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.
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.’
It’s also worth noting that parable of the sheep and the goats was a judgement of nations.
Ephesians 6:5-9
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Yeah good stuff. All about equality and egalitarianism.
You can’t claim to be socialist while condoning literal slavery. Sorry.
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
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.
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.
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 was 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.
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.
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?
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
Constantine left a lot out to solidify his rule too.
“Enforcing the law” a.k.a. “opressing people”
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”
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.
What is “A saying used until someone commits a crime against the speaker” Alex.
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
Fair enough, but try to answer the question: what does happen to those that don’t believe in Jesus?
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.
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.
Genes are a type of memory. Instincts aren’t taught.
Define instincts and provide an example of them being inherent.
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.
No, but it shows how little progress we did as humanity for the last 2000 years
what I’m amazed by is that those who would benefit most from socialism are the ones who call it “handouts” and vote against it
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 Christian ways. Exactly what Christ taught.
the gospel of supply side jesus
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.
If one set of ideological principles conforms to another, why is it relevant if one of them hasn’t been given a specific name yet? Are the principles not still comparable?
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Lot of people during history fought for socialism but they always ignore that part somehow.
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).
I can and I do. If they go so heavily against the teachings of the person they’re named after, they’re nothing but the worst kinds of hypocrite.
…and you are figuring that out in 2025?
What part of my post implied that I recently came to this conclusion?
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…
Someone criticising something in 2025 doesn’t mean they just figured it out in 2025.
I’m no longer a Christian but when people tried to get jesus to weigh in on hot button political issues of his day (probably to entrap him into saying something that would piss off either the zealots or the romans) he told them “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; render unto god what is God’s”. The meaning, I take it, is that he was there with a spiritual message, not a political one
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
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
