NationStates Jolt Archive

Jesus knew where it was at. He was against individualism and wanted everybody to look out of one another, read the parable of the rich man and how Jesus preached of how it was easier to have a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to make his way into heaven, and what about the time when Jesus walked into the temple to find people selling things and trying to make a profit? He whooped their asses. He was a real social liberal too. He didn't give a hoot what the religious order thought of him, he looked and acted like a hippy, spent an unusual amount of time around men and even his best mate was a fag-hag prostitute.

But he was religious in himself, and Marx stated that religion was the opiate of the masses.

Where's that image where there's a statue of Jesus giving two thumbs up?

Correct me if im wrong didn't Karl Marx say that religion was the opiate of the masses and that religion was a method of control used to keep the proletariat oppressed.
Its just that jesus struck me as one of those religious types.

Where's that image where there's a statue of Jesus giving two thumbs up?

Dogma, the 'Buddy Christ'

Where's that image where there's a statue of Jesus giving two thumbs up?

http://www.scarskin.com/media/malformed/buddy.jpg



..ok, not two thumbs up.. but whatever

Where's that image where there's a statue of Jesus giving two thumbs up?
Here (http://www15.brinkster.com/backyardmission/index/team/Images/BuddyJesus.jpg) it is!

Jesus knew where it was at. He was against individualism and wanted everybody to look out of one another, read the parable of the rich man and how Jesus preached of how it was easier to have a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to make his way into heaven, and what about the time when Jesus walked into the temple to find people selling things and trying to make a profit? He whooped their asses. He was a real social liberal too. He didn't give a hoot what the religious order thought of him, he looked and acted like a hippy, spent an unusual amount of time around men and even his best mate was a fag-hag prostitute.

Amen brother. Whether Jesus was the son of God or not, whether or not he even existed as a person, (irrelevant as it may be, I'm against the first, in favor of the second) he had his head in the right place.

Jesus knew where it was at. He was against individualism and wanted everybody to look out of one another, read the parable of the rich man and how Jesus preached of how it was easier to have a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to make his way into heaven, and what about the time when Jesus walked into the temple to find people selling things and trying to make a profit? He whooped their asses. He was a real social liberal too. He didn't give a hoot what the religious order thought of him, he looked and acted like a hippy, spent an unusual amount of time around men and even his best mate was a fag-hag prostitute.

Too bad your explenation is so badly put together, incorrect, and riddled with errorrs, because your thesis was actually quite good. It is very plausible to conclude that Jesus taught Marxism before Marx did, but you did such a poor job of it that you are making that point of view look dumb.

Jesus knew where it was at. He was against individualism and wanted everybody to look out of one another, read the parable of the rich man and how Jesus preached of how it was easier to have a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to make his way into heaven, and what about the time when Jesus walked into the temple to find people selling things and trying to make a profit? He whooped their asses. He was a real social liberal too. He didn't give a hoot what the religious order thought of him, he looked and acted like a hippy, spent an unusual amount of time around men and even his best mate was a fag-hag prostitute.


Is there evidence in the bible of him being a "marxist revolutionary"?

well he was a revolutionary of sorts, even though im an athiest there is over whelming evidence he existed

Too bad your explenation is so badly put together, incorrect, and riddled with errorrs, because your thesis was actually quite good. It is very plausible to conclude that Jesus taught Marxism before Marx did, but you did such a poor job of it that you are making that point of view look dumb.

Could you illustrate? I like the thesis and would be interested to see more. If you're too lazy I guess that's cool too. I probably would be.

Well, if you realized what Jesus was saying about such things as wealth and the like, he said that one should freely give of their worldly wealth, as one could not carry it with them into heaven. He never said anyone should be forced to do so. He even gave tacit endorsement to the regime of Rome by saying "Leave unto Caser, that which is Caesar's." (Matthew 44) In effect, he was a philosophical minarchist, with a bent for private charity and religion.

Having read much of the New Testament, I would agree that Jesus was a social and economic radical but it'd be unfair to call him a Marxist seeing as he came 2000 years before Mr. Marx.

Groups like the Methodists, who were partly responsible for founding the Labour Party (UK) take their liberal views because of the teaching of Jesus.

Well, if you realized what Jesus was saying about such things as wealth and the like, he said that one should freely give of their worldly wealth, as one could not carry it with them into heaven. He never said anyone should be forced to do so. He even gave tacit endorsement to the regime of Rome by saying "Leave unto Caser, that which is Caesar's." (Matthew 44) In effect, he was a philosophical minarchist, with a bent for private charity and religion.

Nods, I aklways took that to signify his belief in the seperation of church and state. One of my favorite passages of my former religion in fact, though I was under the impression it read.
"Give on to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give on to God what is God's."

Jesus knew where it was at. He was against individualism and wanted everybody to look out of one another

Where was he against individualism?

, read the parable of the rich man and how Jesus preached of how it was easier to have a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to make his way into heaven,

You do realise that he was refering to a small gate in Jerusalem where it has possible to get a camel through, just very dificult.

and what about the time when Jesus walked into the temple to find people selling things and trying to make a profit? He whooped their asses. He was a real social liberal too. He didn't give a hoot what the religious order thought of him, he looked and acted like a hippy, spent an unusual amount of time around men and even his best mate was a fag-hag prostitute.

At least you tried :fluffle:

Is there evidence in the bible of him being a "marxist revolutionary"?

Isn't there a passage in Mark where he dons a beret and runs to the hills and wages a guerilla war on the capitalist pig-dog establishment?

The early churches in Paul's time practiced a form of Communism, and quite successfully too. "They sold all their possessions and redistributed their wealth wherever there was need."

Unfortunately any system of government on earth is destined to break down eventually, because people eventually will exploit the system (either rich people who downtrod the masses, or poor people who go on welfare and refuse to work, it is a two way street.) Due to sin of course.

I believe that the modern church does not practice this anymore for several reasons.

1. Karl Marx hijacked Christian teachings and applied them to an atheistic worldview.

2. The USSR hijacked Marx's teachings and applied them to the whole economy and political process (bad idea, as we know now.)

3. The US stirred great patriotic ferment across the world, against the concept of Communism, because of the failings of the Russians primarily. (And China and North Korea and North Vietnam and Algeria et al.)

4. The modern capitalistic society is not conducive to, nor shows a need for, religious communism at this time.

Nods, I aklways took that to signify his belief in the seperation of church and state. One of my favorite passages of my former religion in fact, though I was under the impression it read.
"Give on to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give on to God what is God's."
That's what it says basically. I've believed for some time, that as humanity was given free will by God, we are thus also responsible to allow for freedom amongst ourselves.

Could you illustrate? I like the thesis and would be interested to see more. If you're too lazy I guess that's cool too. I probably would be.

Well, I can in a nutshell. I dont feel like writing a full essay on it. But basically, Jesus taught of social responsability. He taught that it was our responsability as human beings to look after those less fortunate. He taught us to feed the sick and the poor. He taught that it is better to give than to recieve. He taught us that as a community it is our responsability to financially support widows and orphans (in those times women could not work, so the death of a husband meant the woman must be married to someone else or face a life of poverty. There was no government institution for orphans, if someone didnt take them they would die). He taught that money is the root of all kinds of evil. He taught that interdependence is better than independence (for a house dividied cannot stand). He taught against greed and excess and in favor of giving everything you have. It would seem like if Jesus were to create a society, it would be one without a rich ruling class; one where those who make more money give more to help those who make less (or none at all). One where everyone is equal. One could easily say that Jesus lay the foundation of communism.

*This of course, presupposes that the teachings of Paul and the apostles are in line with what Jesus taught. I use the New Testament as a whole for my analysis and have not separated what Jesus himself said with his own mouth from what his disciples and the apostle Paul wrote based on his teachings.*

Isn't there a passage in Mark where he dons a beret and runs to the hills and wages a guerilla war on the capitalist pig-dog establishment?

That's my kind of religion!

Isn't there a passage in Mark where he dons a beret and runs to the hills and wages a guerilla war on the capitalist pig-dog establishment?

Then we could have loads of red T-shirts with pictures of Jesus that say "Viva la messiah!" Er... Or something.

Too bad your explenation is so badly put together, incorrect, and riddled with errorrs, because your thesis was actually quite good. It is very plausible to conclude that Jesus taught Marxism before Marx did, but you did such a poor job of it that you are making that point of view look dumb.

Please enlighten us with you sparkling intellect, Asshole.

Jesus was socialist, but not really Marxist since Marxism is a strictly modern concept that had no real equivalent in Jesus's time.

The difference is that he doesn't expect the government to give handouts to the poor, he expects you to give. That is not socialism or communism. You have liberty to give what is in your heart to give. You can know Jesus Christ alot more. If you open your heart to Him, He will fill it.

The difference is that he doesn't expect the government to give handouts to the poor, he expects you to give. That is not socialism or communism. You have liberty to give what is in your heart to give. You can know Jesus Christ alot more. If you open your heart to Him, He will fill it.

The government is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. So if he expects you to give he expects the government to give.

You do realise that he was refering to a small gate in Jerusalem where it has possible to get a camel through, just very dificult.

that's an explanation passed off by some rich christians, but as far as i know, there is no evidence that any gate was actually called this, or even existed. and if it was fairly routine for camels to get through such a gate with a bit of difficulty, why are the disciples shocked and astonished and left wondering if it is even possible to get to heaven? the context of the parable in all three locations doesn't back up the gate interpretation.

that's an explanation passed off by some rich christians, but as far as i know, there is no evidence that any gate was actually called this, or even existed. and if it was fairly routine for camels to get through such a gate with a bit of difficulty, why are the disciples shocked and astonished and left wondering if it is even possible to get to heaven? the context of the parable in all three locations doesn't back up the gate interpretation.

You mean my teachers lied to me :(

Not that I could care less though, I'm not rich or a Christian.

So I'm going to Hell regardless of how many camels walk through needle eyes.

Too bad your explenation is so badly put together, incorrect, and riddled with errorrs, because your thesis was actually quite good. It is very plausible to conclude that Jesus taught Marxism before Marx did, but you did such a poor job of it that you are making that point of view look dumb.

*looks around and then whispers* It was a joke

You mean my teachers lied to me :(

pretty much. par for the course, really. where would religion be without focusing on particular bits of the various holy texts, ignoring most of the rest, and taking things horribly out of context or even just willfully misreading them?

He threw people out of the temple because they were misusing the house of God... Mary Magdalene wasn't his best friend, and she wasn't a prostitute anymore by that time. But... yes...

pretty much. par for the course, really. where would religion be without focusing on particular bits of the various holy texts, ignoring most of the rest, and taking things horribly out of context or even just willfully misreading them?

:(

Maybe I should write a Catholic/Christian version of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818868/qid=1109534449/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6699084-7730415?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) :p

Correct me if im wrong didn't Karl Marx say that religion was the opiate of the masses and that religion was a method of control used to keep the proletariat oppressed.
Its just that jesus struck me as one of those religious types.

By the standards of his day Jesus was very anti-religion - in the organized Church sense (as was represented by the pharisees). He was very pro-spiritual. But he was against the organized, hierarchical, legalistic shit that passed for religion, which was oppressing the people of his time.

that's an explanation passed off by some rich christians, but as far as i know, there is no evidence that any gate was actually called this, or even existed. and if it was fairly routine for camels to get through such a gate with a bit of difficulty, why are the disciples shocked and astonished and left wondering if it is even possible to get to heaven? the context of the parable in all three locations doesn't back up the gate interpretation.
You must also remember that the bible has been translated numerous times. It's quite possible that it does refer to a gate, and that verbal clues to the corralation have been lost through the translations.

Also, you seem to be forgetting one of Jesus's main teachings, forgiveness, so while it may be difficult for a rich person to reach heaven, it would not be impossible (just as it may be difficult to get a camel through said gate, but no impossible.)

It should also be noted that no one, pro-socialist, marxist, whatever, can "buy" their way into heaven on good deeds.

It should also be noted that no one, pro-socialist, marxist, whatever, can "buy" their way into heaven on good deeds.

What? Rewind here, am I missing something? I was under the impression that if you were good, you went to heaven...

His remark was a case of equivocation. He was trying to avoid pissing off the Romans blatantly. At other times, however, he was most impolitic. "Think not that I have not come to bring peace to the Earth, for I have not come to bring peace, but the sword. For I will set every man at variance with his fellow." This is not the talk of a peace-loving hippie or a self-sacrificing "Lord and Savior". This is the talk of a violent revolutionary of some stripe. I'd call Jesus more of a politician, playing patriotic populist to the crowds while trying not to infuriate the elite too much. He hated the Pharisees, that much is clear. This is not surprising for a Galilean, given the famous Pharisaical lament "O Galilee, you hate the Torah!". Given his background, I'd call Jesus a Zealot with an intent to reform Judaism. He was playing some sort of political game to attain power, but played his religious hand too far, angering the Sanhedrin and the Roman governor. There is no way that Pilate was as reluctant as the gospels portray him. If a man breaks into the Temple and drives out lucrative business, wreaking havoc and disturbing the peace, the Roman prefect is going to get rid of him swiftly.

What? Rewind here, am I missing something? I was under the impression that if you were good, you went to heaven...

Common misconception, also the reason I am not going to be admitted into Christian heaven. This is more heavily stressed in certain factions than others but generally the Christian ideal is that you will not go to heaven, regardless of how good you were, unless you’ve accepted Christ as your lord and savior.

I have not.

So according to Dante I’d be headed for limbo with all those good people who didn’t accept Christ. I’m too sinful to go to heaven but too good for hell. (Not that Dante is accepted protestant literature.)

http://www.missiontoamerica.com/how-good/
http://www.creationists.org/goodworks.html
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=408148

You must also remember that the bible has been translated numerous times. It's quite possible that it does refer to a gate, and that verbal clues to the corralation have been lost through the translations.

actually the only possibility of mistranslation here is whether it should be 'camel' or 'rope', which are quite similar in greek and aramaic. but since all of the earliest texts mentioning it use camel, camel seems like the most reasonable translation. in either case it is a nce bit of hyperbole, sort of like the 'log sticking out of you eye' thing. there is actually a quite similar passage in the talmud, exchanging an elephant for the camel (baba mezi'a 38b). it was apparently a common phrase for expressing the impossible.

nobody even bothered to come up with the gate story for over 1000 years or so after the fact. we have no archeaological evidence of such a gate. and if it was about a gate that camels could get through, that would make the whole passage seem weird - why should the disciples be astonished and wonder if it is even possible to get to heaven, and why should jesus respond by talking about things that are impossible for man but are possible with god?

Also, you seem to be forgetting one of Jesus's main teachings, forgiveness, so while it may be difficult for a rich person to reach heaven, it would not be impossible (just as it may be difficult to get a camel through said gate, but no impossible.)

read the passage. its repeated in each of the three synoptic gospels. and seriously, it requires some impressive mental gymnastics to get to the gate explanation from the context of the story. and with no independent evidence to support the existence of such a gate, it just becomes silly.

What? Rewind here, am I missing something? I was under the impression that if you were good, you went to heaven...

it's the old argument about works vs. acceptance of jesus vs. predestination vs. hell is a stupid later invention used to keep the population passive

FYI: No one knows what Jesus looked like. He could have a bald, baby-faced midget for all we know.

And if Christ were a Marxist, why is it that Marxists go absolutely apeshit over the mere mention of his name? Why do they go into a frenzy, like rabid dogs, over religion? Why do they do everything in their power to destroy all traces of Christianity?

And if Christ were a Marxist, why is it that Marxists go absolutely apeshit over the mere mention of his name? Why do they go into a frenzy, like rabid dogs, over religion? Why do they do everything in their power to destroy all traces of Christianity?

because marxism is a christian heresy that, especially in its leninist forms, seeks to do to the orthodox church what the orthodox church did to the cathars.