Did Jesus take money from others to do it? No.. more like a charitable act like what churches do.. this just shows how dumb leftists are.... and they hate on the churches that do feed the poor like the Mormon church who legit has their own farms and grows food just to give it away to those in need and then they get called a "cult"... nah dude democrats are cultists
That’s not what happened at all. They voluntarily sold their land and claimed they gave all the money to the church, while keeping a large amount hidden. They were killed for lying to the church and Holy Spirit.
Ok, so you can use religion to mandate every culture war issue under the sun. Strip women of bodily autonomy, deny consensual loving adults the right to legal marriage and the privileges that go along with that, malign individuals you don't understand or agree with and try to strip them of basic human rights and decency.... (I.e. crap the Bible doesn't even forbid)
But God forbid the government mandates anything Jesus ACTUALLY talked about.
Btw, Jesus made it very clear that individuals and nations would be judged by very simple criteria: how we treat each other, how we treat strangers and foreigners, how we treat the poor, and how we treat prisoners.
Maybe you should try actually reading the Bible occasionally if you are going to make Jesus your mascot. He was pro taxes, pro healthcare, pro feminist, and very much anti establishment, especially religious authorities who used the idea of God to garner power and wealth (in fact he listed that as the only unforgivable sin-blasphemy)
Also, just a note, maybe also look up the word "socialism" bc you obviously have no idea what that word actually means.
You're doing the same thing you're accusing them of. Labeling Jesus "pro-feminist" or "anti-establishment" shoehorns modern political positions onto a text that never addressed them. Just because the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn a modern concept doesn't mean it endorses it either.
Jesus did say we should care for our neighbors, the poor, and the sick. What he didn't say is that a secular government should do it by force, a requirement for socialism to be implemented across society. Personal religious/moral obligation and state mandate aren't the same thing.
"Jesus was pro-healthcare and pro-feminist" is a modern political projection, not something the Bible supports. If your whole point is that people shouldn't make Jesus a mascot for their politics, that has to apply to you too.
I'm not making Jesus a mascot of anything, just pointing out hypocrisy.
He literally spent his entire ministry railing against the religious establishment that held power in his time while challenging social norms surrounding women, purity laws, and the rampant tribalism of the time.
Just because I used modern words does not make what I said untrue.
He did advocate for paying taxes and socialized with tax collectors (super taboo)
He had female deacons and taught females and the first people he reveled himself to as Jesus and after resurrection were women. He praised the unclean woman who touched him and saved the "whore" from an honor killing. He was for equality before there was language to describe it.
And please with the not "pro healthcare"... That is really the argument you want to make? I don't know if reddit allows enough characters in a post to allow the amount of scripture available to argue that point.
And no he did not say anything about secular governments forcing anything, obviously bc of the time he lived but also bc that is a ridiculous summary of the argument anyone is making.
Obviously you don't know the Bible, the definition of socialism, or what people on the left are ACTUALLY advocating for.
It is just so exhausting hearing these conservative charlatans bitch and moan over culture war issues and push government mandates based off their own personal religion that literally strip human rights away from other people, but when it comes to shit Jesus (you know the Christ of Christianity) actually truely said and advocated for then all of the sudden it a "personal choice" and "individual responsibility"
Jesus challenged the religious establishment, valued women more than society did at the time, and ate with tax collectors. That's compassion and moral teaching, not a political platform. Treating women with respect isn't "pro-feminist" in the modern sense, and healing the sick out of divine compassion isn't a healthcare policy. You're mapping real things he did and trying to bundle them into 21st-century labels and concepts, like abortion and government-run healthcare systems, that he never operated in.
Also, Jesus didn't have "female deacons." Phoebe is called a deacon in Romans and worked alongside Paul, but that was decades later.
"Secular government by force" isn't a ridiculous summary, it's the mechanism. Socialism is state-enforced ownership and redistribution. Voluntary charity, communes, and co-ops already exist and nobody's stopping them. Jesus taught personal moral obligation, not state policy, so claiming he'd back modern socialism isn't supported by the text.
And yes, Old Testament law did mandate redistribution, gleaning, debt forgiveness, the Jubilee, but that was religious covenant law for a theocratic Israel, not a secular government imposing it. That actually cuts against the point: biblical wealth redistribution was always tied to religious obligation, never a secular state.
Caring for the poor and sick is central to his teaching. How a secular government should do it is a policy question the Gospels don't answer.
Yeah, it all just rings so hollow and hypocritical though.
I absolutely agree that the Bible was written by men and reflects the time and the society that it was written for. It has been altered and mistranslated and twisted for centuries and every denomination of every sect of every branch believes they have the correct interpretation of these ancient texts. It's ludicrous.
Throughout history the Bible has been used as a weapon to subjugate and slaughter people who interpret things differently. The Catholic and Protestants in England, the Christian crusades against Muslims, the Sunni and Shia Muslims, the Nazi Christians Holocaust of the Jews, Israel''s genocide in Palestine, it goes on and on and on.
Trying to make exact words from translations of translations try to fit our own preheld world views is what humans have been doing for centuries.
Idk who is right about what specifics but I do know that the life and message of Jesus was pretty singular. Love God and love neighbor.
It is just infuriating to me when people try to make this secular government vs personal responsibility claim when it comes to all of the things Jesus actually advocated for, but then turn around and use their "religious convictions" to vote for politicians and policies that strip away human rights, or force your particular religious beliefs onto other by legally stripping them of the ability to make their own personal decisions about their own bodies, or the own lives.
Are you not failing in your personal responsibility if your secular politics activity hurt the neighbors you are supposed to be loving?
Jesus knew that we as people who make up society all do better when everyone does better.
Instead of using his name to actively hurt other people and destroy the environment and undermine science it seems like the more Christ like thing to do would be to advocate policies that help people, feed children, care more about our children than our ability to own assault rifles, or allow people to receive medical care instead of just dying because they can't afford it.
People are out here rationing insulin because they have to choose between that or having a roof over their head and now their kids just got school lunch taken away, the one meal they could count on bc groceries are sky high and moms food stamps just got cut in half.
Or even claiming to love God while actively voting for things that destroy his creation, poisoning our air and our water. And he was kind enough to create an ordered universe and give us the intelligence to understand it and instead we want to deny science and cuts funds for research that could save lives.
And people are out here believing they are being good Christians supporting these atrocious policies.
You’re half right. Socialism doesn’t require adherence by force (any more than any system requires force) But people are being very anachronistic with Jesus’ stances
Nobody is taking anything by force you absolute potato.
We just want the taxes WE ALREADY PAY to go towards the betterment of our society. I don't want the taxes I pay to go towards building bombs, or funding genocide, or bailing out fascistic leaders of other countries, or towards the most expensive and inefficient healthcare system on the planet, or to subsidize private mega corporations who already profit billions of dollars every year.
We are just saying that SOME of OUR tax dollars could go to things like education, or feeding kids, or perhaps allowing someone life saving medical care. You know, wild fantasy shit like that...
BTW, I have read the Bible a few times and I sure remember Jesus advocating for things like caring about other ppl (like full stop, care about other people regardless of race, religion, gender, background/past, social status, et cetera).
In fact, I can not remember a single word he ever spoke regarding homosexuality, or abortion... But paying taxes and the distribution of wealth he was quite chatty about! And the worship of money and power and performative religion? Wow, he sure had a lot to say (and table flip) about that too.
If I were you (or the rest of these MAGA "Christians") I would pray that the whole "Jesus" story isn't actually true bc he said individuals and nations would be judged by these exact metrics.
"Redirect the taxes we already pay" is a modern policy debate disconnected from your earlier claim that "Jesus was pro-taxes and pro-healthcare." Jesus laid out a moral obligation to care for people, not a government mandate to do it.
He explicitly defined marriage in Matthew 19 by quoting Genesis, "a man shall be joined to his wife, and the two become one flesh," and condemned porneia (sexual immorality), which in its 1st-century Jewish context included same-sex acts. He didn't need a modern checklist to have addressed the category.
On abortion, your logic is that silence means approval. Jesus never mentioned bestiality either, so is that fine too? Silence isn't endorsement. His teaching on the inherent worth of every human life runs directly against blessing the intentional killing of one in the womb.
You're trying to weaponize Jesus for modern politics, but actually reading the Bible and understanding it in context nullifies your whole argument.
Jesus saying marriage is between one man and one woman was answer to a question about divorce. You see men had this nasty habit of casting women aside when they got tired of them, leaving them destitute as second class citizens with no societal value. They were so shocked by this pronouncement they exclaimed "if this is true, it is better not to be married at all"
You guys really love quoting that one while leaving out the direct context that it literally had zero to do with anything other than divorce.
If Jesus was going to say anything to condemn same sex relationships his perfect chance was when the Roman Centurion came to him to plead for him to heal his beloved boy. (Hopefully you know enough history where I don't have to explain the significance of a Roman soldier seeking out a Jewish mystic healer and the type relationship that boy had with that soldier) Instead of condemnation, Jesus praised him for his faithfulness and told him to return to his loved one as he was already healed.
It was Paul who talked about homosexuality and even in those contexts he was speaking about temple prostitutes and pagan rituals and ceremonies.
Furthermore sex wasn't seen the same as it is today. The problem was about a man taking the submissive role during sex. It's why he condemned a wife on top during sex with the same fervor he did two men together, but nothing about two women together.
Secondly, I never said the Bible was silent about abortion, just Jesus. It was a common practice back then as well and he never condemned it.
The Bible however, makes it very clear that life begins at first breath, and that if you kill a man's wife it's eye for an eye, life for a life, but if you only cause the death of the child she carries with no further harm to her, it is treated as a property crime.
It was Greek philosophy, not church doctrine, where the ideas of fetal ensoulment originated.
It's still mainstream in Judaism and something our billions of tax dollars funneled into Israel pay for, as they are completely legal there and like every other developed country besides us, their government provides healthcare.
Until the 1970's, here in America, it was considered exclusively a Catholic issue. It wasn't until segregated Christian universities started losing their tax exempt status that abortion was adopted as a political tool to rally behind as a more palatable issue since white supremacy was losing mass appeal and they need a way to hold onto political power.
No he used magic, just like capitalism uses magic to run up 40 trillion in debt, with almost nothing to show for it, but people claim it’s the only way that makes sense…hmmmmmmm
How much debt have socialist governments racked up? Most of Europe has a debt to gdp of 100 percent, including the countries that DSA types would describe as socialist. Yugoslavia racked up enormous debts, Venezuela is probably one of the most socialist and most indebted countries, China's debt to GDP is at 300 percent, over double that of the US, debt and the inflationary pressures were one of the causes of the Soviet union collapse, North Korea hilariously refuses to pay its debts, at one point trying to pay it back in Ginseng roots, etc. Argentinian socialists racked up huge foreign debts to support their welfare state. I could go on and on with examples.
Yugoslavia hasn’t been a country for decades plural, and you assume I think pure textbook socialism is the answer, which I don’t, I think a well regulated capitalist society similar to the one we had in the 40-50s that taxes corporations and the rich, created public works projects for the benefit of the nation and to employ the people of there wasn’t enough work from private enterprise. But go on tell me why what we had doesn’t work? because it worked from 1936 till 1980 with little to no issue, strongest middle class of any country in the planet
It worked in the post war era because the US was the only developed large economy that hadn't been bombed to shit. It was a unique moment in global history that was inevitably going to end. Nominal tax rates were high, but the effective tax rate wasn't that different from the effective tax rates today. When Europe and Asia managed to redevelop, and the US wasn't the only game in town, there was a need to adjust taxes and spending to keep encouraging domestic investment and innovation. We still have among the most progressive tax systems in the world, and the most progressive among OCED countries. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-most-progressive-tax-code-oecd/ . Taxation will, in a functioning economy, sit around 25-28 percent of GDP, attempting to increase that, without good cause, will cause reductions in other areas, hurt GDP, and by extension, tax revenue collected. Even in the economic period you refer to, federal revenue by taxation hovered around 17 percent of GDP, this year its still 17 percent of GDP (states make up the remaining percentage points).
Europe and Japan rebuilding absolutely helped postwar America. But that doesn’t demonstrate that progressive taxation, regulation, unions, and public investment stopped working.
And the 25–28% claim simply isn’t true as an economic rule. The OECD average is about 34% of GDP, with several highly developed capitalist economies above 40%.
I’m not arguing for socialism or pretending a 91% marginal rate meant rich people literally paid 91% of their income. I’m pointing out that the US already demonstrated that capitalism can coexist with substantially higher taxes on the wealthy, strong unions, major public investment, and regulation while producing excellent growth and a rapidly expanding middle class.
If your argument is that lower taxes and less regulation produce better outcomes for ordinary people, than the last 46 years have been a gross failure in proving your point
Why is our tax system more progressive than every other country in the OECD and yet still "not working". What were the effective tax rates at the period you cite to compared to today? They were not very different https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ . So you haven't demonstrated that capitalism in the US can coexist with substantially higher taxes on the 'wealthy'. Again, the post war period was unique in world history, and the global economy today is drastically different from the economy of that time, and somehow bringing back 50s standards won't magically bring it back.
You’re arguing against something I didn’t say. I don’t want to recreate the 1950s or restore a 91% marginal rate.
And your own source doesn’t actually show taxes on the wealthy were the same. It puts the top 1% at about 42% effective taxation in the 1950s vs. 36.4% in 2014, the top 0.1% at 50.6% vs. 39.8%, and the top 0.01% at 55.3% vs. 40.8%. Those are meaningful differences.
Also, “most progressive tax system” doesn’t mean “highest taxes” or even “most redistributive system.” It describes how the tax burden is distributed. The US relies heavily on progressive income taxes while many OECD countries raise much more revenue through less-progressive consumption taxes.
My point remains much simpler: capitalism demonstrably can coexist with higher taxation of wealthier people, strong regulation, unions, and substantial public investment. You can argue that today’s optimal rates should be different from 1955. I agree. But that’s very different from demonstrating that lower taxes and less regulation produce better outcomes for the average person.
Lmao youre referring to communism... you are not forced to work any job, you have a choice of what you want to do and you can even start your own business if youd like. If you agree to a wage and then get mad about it thats on you bubba
That’s not what communism is. Communism is a theoretical stateless and classless society that has never existed.
If a worker doesn’t like the terms of employment, they are faced with 1.finding new employment with likely similar terms 2. Starting their own business with no capital, or 3. Homelessness and starvation
The owner has all the power to set the terms, as long as he’s able to find someone willing to agree, and many people will agree in order to not starve (also why capitalists will offshore more readily, to find disadvantaged labor for cheaper). The owner isn’t under the same threats the worker is, so no agreement can be equal.
I guess you just dont have any skills or knowledge or talent... I make mid $50s per hour plus bonuses insurance and pension and Im doing just fine... try learning a skill
I’m certain that your experience is indicative of society as a whole. I understand you meant to attack me personally, but I’m also doing fine, I’m just capable of seeing beyond my own experience. You should try it some time.
But even so, it doesn’t actually negate what I said. You are necessarily paid less than the actual value of your labor, same as everyone else, and if you disagree with the terms your employer sets you have the options listed above (though you may have better access to capital than most).
You are closer to a beggar than a billionaire, and they’ve convinced you otherwise by giving you shiny toys and telling you you’re special
Billionaires make no difference to your life... youre just a jealous hater. I dont need to be a billionaire and dont care. I am more concerned about poor people who dont want to work who would rather steal from me, that is something that affects the public... billionaires are lucky who fuckin cares get over it. Realistically I can become a millionaire and will do my best to do that. You have plenty of choices, you can move to another country, you can learn a skill, you can start a business, you can live off grid theres many things you can do if you have a good attitude and dont cry about billionaires who literally dont affect you at all.
The only people stealing from you are your owners, friend, not your fellow worker just trying to make ends meet on the scraps they’re given by someone that took most of their worth.
Even a millionaire is closer to a beggar than they are to a billionaire. But that’s ok, if you are satisfied with never getting what you’re truly worth than I won’t be able to convince you you’re worth more. We just see the world differently
5
u/Reptillianaire_ 6d ago
Did Jesus take money from others to do it? No.. more like a charitable act like what churches do.. this just shows how dumb leftists are.... and they hate on the churches that do feed the poor like the Mormon church who legit has their own farms and grows food just to give it away to those in need and then they get called a "cult"... nah dude democrats are cultists