my point was not that he was pro capitalist but that he would be, since again he went around spreading imperialist propaganda. Liberals today give all kinds of lip service about billionaires being to rich and shit or corporations being too powerful and then turn around and show their true colors when it comes to the global south. And the reality of how he has been used to justify imperialism right before it became capitalism and while capitalism existed and today leaves very little doubt about what his teaching were all about.
And his fate that he was executed by the Roman gov’t and its Judean Pharisee collaborators, for challenging the latter, and to an extent, the former’s rule
Was he pro-imperial when he got killed for that, like the commenter said?
no but he was when he told people to pay their taxes and be good slaves. Think about it this way if a liberal journalist for example wrote an article exposing some of the extreme excesses of capitalism and got assassinated for it does that make them anti capitalist even if they generally support it?
But the way i see it it doesnt matter, your argument is just kinda irrelevant to me, the fact that his words and actions can support a pro empire and pro slavery view at all is enough because that is what it has been used to support. For example if a right wing politician cultivated and empowered and dog whittled to a following of people who some minority and this resulted in hate crimes i dont care if their official stance is that hate crimes are bad and that whichever group their following targets is great, the actual result of his actions and words are what matters and that goes double for a figure like jesus who if there is any truth to his existence it most have been very different from what the stories if for nothing else because many of the stories are contradictory or magical, the man simply is what people have made of him, and people have made him a symbol of empire and capitalism, i mean christmas IS pure consumerism.
New Testament was written in the time of widespread slavery and this is what it had to offer:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ, not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul. Render service with enthusiasm, as for the Lord and not for humans, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are enslaved or free.
Pretty sure if capitalism existed at that time, it would have the same advice to give wage slaves.
Edit: ok I think you’re proving my point, that verse is Ephesians 6:5, which is a letter written by Paul the Apostle (note that this guy is a ex-Pharisee Roman-turned Christian, who has many reasons to co-opt his message)
Here’s an actual verse from Jesus
In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus quotes Isaiah in his mission statement: “He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.”
Now, frankly, both Jesus and Paul did use language of slave-master relationship, but it doesn’t necessitate that to earthly masters, at least in Jesus’ case (as he was a rebel and troublemaker to the local Roman-collaborator Pharisee order) , but merely to God
In fact, I’d prefer this interpretation of Christ, as a culmination to Jewish liberatory practices against debt
Nathan: I just pulled up the full text from Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 10: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you” (with reference to the Jewish word for the periodic debt forgivenesses). And then the last line, “you shall return every man unto his possession, and you shall return every man unto his family.” So that’s interesting. So with the mention of Leviticus Chapter 25—this is really the part of your whole rap, sir, that I just find to be absolutely electrifying—could you describe to us how Jesus fits into this situation as the culmination of Jewish prophecy, as a product of Jewish tradition, and describe Jesus’ role in all this, as described in Luke Chapter 4?
Bible is extremely self contradictory, you can fish out quotes to support nearly anything, as proven by history over and over: https://philb61.github.io/
What Bible simply does not offer however, is a direct condemnation of slavery which would only take one short passage. There’s nothing to counterbalance the quote I pasted above, or the quote from the old Testament discussed here: https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
Given how self contradictory the Bible is, support for slavery is one of the very few points you can get from it with any level of certainty. You can do some mental gymnastics and infer a condemnation of slavery from general statements like “setting the oppressed free”, but then you can make pretty much any other concievable point by selecting the passages that can be interpreted to support your point, and ignoring the passages where your point is directly and explicitly refuted.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to diss Christianity as such! I do think Bible itself offers little to Marxists but there’s more to Christian history and tradition.
I’ll be honest, I never looked deeper into this. I was a militant atheist for most of my life and I’m only starting to broaden my horizons, hence my harsh initial reply for which I apologise. Old habits die hard I guess. Our enemy is capital, not religion.
my point was not that he was pro capitalist but that he would be, since again he went around spreading imperialist propaganda. Liberals today give all kinds of lip service about billionaires being to rich and shit or corporations being too powerful and then turn around and show their true colors when it comes to the global south. And the reality of how he has been used to justify imperialism right before it became capitalism and while capitalism existed and today leaves very little doubt about what his teaching were all about.
And his fate that he was executed by the Roman gov’t and its Judean Pharisee collaborators, for challenging the latter, and to an extent, the former’s rule
Was he pro-imperial when he got killed for that, like the commenter said?
no but he was when he told people to pay their taxes and be good slaves. Think about it this way if a liberal journalist for example wrote an article exposing some of the extreme excesses of capitalism and got assassinated for it does that make them anti capitalist even if they generally support it?
But the way i see it it doesnt matter, your argument is just kinda irrelevant to me, the fact that his words and actions can support a pro empire and pro slavery view at all is enough because that is what it has been used to support. For example if a right wing politician cultivated and empowered and dog whittled to a following of people who some minority and this resulted in hate crimes i dont care if their official stance is that hate crimes are bad and that whichever group their following targets is great, the actual result of his actions and words are what matters and that goes double for a figure like jesus who if there is any truth to his existence it most have been very different from what the stories if for nothing else because many of the stories are contradictory or magical, the man simply is what people have made of him, and people have made him a symbol of empire and capitalism, i mean christmas IS pure consumerism.
No idea why you’re being downvoted comrade.
New Testament was written in the time of widespread slavery and this is what it had to offer:
Pretty sure if capitalism existed at that time, it would have the same advice to give wage slaves.
Edit: ok I think you’re proving my point, that verse is Ephesians 6:5, which is a letter written by Paul the Apostle (note that this guy is a ex-Pharisee Roman-turned Christian, who has many reasons to co-opt his message)
Here’s an actual verse from Jesus
Now, frankly, both Jesus and Paul did use language of slave-master relationship, but it doesn’t necessitate that to earthly masters, at least in Jesus’ case (as he was a rebel and troublemaker to the local Roman-collaborator Pharisee order) , but merely to God
In fact, I’d prefer this interpretation of Christ, as a culmination to Jewish liberatory practices against debt
You can read more from Michael Hudson’s article
Bible is extremely self contradictory, you can fish out quotes to support nearly anything, as proven by history over and over: https://philb61.github.io/
What Bible simply does not offer however, is a direct condemnation of slavery which would only take one short passage. There’s nothing to counterbalance the quote I pasted above, or the quote from the old Testament discussed here: https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
Given how self contradictory the Bible is, support for slavery is one of the very few points you can get from it with any level of certainty. You can do some mental gymnastics and infer a condemnation of slavery from general statements like “setting the oppressed free”, but then you can make pretty much any other concievable point by selecting the passages that can be interpreted to support your point, and ignoring the passages where your point is directly and explicitly refuted.
Fine, I concede my whole argument, following your meterstick…
I now understand that those who are fine with status quo are default pro-status quo
And I guess Jesus kept on affirming it when treating it as a fact of life, in regards to wage labor and slavery…
Matthew 20:1-16
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to diss Christianity as such! I do think Bible itself offers little to Marxists but there’s more to Christian history and tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-priest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Hagerty
I’ll be honest, I never looked deeper into this. I was a militant atheist for most of my life and I’m only starting to broaden my horizons, hence my harsh initial reply for which I apologise. Old habits die hard I guess. Our enemy is capital, not religion.
It’s not the overall history of Christianity that I’m defending, it’s the basis of Jesus that attracted such followers to such religion, if he existed
I still remember the story in which he drove out the sellers from the temple
The time that he drew away Matthew, a tax collector,
And his fate that he was executed by the Roman gov’t and its Judean Pharisee collaborators, for challenging the latter’s rule
Was he pro-imperial when he got killed for that, like the commenter said?
And even if it’s just a story, its not unfeasible that his story was based of separate real life people
The worst I’d call Jesus would be that he is Utopian
Oh… I see…