Socialism is the actual teaching of Jesus
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.
690
Comments217
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.
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.
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"
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.
What is "A saying used until someone commits a crime against the speaker" Alex.
Constantine left a lot out to solidify his rule too.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Even the apostles doubted many times and nobody thinks they burn in hell right now.
If somebody calls himself christian out of fear and terror, then I'm afraid we believe in different gods.
Fair enough, but try to answer the question: what does happen to those that don't believe in Jesus?
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.
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.
I mean... they are literally called "saint" and guess what it means.
Surely there are. If I met such person, I would gladly talk with them, or recommend some literature on this topic.
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).
Okay, that's your choice
More than that, giving food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and giving comfort to the imprisoned, is literally the same as doing those things for Jesus Christ, himself, from his perspective. And, moreover, those who do those things will earn their place in heaven, and those who fail to do those things will be eternally damned to hell. It's not subtextual. It's not ambiguous and up for interpretation. It says very clearly that Jesus separated those who are going to heaven and hell to either side and the distinction between the groups was how they treated "the least" of his brothers and sisters. Matthew 25:31-46.
So, bad news Christian Republicans. Might want to correct yourself now before it's too late.
They aren't. In fact, many of the MAGA Republicans have been pushing their pastors to stop being so "woke" and to teach "real" Christian values, i.e. oppressing people.
The sad thing is that these pastors are giving up their values and acquiescing.
I don‘t think religion is to blame for what some abuse it for.
I also dont think religion is to be credited for what good some claim it does.
Saints v sinners Saved v Damned Good v Evil Us v Them Worship me or else Believe in me or be thrown into a volcano
Religion can only do ONE THING: Divide
It cannot do anything else and it never has.
From a friend:
Lesson learned long ago.
Me in Lutheran grade school at a conference with my mother and the principal and myself.
Principal: during religious class you've been asking a lot of questions that really aren't appropriate.
I was shocked What do you mean? He explained I was asking things like how did the animals from America all the way across the world get into Noah's ark? What happened to all the little bugs that live under the rocks and in the ground and stuff like that when it flooded? Why doesn't a miracle happen today when we could document it in the newspapers with photographs and reporting? Why did All the miracles stop?
Me: but they're true.
Principal Herb: we understand you're just being honest but you have to stop asking these questions or we'll have to expel you.
It's also just invented stories, and the maga crowd knows that, they are not like in fear of damnation or anything.
Mega hypocrites though of course.
All of that is charity from latin caritas and it's independent to political/government systems.
Also you can be charitable and NOT go into Haven because you don't believe in Jesus. Actions are as important as faith.
And Jesus did reach down to the leper, but the leper was not cured, because his monthly deductables did not cover it.
"Get a job, hippy", proclaimed Peter.
From my purely anecdotal experience, the people who actually want to follow Jesus's teachings don't go to church. Says a lot.
And how many have read at least one testament? Reading is not rare anymore
Didn't go into so much detail with most people of faith I've met, but I know for a fact mum read both the Old and New Testaments and decided she didn't* (still getting used to it...) want to have anything to do with the Church's interpretations, because they focused on essentially anything other than empathy and being human.
On the other hand, grandma wasn't that big on the Bible, but went to church weekly (for as long as she could). She was also domineering, aggressive, two-faced, and manipulative. Also loved to visit the village witch (no, I'm not joking), which was... kinda' contradictory if one asks me, but nobody did, so that's that...
Why contradictory? Jesus was a magician, even a necromancer. Turned water into fine wine, etc (I take these things as highly metaphorical, but stress emotions do horrible health damage. Love heals a lot of inner wounds, so maybe some conditions are
motivatedmitigated.Eh, Christian Orthodox traditions frown upon any sort of black magic and such, as Jesus's divinity is held as THE factor for his performing miracles. Anything which isn't Jesus-related is considered to stem from Lucifer.
Orthodoxy aims to keep individuals schismed, Jesus aimed to unite them. House divided.
Pretty much! I remember attending Sunday services several times at the behest of my grandmother, and half the time they consisted of mean gossip and fear-mongering.
Edit: of course, I'm not saying all Orthodox priests follow this script, but the Orthodox dogma in general seems to be VERY conducive to it...
It's not just the Orthodox. It pretty much is the whole Church, which is now and was then very political. Schismed people are malleable and controllable, and expedient for rulers. That is why I read the Ethiopian Bible, complete with mistranslations, then go do weeks or months of tedious research to find the actual translations, and what that meant in the ancient Judaism and its parent religions. It's also why I feel free to discard anything after Jesus ' teachings.
You'd be surprised. I read the Bible cover to cover in high school (one of the reasons I no longer have faith), and it amazed me how many people in my life that were also Christian that were entirely unfamiliar with entire books or lessons....
Similar story here except for the longest time I didn’t realize that my fellow church goers didn’t know what the Bible said, and thus couldn’t distinguish between biblical lessons and purely made-up ones
That's my point, I wouldn't be surprised, unfortunately
To be fair, I couldn't get through it either. But I'd guess if one decides to take something as their guidance, it would be a good idea to read it at least once
It was okay for everyone at the time, indentured slavery was a thing. That was basically the closest way people in the past got actual job security
It's also how Jacob got Leah and Rachel.
Matthew 25:35-40
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
https://youtube.com/shorts/WUGQUx9k7Cg
It's also worth noting that parable of the sheep and the goats was a judgement of nations.
Ephesians 6:5-9
Yeah good stuff. All about equality and egalitarianism.
You can't claim to be socialist while condoning literal slavery. Sorry.
You are absolutely right. It isn't complicated. A fundamental principle from the teachings of Jesus is that everyone should share their "wealth" (i.e. food, housing, medical care, etc.) with those in need. No one should ever be hungry, homeless, or sick without treatment. It follows naturally from the idea of loving everyone, without exception.
I'm not going to argue the questions about whether Jesus was divine or even existed. I am simply talking about the philosophy that is presented as his by the Gospels. That is the core of Christianity, but it is ignored by a majority of those who call themselves Christians. The fact that it is difficult and calls for personal sacrifices is not an excuse. He never said that it would be easy.
I accept that Christian principles can be viewed as aspirational goals and not an absolute code of conduct, but that is not what we see in the would-be Christians. They have no interest in working toward those goals.
Roman historians wrote about Jesus (Tacitus), also the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. We can argue about his divinity (I am a believer) but I don't think we can argue about his existence.
There were others but they are further in time so they may be quoting those two.
I also think the evidence that Jesus existed is compelling, but my point is that it doesn't matter when you're talking about the philosophy that is credited to him. Reading the Gospels makes it quite clear that a disturbingly large part of modern Christianity is in opposition to everything he stood for.
Ironically, western culture today suffers from one of the same falsehoods that Jesus himself preached against: the idea that poverty is a moral failing. They believe that the rich are wealthy because they've "earned it" in some way, and therefore must be morally superior for their work ethic. Conveniently, this also allows the wealthy to keep a clean conscience--if everyone was as "good" as they are, they could all be enjoying this life too.
So with this mindset, all "good" people who are poor are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires--they identify with the rich, who actively abuse and suppress them, because they believe themselves to be part of the same "moral party."
The Prosperity Gospel folks go a step further and equate wealth and health with the will of god. That being well-off is the direct result of being in god's good graces. It side-steps observations of financial inequality in the face of moral equality, by hand-waving exceptional wealth as deserved by truly rare and exceptional people. And that conveniently plays off of confusing causation for correlation, so we arrive at "money = godly."
For the record: I hate that this has a name and it's a real thing.
Yeah, Joel Osteen has a special place in hell. The boiler room. All the way down.
yhea, because making a society liveable and comfortable for everyone would also include "them", you don't want them to be ok.
so better suffer under a system that lets you make "their" world even worse
the gospel of supply side jesus
The early church was actually kinda communist, having all things in common.
And democratic, one man one vote.
But the man was the priest (or later the pope) and there was only one vote/voice at all.
/s joke
From a theological point of view, Jesus was indeed a socialist. However, he wasn't a socialist in a Marxist sense, he was a different kind of socialist. Christian socialism actually has a very interesting history that goes back quite back in time.
Exactly. There is a rich tradition of Christian socialism and Christian communism. Even the communist group that Marx and Engels joined up with practiced christian communism and utopian socialism before moving away to a more secular and materialist version. The Communist Manifesto marks this turning point well.
Of course, M&E argue that Christianity is a tool used to blunt the edge of revolutionary socialism and keep it back in line where it can't do any harm. Like the other forms of socialism (including that dreaded one) that are explicitly designed to recuperate the more radical ideas to a place where they can be more comfortably controlled by the ruling class.
No no no. I see where you went wrong, you were thinking about Jesus from the bible, people dont really believe in him anymore. The Jesus followed today is Supply-Side Jesus, I know it gets confusing since they are both named Jesus.
Jesus was middle eastern. Don't need to look further than that to find the hypocrisy.
Socrates, Plato and Diogenes where all opposed to the greek state while being great minds of their time. A culture does not define everyone's humane aspects of thinking, just most.
Why would you use atheists.org as a source for this? They clearly aren’t historians and would have a biased take.
The current consensus is there had to be a guy likely named Yeshua who lived in or around Galilee who was looking to reform Judaism. Reformers of Judaism were incredibly common after Rome conquered Israel. In fact the rabbinical Jewish movement, which is what “modern Judaism” is part of, was started by the Pharisees who are mentioned throughout the New Testament in negative terms (believed to be because they competed with Yeshua’s followers).
The guy you think of as Jesus never existed but the consensus seems to be that it would be difficult for multiple groups all sharing the same views to pop up around the mediterranean if Yeshua never existed. That doesn’t mean Christianity is the correct interpretation of those views only that a guy named Yeshua had a bunch of followers
The fact is we don’t have any reason to think he never existed. We have reason to doubt claims that are religious in nature but it is unlikely that the entire faith was fabricated by Paul/Saul.
LOL at your downvotes. I went to Catholic school and was taught BY PRIESTS AND NUNS that Jesus probably wasn't one person but a composite of numerous roving preachers (a fad at the time). Oh, and early Christianity probably started as a mushroom cult. If the Catholics (Catholics!) could learn to apply reason to religion anyone can.
That’s odd as historians think it alost certainly was a single guy as multiple groups pop up all talking about the sane guy in different parts of the world. We have no idea what he preached but he likely existed.
I agree, but that's not very relevant to the comment you're replying to.
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.
Christianity doesn't even believe in Christianity. Behind the scenes in Churches, it's bitter old people, angry at each other, shaking down patrons for cash, and selling peace to grieving people. Most Democrats want universal healthcare. They want, but are afraid of UBI, and would like it if they could keep their current advantage in the playing field, not becoming poorer while spreading change.
Wait until the suckers learn that he doesn't want people to eat animals in the apocryphal writings. But that's just how Christianity works... Take what fits the bill (Emperor Constantine, Jerome of Stridon, anyone?).
Um, He fed people fish. Apocryphal writings are not in the cannon for a reason.
Also, don't forget the story where he told his disciples to go fish again, and they returned with a boat so gull of fish that it almost sank.
It's safe to say that Jesus was not opposed to eating at least fish.
Is it really? Because some dudes decided what's canon and what isn't? Cherry picking is cherry picking, no matter how you describe it.
If your argument is that the whole bible is unreliable due to canon selection that's a totally viable argument to make. But that then goes both ways and means that you can't make an argument about anything Christ did or did not teach or do. It means, you can neither make the argument that Jesus was for eating animals or against it, because any scripture supporting any of these points was subject to canon selection and thus is unreliable.
Of course the whole thing is unreliable, due to selection. Still there was a selection done. You are almost there.
As I said... Cherry picking. Somebody chose those writings for a purpose.
No, because socialism is when bad thing! /s obviously
People care about helping people.
Its had a billion different names throughout history and each of them has been or will be subverted into something bad by people who seek control.
Christianity is incredibly easy to fake. Anyone can call themselves a Christian with little, if any, blowback. It's the whole 'sinner saved by grace' schtick - which is, essentially, "Yup, I'm a Christian but I don't really have to act like one."
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.
I wanna see them bible shitposts
I enjoyed that a lot. Thanks
Feel free to add more
Yeah, I mean if you can't demonstrate that what you believe is true, then why not just make that belief the most absurd thing you can possibly find?
What a weird take... Maybe people don't meme about Christianity, because the subjugation of populations using fairy tales is not really a funny thing.
I think part of that sentiment is also I'm not a threat to the government please don't kill me
He was not scared in any way whatsoever about any earth government, so that meek "pwease don't kill me" bit is totally an unnecessary lie.
Case in point, when they came to arrest him, he actively encouraged his disciples to NOT fight, reminding them that any army from earth sent against him was a rounding number against the whole disproportionate force he and his father by extension had available (Matthew 26:47, 52, 53)
For reference and perspective, that's like 100 dudes sent to arrest him vs an army of 72k Angels, which is mentioned before that only one angel was able to obliterate an army of 185k dudes in one night , so at his command he had an army which could have easily wiped twice the current world population in one night
So he wasn't scared at all during his stay on earth, at least not of a measley mob force
Lot of people during history fought for socialism but they always ignore that part somehow.
Do we really know what the real Jesus was like, what his teachings were, and that they are not just fairy tales created by someone? or changed by someone. I don't think there is/was much socialistic in his teachings.
No sense imagining a hypothetical Jesus, but if you go by what the bible says, Jesus said "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom is heaven." He said sell all of your possessions and then follow me. The bible talks about how people in the church shared what they had in common. If someone had a need someone would sell their property and distribute it to those who needed it.
Of course they also thought Jesus was going to return soon, within their lifetimes, and bring a perfect world. Not wait over 2,000 years
The best records we have of Jesus' teachings are the gospel books that are typically referenced. And there are enough references to Jesus of Nazareth in other texts to suggest this is what he was like and taught.
Jesus' teachings on government and social structures are nuanced and difficult to apply to our human structures, because he proposed a government ruled by a perfectly good, benevolent monarch (which, in theory, is a great system if you can guarantee the monarch is really perfectly good). He preached a lot about "the kingdom of God" and contrasted it to how we do things on earth. So the point was never to provide a blueprint of how we should do government, but that there was something above all earthly governments that superceded it all.
Unfortunately, people have used those teachings in very bad ways (the same reasoning that the religious leaders used to kill Jesus). All of that to say--there are a lot of congregations that have more in common with the Pharisees than the early church.
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
It is not really socialism since it is still based on a religious supernatural hierarchy and revelation and not any actual political theories as to how to achieve this without magic, but read literally, it is definitely closer to socialism than whatever basically all of the existing Christian denominations got out of it (with a few notable but not very popular exceptions).
One of Marx’s biggest inspirations was the teachings of Jesus.
Wha wha WHAAAAAAAAT??!
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
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.
they know christianity is bullshit but it's great for getting votes
Yea, but The Church (or, since you're specifically talking about Gringoland, rather, churchES) are capitalist enterprises - hence you can't expect them to criticise capitalism (even less, capitalists).
...and you are figuring that out in 2025?
Someone criticising something in 2025 doesn't mean they just figured it out in 2025.
Well, given that the world is pretty much on fire right now, it does feel a bit out of place to start rambling about Christian hypocrisy. So, like, yea, I get your point and I do believe most religious people are hypocrites (nor is that a phenomenon that only affects Christians), but...how about, if we want to follow that line of thinking, pointing the finger at the ''''''''''Jewish'''''''''' state and its genocidal '''leader''', that rabid dog no politician anywhere is willing to put a leash on? We would be talking about hypocrisy at a much, much higher level and it would be, at the veeeery least, as relevant...
And then Jesus said:
"Thou hast nothing to lose but thy chains! Take all the tools from those that dare to enslave thee and build thy own communities where all of you equally decide what to do!"
I’ve never heard this one before but it’s on the internet so Jesus must have said it. I will live my life by it.
The New Testament has been around for a couple of thousand years. The concept of socialism has only been around for less than 200.
I wonder, if religion survives for another thousand years, what will people then say Jesus taught regarding various other isms that have yet to be constructed.
I’m not religious. But your point doesn’t make sense. Being around X number of years doesn’t contradict with the possibility of one idea being a part of the other. I guess that’s what the user is trying to say, but I’m not sure how factual it is.
It’s an observation. Is it not an accurate one? I’m not sure how it “makes sense” or not.
But the implication is, someone might use religious text to endorse some other concept. Does that make the concept more or less valid? Does that make the religious text more or less valid? I don’t know.
To be clear, OP is not questioning the validity either. You are, and that’s a separate discussion.
If I tell you “playing with fire is risky”, and then you bring up an old book to me where is it written “playing with fire is risky”, the discussion is not about whether I told you that from the book. It is not about whether my advice is valid or the book is valid. The discussion is just that people who had read the book should have already known “playing with fire is risky”.
If only t said anything about democracy instead of divine rights of kings, some of it might have been implemented.
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.
citation needed
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A13-20&version=NRSVUE
Matthew 16:13-20 NRSV
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:
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:
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
The intersection between Authoritarianism and Socialism:
Socialism (not social democracy) tends to go that way 😅
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.
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 🤷🏼♀️.
So all so called socialists so far were not true socialists?
that's not what they said
I always think of Jesus as a Buddhist Jew.
bad look for socialism honestly
Socialist Jesus is
Teached -> taught
The problem was that the church needed to reach out to the nobles to spread, so promising wealth became a sticking point
Jesus literally REFUSED to be dragged into ideological politics of his time (John 6:10-15)
He even defied those who tried to put him to test and force a political statement come from him against the current political leader, the Caesar, by trying to have him a forced position on taxes (Mark 12:13-17)
All this makes sense, as he himself said about himself and his followers that they are not part of this world (John 15:19)
He LITERALLY made his teaching revolve around god’s kingdom, not any human ideology (Matthew 6:9, 10)
I mean FUCK, even Satan himself offered him to be the ruler of the whole FUCKING world and he rejected it flat out (John 14:30)
He did care about people, and alleviated the physical suffering of many, but he made clear his and his followers priority should be preaching and teaching God’s word (Mark 1:32-38)
And why wouldn’t he, after all, part of his teachings are that all the world governments and ideologies are to be destroyed. (Revelation 16:14) Every. Single. one.
Yes, including socialism.
So anyone using his teachings to attack whoever and linking him to your ideology, calling him a representative of brand "X" collectivism, should get down from any high horse they think they are, it’s not doing you or them any favor and they clearly don’t know what they are talking about.
Case in point, people talking in here about a hell existing in the bible when there is none. That’s basically all it takes
I think the main point here is not to actually claim that Jesus inspired Marx or something like that, but to counter all the fascists and turbocapitalists using Jesus's name to justify the horrific things they are doing.
Pretty hard to argue against Jesus not influencing literally everyone in the European continent, even Engels and Marx.
It sounds like you're using "pay your taxes" to argue that it's ok by Jesus if you vote for the Republican party, which I think is messed up because he said so much about caring for others.
But did Jesus proscribe government welfare programs? It seems to be that the basis for "Jesus was a socialist", is based on his teachings on charity. But this can be done by personal charity, and infact those are the examples he gave. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "you should vote for needs-based welfare programs".
You turn away from Jesus when you ignore the needs of others.
But that's not socialism, is it?
Also you can try to argue that some methods of welfare distribution are inefficient, but you can't argue that the needs are being ignored.
You think the GOP looks after people's needs?! The gop is the party of "f**k you, I've got mine".
Jesus also teached to devote live to a fictional character and to respect judaism traditions. And in the apostols carts there're homophobic rants.
That's not socialist in my book.
Saulus/Paulus. Yeah it all went downhill pretty quickly.
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.
Jaques Elul was an interesting man. His book about Christianity and Anarchy is a must if you want to continue unrolling this thoughts
There are evangelical thought leaders that preach the opposite. They say liberals are wrong about all of that.
And people believe up is down.
That's pro dictatorship in perpetuity, aka fascism.
Jesus wants people to help each other voluntarily and not by the power of the state.
If anything socialism is Christianism since that's what Jesus taught, not socialism.
Anyway Pope Leo XIII explained it better in the Rerum novarum (distributism not socialism), maybe an Anarchist (on Earth) because there is no ruler but Him, no government but God's.
Lol it's like reading fan fiction
They say the same thing about socialism.
No, but it shows how little progress we did as humanity for the last 2000 years
Jesus was an authoritarian. He believed there should be one being with ultimate power and control who everyone else should obey unquestioningly.
He believed that this being was better than every living person. That any person who disobeyed the ruler should be tortured. That we are only alive, only well, only happy, if the ruler permits it.
If this is about hell, I don't think Jesus believed in hell, at least not as we know it. He also did definitely teach about erasing the social hierarchy, at least among humans. So he was a theocrat, sure, but he wasn't only a theocrat.
Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
It's part of a parable, but if we disregard parables then "jesus' teachings" becomes a small pamphlet.
But I'd be keen to hear where jesus advocated for abolishing human hierarchy. Nothing comes to mind immediately outside Paul's letters.
Sorry I'm late, but I don't think Matthew 25:41 suggests Jesus believed in eternal punishment. It's a very specific theology that we know very well today, so it's easy to read it into the text. But that verse says that the fire is eternal, not necessarily the suffering.
It's pretty likely that Jesus believed in the idea of the "second death"(not eternal).
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt 10:28)
Its more likely that Jesus's understanding of hell is far from the modern Christian theology.
Now about human hierarchy:
Off the top of my head, we have:
I'm sure I can find more when I have some time.
He was a cult leader opposing status quo in an authoritarian empire. It's kind of a tough position, I imagine he used whatever was practical and contradicted himself a lot.
The core part of what he preached was very progressive for the time and place. Later, as it usually goes, it got coopted and lost 98% of its bite (imo)
Which part of status quo did he oppose? Personal wealth, yes, but that tends to be a common cult leader position. That followers should give everything to the cause.
Other than that Jesus commanded to render unto ceaser what belongs to ceaser.
Socalism is about owning a share of your workplace. Its got nothing to do with free healthcare or caring for the community
Peace and love are not in man's nature, regardless if you are a Christian or a Socialist, or both. "My god will fuck you up if I don't get my money!". That is the twist on capitalism.
That's bullshit. Capitalism is what corrupts "man's nature," and it isn't some kind of inherent thing to humanity.
You may be right.
No. Socialism is a form of government that relies on forced redistribution, which is not something Jesus ever advocated for or practiced. He DID encourage people to share their wealth and take care of the poor, yes, but he never took anything by force in order to give it to them, and he never told people to do so either.
Socialism is an economic theory second to the form of government. IOW, you can have authoritarian + socialism, authoritarian + capitalist, or whatever combination might exist, like Democratic + socialism, or social policy.
All systems rely on forced redistribution in some form unless it’s anarchy.
Did Jesus ever advocate for trusting the system?
You might as well ask me what Gandalf advocated.
So you have no idea what Jesus advocated for, but you're confident that he'd agree with you...
I’m atheist, so I don’t particularly care. Jesus was a socialist in the simplest terms according to his actions in the bible, and even his system placed demands on his followers. Or at least the system created in his name.
As I said, you have no idea what he said but you're confident he'd agree with you.
I'm confident that he would disagree with the Republican party!
You’re insistent that a mythical person would agree with me? Like I said, you might as well be arguing with me that Gandalf would as well. You’re changing the subject.
He was literally teaching people that other governments and ideologies woukd be absolutely obliterated
No human system would be left
Wait, am I not forced to pay taxes? And isn't any progressive tax by definition redistribution? United States confirmed as socialist, you heard it here first!
Yes, progressive taxation is a feature of socialist government.
Whoa. Its hard to get it that wrong.
What did I get wrong? Where did Jesus advocate for forced redistribution by government?
Jesus literally said to pay your taxes. What is a tax other that forced redistribution?
Yes but did he say paying your taxes will remove the obligation to take care of your neighbor?
I'm kinda missing the verse where he said "Give Caesar what is Caesar's, and let him take care of the poor."
So Caeser can take the money and kill Christians with it instead? I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making.
Yes, and that did in fact happen during the early days of the church, until Rome became the center of Christianity. So who won in the end?
It sounds like the state won.
Where did he condemn gay folk?
What does that have to do with anything?
The question was whether or not he advocated for socialism.
Jesus didn't say a lot of things the way we say them today. He did though advocate for the poor.
He advocated for people giving directly to the poor (i.e. charity), not for letting the government handle that.