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.

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.

Lot of people during history fought for socialism but they always ignore that part somehow.

I always think of Jesus as a Buddhist Jew.

One of Marx’s biggest inspirations was the teachings of Jesus.

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!"

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.

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.

Jaques Elul was an interesting man. His book about Christianity and Anarchy is a must if you want to continue unrolling this thoughts

bad look for socialism honestly

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

Jesus was middle eastern. Don't need to look further than that to find the hypocrisy.

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.

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

Socialist Jesus is

• anachronistic (property+ownership, private vs social don't make much sense 2 kya),
• incongruent with most of Christianity and Socialism,
• propaganda.

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.

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.

Teached -> taught

The problem was that the church needed to reach out to the nobles to spread, so promising wealth became a sticking point

I wish there were more Christianity comms (I've got some Bible shitposts too) but pretty much all of them get brigaded / downvoted by people who don't even follow the subs and by all appearances don't know what a block button is.

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).