence, but would also destroy God’s enemies, rally the Jewish people from across the world, establish the Kingdom of God here on earth as a real, physical, political entity, and rule like a king as God’s emmisarry here on earth.
There’s nothing about this that isn’t authoritarian, it just so happens to be benevolent.
There is also far, far more to this topic with many different views ans takes to it because both Christianity and Judaism have a stake in it, and neither of these religions are monolithic. Judaism, specifically being absolutely ancient and having transformed significantly since its earliest records while the beliefs itself predate even the earliest written records. So of course, this is not the only lens with which to view it, but this is the most likely role that Jesus Christ was attempting to fill, the claim that got him killed, and the role most Christians believe he will finish when he returns.
I was wondering when he drove out the Romans. This reply must be meant for another comment.
I must’ve worded my original comment much poorer than I thought lmfao.
I meant it as in he intended to become the Messiah King after kicking the Romans out of Israel, not that he did. XD
Socialism (not social democracy) tends to go that way 😅
A system in which power is held by a single individual is by definition not socialist.
Yeah it just ends up like that.
When something socialist ends up as something not socialist, that thing is not socialist. You get that, right?
Ah yes not true socialism
We all are familiar with that
Yes, it’s clear that basic definitions are difficult for you.
It’s so boring when people need to get agressive just because they can’t argue.
yOu GeT tHaT, rigHt?
Its so boring when people pretend not to understand basic definitions of words in order to troll.
The fact you can so boldly miss the entire point of social -ism is hilarious and sad.
I don’t miss the point, I just point out the empiric results (debate me on that if you want to, I don’t know everything). I don’t even express any feelings pro/con socialism in my post, at all.
A label hijacked by conmen is not an accurate representation of what something is supposed to actually be.
So all so called socialists so far were not true socialists?
True, and socialist countries usually get overtaken by a dictator from inside /and/or gets like overthrown by the USA (in the eighties).
Then again, for many Americans, we’re “socialists” here in europe 🤷🏼♀️.
The intersection between Authoritarianism and Socialism:
