Jesus used to be my socialist idol, but other socialists didn’t like it whenever I mentioned that…
It’s like they didn’t realize how powerful it would be to subvert the dominant messaging about Jesus being a white trash, racist, jingo-nationalist, homophobic redneck who loves capitalism and america…
I’ll guess it has something to do with leftists not liking religion. Probably because the whole idea of a supreme ruler demanding obedience and tribute in exchange for nebulous promises instead of using his power to improve our conditions in the here and now (for the almighty, fixing disease and poverty would definitionally be possible) just doesn’t quite gel with the lip service to solidarity.
Jesus may have been socialist in his speeches, but Christianity as a religion sure isn’t. To wrap it in a biblical metaphor, you’re sowing that word where the soil is infertile and it cannot take root. If you wanna preach, turn Christians into socialists, but don’t expect socialists to be fans of Christianity.
It doesn’t have to be religious though. A secular reading can still result in the conclusion that jesus was a socialist. I grew up reading the gospel, and it always appeared to me that jesus went around calling out religious hypocrites, preaching love over hate, telling people to sell their things and give their wealth to the poor, even share everything in common, take care of each other, take care of the poor, sick, disabled, and imprisoned. And ultimately he was executed by the religious establishment for being too radical in their view.
Jesus may have been socialist in his speeches, but Christianity as a religion sure isn’t.
What was call “christianity” today has evolved quite a bit since the times when they were hiding in caves in the desert, practicing in secrecy, because any open support for this radical group of what were essentially communists was enough to be publicly executed. It didn’t start getting co-opted and corrupted until a roman emperor converted and started turning it into a new means of wielding control. Before that, the early christian martyrs were often killed by the entrenched powers-that-be for refusing to disavow what they believed in. If socialists can’t take inspiration from that, then what are we doing?
I’m not saying socialists should be “fans of christianity,” but there’s a difference between christianity as we know it today, and the teachings of christ as laid out in the gospel. I don’t even like christianity anymore, because it’s clear the hypocrites have won the battle for messaging and are the ones controlling the narrative. I don’t believe in god anymore, besides. But that doesn’t stop me from recognizing a socialist jesus when I read the book of matthew.
You’re approaching this from an angle where you seem to think it needs to be religious. It doesn’t.
To preface this: I’m also an apostate that used to be quite fervent and zealous. I agree with most of your points.
the teachings of christ as laid out in the gospel
The difficulty I see is that you’re cherry-picking which parts of the gospel to apply.
He also taught people to pray for god’s mercy and forgiveness, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done”, and according to him, the highest of commandments is to love God with all your heart and soul. It’s hard to put this in a secular light that doesn’t boil down to obeying a single highest authority. Yes, loving your neighbour is second, but it’s only second.
If we remove the religious parts, picking out merely his secular points, maybe reframe references to heaven as symbolic for “good people”, I agree with you. I’d even add the passage in Revelation about “When I was sick, you cared for me; when I was in prison, you visited me” and so on. It is an unmistakable message saying “Unconditional solidarity is divine.”
“What you did to the lowest of my brothers” is a very clear bar to set: Deporting immigrants is a sin against God so grave that piety alone can’t wash it clean.
I’d read as a parallel to “If you want to know the worth of a society, see how it treats its poor.”
My contention is just that I don’t think it’s possible to cleanly separate his character from his religious nature, nor from what that religion has become. Early Christianity may have had much in common with leftists, but saying “some of his convictions were clearly socialist in nature” isn’t the same as saying “he is a socialist”.
Also, there are probably many leftists that don’t deeply engage with the topic. At a surface level, you see what religion does today, and whatever it may have been or whatever subtext it may have:
the hypocrites have won the battle for messaging and are the ones controlling the narrative.
And that narrative is awful. That alone will be enough to make the sentiment unpopular. Again, I agree with you in many points, and the rest are probably more academic in nature than relevant to the values we want to uphold. But being right (whether partially, mostly or entirely) alone doesn’t always mean you’ll be popular. The figure comes with a baggage that I don’t think can easily be removed.
Hence: To socialists, the fact that Jesus also held some socialist views doesn’t have much weight, because the figure itself has no more value than the views we already hold. It’s the Christians, to whom the figure does have weight, that could use some convincing about those values.
Since it’s so powerful, you should unleash it at the other Christians who ought to be more socialist, not the other socialists who ought to be more Christian.
Its almost like the rich and powerful have always used their power to silence opposition to their wealth.
Jesus used to be my socialist idol, but other socialists didn’t like it whenever I mentioned that…
It’s like they didn’t realize how powerful it would be to subvert the dominant messaging about Jesus being a white trash, racist, jingo-nationalist, homophobic redneck who loves capitalism and america…
I’ll guess it has something to do with leftists not liking religion. Probably because the whole idea of a supreme ruler demanding obedience and tribute in exchange for nebulous promises instead of using his power to improve our conditions in the here and now (for the almighty, fixing disease and poverty would definitionally be possible) just doesn’t quite gel with the lip service to solidarity.
Jesus may have been socialist in his speeches, but Christianity as a religion sure isn’t. To wrap it in a biblical metaphor, you’re sowing that word where the soil is infertile and it cannot take root. If you wanna preach, turn Christians into socialists, but don’t expect socialists to be fans of Christianity.
It doesn’t have to be religious though. A secular reading can still result in the conclusion that jesus was a socialist. I grew up reading the gospel, and it always appeared to me that jesus went around calling out religious hypocrites, preaching love over hate, telling people to sell their things and give their wealth to the poor, even share everything in common, take care of each other, take care of the poor, sick, disabled, and imprisoned. And ultimately he was executed by the religious establishment for being too radical in their view.
What was call “christianity” today has evolved quite a bit since the times when they were hiding in caves in the desert, practicing in secrecy, because any open support for this radical group of what were essentially communists was enough to be publicly executed. It didn’t start getting co-opted and corrupted until a roman emperor converted and started turning it into a new means of wielding control. Before that, the early christian martyrs were often killed by the entrenched powers-that-be for refusing to disavow what they believed in. If socialists can’t take inspiration from that, then what are we doing?
I’m not saying socialists should be “fans of christianity,” but there’s a difference between christianity as we know it today, and the teachings of christ as laid out in the gospel. I don’t even like christianity anymore, because it’s clear the hypocrites have won the battle for messaging and are the ones controlling the narrative. I don’t believe in god anymore, besides. But that doesn’t stop me from recognizing a socialist jesus when I read the book of matthew.
You’re approaching this from an angle where you seem to think it needs to be religious. It doesn’t.
To preface this: I’m also an apostate that used to be quite fervent and zealous. I agree with most of your points.
The difficulty I see is that you’re cherry-picking which parts of the gospel to apply.
He also taught people to pray for god’s mercy and forgiveness, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done”, and according to him, the highest of commandments is to love God with all your heart and soul. It’s hard to put this in a secular light that doesn’t boil down to obeying a single highest authority. Yes, loving your neighbour is second, but it’s only second.
If we remove the religious parts, picking out merely his secular points, maybe reframe references to heaven as symbolic for “good people”, I agree with you. I’d even add the passage in Revelation about “When I was sick, you cared for me; when I was in prison, you visited me” and so on. It is an unmistakable message saying “Unconditional solidarity is divine.”
“What you did to the lowest of my brothers” is a very clear bar to set: Deporting immigrants is a sin against God so grave that piety alone can’t wash it clean. I’d read as a parallel to “If you want to know the worth of a society, see how it treats its poor.”
My contention is just that I don’t think it’s possible to cleanly separate his character from his religious nature, nor from what that religion has become. Early Christianity may have had much in common with leftists, but saying “some of his convictions were clearly socialist in nature” isn’t the same as saying “he is a socialist”.
Also, there are probably many leftists that don’t deeply engage with the topic. At a surface level, you see what religion does today, and whatever it may have been or whatever subtext it may have:
And that narrative is awful. That alone will be enough to make the sentiment unpopular. Again, I agree with you in many points, and the rest are probably more academic in nature than relevant to the values we want to uphold. But being right (whether partially, mostly or entirely) alone doesn’t always mean you’ll be popular. The figure comes with a baggage that I don’t think can easily be removed.
Hence: To socialists, the fact that Jesus also held some socialist views doesn’t have much weight, because the figure itself has no more value than the views we already hold. It’s the Christians, to whom the figure does have weight, that could use some convincing about those values.
Since it’s so powerful, you should unleash it at the other Christians who ought to be more socialist, not the other socialists who ought to be more Christian.
As if it’s a directional beam. No, I bring it up anywhere, I get flamed from all sides. Happy?
Yes. Aim the Egalitarian Jesus beam directly at the threat!
I’ve got them lined up in my calvary crosshairs!
i also like how according to modern science Jesus must be trans if you accept the narratives but reject divinity.
If you remove the divinity then you’re just left with Mary having a flimsy excuse for being knocked up.
Thinking Jesus was the only known case of complete human parthenogenesis is like thinking there’s zebras when you hear hoof beats.
And female at birth!
This is one of those “the circle goes in the square hole” things
True!
It’s that damn first-century capitalism.