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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
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?
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.
And that is why churches must be firebombed and religion abolished.
bUt mY fIrSt aMeNdMeNt!!
This isnt 1785 any more. Cristianity is a violent terrorist ideology.
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.
No, but it shows how little progress we did as humanity for the last 2000 years
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?
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.
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
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.”
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
“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
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.
Fair enough, but try to answer the question: what does happen to those that don’t believe in Jesus?
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
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 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?
