politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don't think so. He's not saying they aren't "true" Christians, an undefinable standard of "true. He's saying they don't understand it. Christ flipped the tables and whipped the money changers, these people worship a real estate speculator. Christ's message is one of social welfare and commonwealth, conservative populists literally killed Jesus for blasphemy.
Like, he's right, they don't understand it. I went to Christian Sunday school. There wasn't one lesson about taking health insurance from poor people and charging interest on school lunch debt.
I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make. He’s saying these Christians don’t understand their religion, as in they’re not following what he thinks Christianity is supposed to be. That’s the very definition of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
You’re doing it too, honestly. What you learned in Sunday school doesn’t match how these republicans are interpreting it, so they’re not following the real teachings.
I’m saying you can look through the history of the official stances of the Christian church and find many, many examples of sanctioned atrocities. You may not like it, but Christianity has never been what’s printed on the tin.
If we are going that road you could argue that much of the "Christian church" has split pretty far from Christ's actual teachings.
Sure. Or that the original teachings were all over the place to begin with, because it’s an amalgamation of various regional beliefs and stories meant to gain political and social control over areas it spread to, adopting and bastardising random beliefs it encountered. Because that’s what literally happened.
Eventually the Catholic and Anglican churches decided which books/teachings would be ‘correct’ based on what whomever was in charge at the time wanted. There are many books that were included or excluded from the bible because they were convenient or inconvenient, and the end result was a weird, inconsistent mess. The Catholic Church’s official library has what’s now considered banned texts that were official canon a few centuries ago. What changed that made them wrong? Politics.
And of course the three major Abrahamic religions can’t agree over whose interpretation is correct, to the point of genocide. But yeah, one sect of evangelical Christianity is ‘right’ such that we should all be subjected to it.
Jesus wasn't socialist, he literally said to leave to Caesar that which is Caesar's. He wanted to part of government, and instead pointed people to the government of heaven.
His message was for individuals to choose to help the poor on their own, not to use the government to force everyone to help the poor. The message was always about the individual, not the group, and it wasn't until the Acts that we start to talk about the "church" and any kind of centralization. He said, "follow me," not "organize yourselves into communes."
So no, I absolutely do not think Jesus was a socialist, he was the polar opposite of Trump. He shared a message of tolerance, love, and personal improvement, whereas Trump shares a message of intolerance, hate, and blaming others for your problems.
Nope. He never once said "don't rely on government". You made that part up. He said give Caesar his taxes, knowing that those taxes will go to pay for free food and entertainment for the public "bread and circuses". The reason he didn't talk more about government is because his country was under the equivalent of foreign military occupation and all the decisions were made in a distant capital of which he would have had zero influence. His message was for everyone to do everything they can to help the poor, and in particular for rich people to redistribute their wealth to the poor. And only if they did that would rich people be eligible for heaven. Jesus used Yahweh's coercion in place of government coercion.
No, he said give Caesar his taxes because that's a moral and legal obligation. Here's the NIV translation, which makes it clear (Mark 12:15-18):
Nowhere in that exchange did he mention what it would be used for, just that it's Caesar's and he deserves it back. That's it, that's the only mention he made of the government, and he mentions the current leader, not the state itself (e.g. he could've said "Rome" instead of "Caesar" if he wanted to make commentary about the government).
And later in that same chapter, he talks about the offering of the widow:
He obviously cares far more about the gifts to God than the taxes paid to the government, so the whole point of the exchange was to highlight that gifts to God are more important than obligations to governments.
You can also look at the rich man that came to Jesus asking what he lacked (the camel through the eye of the needle thing), and the advice was to give to the poor and follow Jesus, not to become a philanthropist and lift the poor out of poverty. The gift God cares most about is humility and meekness, so giving to the poor was never the point, the point was to eliminate worldly desires to serve God.
That's a constant theme throughout the New Testament, especially in the gospels. When Jesus healed people, he didn't do it to ease their suffering, he did it to give them a chance to repent and serve God. Every time he did so, he admonished them to repent and sin no more. The focus is always on the next life and serving God, not on this life.
And that's why I'm disgusted with many modern Christians, they like to donate large amounts for recognition instead of quietly giving like Jesus did. They're like those people in the temple giving large amounts, not the poor widow who gave the only pennies she had. Your gift to others should be live and compassion, trying to amass wealth to give more to the poor misses the point.
Nope. Julius Caesar was long dead by this time. Tiberius was the emperor when Jesus lived. After before him, Augustus.
These aren't gifts because there is coercion involved that is far greater than government coercion. If you don't redistribute your wealth to the poor, you are going to be tortured forever by the devil. Anything the government can do to you pales in comparison to Yahweh's coercion.
You made this part up. Again. He didn't say anything about obligations to governments, except that you should pay your taxes.
Starting with Tiberius, Roman emperors gave their heirs the name "Caesar," such that "Caesar" came to be known as the term used for the emperor or his heir (i.e. it's the root of kaiser in German, tsar in Russia, "qaysar" in the Ottoman Empire). Tiberius wasn't born with the name and adopted it later, and took the honorific "Augustus" when he took the throne. So "Caesar Augustus" was the emperor, and "Caesar" was either the emperor (shorthand) or the heir. It's kind of like a mix between family name and title, so "Caesar" can refer to any of the line of dictators following Julius Caesar, or it can refer to the title of the emperor or his heir.
So that's why I understand "Caesar" in this context as whoever the ruling dictator is, not the government or society as a whole. This isn't an admonition to act in the greater good, but to show obedience to those in charge, which is a theme I'll get back to later.
Jesus never says this. The only thing that's close is the "eye of a needle" allegory, and the intention seems to communicate that it's incredibly difficult, though not impossible. He has been more explicit about hard requirements elsewhere:
Matthew 5:20
John 3:3,16
John 3:16
So Jesus hasn't hesitated to use direct language, so it doesn't make sense to take this as "it's impossible." In fact, just before the "eye of a needle" allegory, he says it's merely difficult.
Mark 10:20-23
So it's not the money itself that's the problem, but the love of money. You're not going to hell because you have a lot of money, you're going to hell because you love it more than God, who has been explicit in what's most important.
Matthew 22:36-40
A wealthy person should feel obligated to help their fellow man because that's what God would do. But the actual law is to love God and your fellow man with all your heart, and that's possible while having a lot of wealth, just incredibly unlikely because most with wealth get it by being selfish.
In short, if you feel God wants you to give everything away, you should not hesitate to do it, and that hesitation is what damned the rich young man, despite being otherwise righteous.
His Apostles did, such as Paul:
Romans 13:1-7
Jesus taught obedience consistently, and the Apostles taught what Jesus taught, so I see this as a retelling of what Jesus taught, not something new Paul came up with.
So to me, the message is very clear, Jesus and God expect obedience, both to earthly rulers as well as heavenly ones. And here's how Jesus expects leaders to rule:
Matthew 20:25-28
So you must obey your leaders, and Jesus expects to leaders to serve those they lead. In that way everyone serves each other, but there's also order.
Edit: couldn't get the spoiler block to behave, so I can't hide all the noisy verses.
Why did you supply all those quotes that were irrelevant?
The emperor was the "Augustus". "Caesar" was the heir. Either way it makes my point. It was talking about the government, not a specific person.
It means that it is almost impossible for "rich" men to go to heaven. Like one in a million. George Bush? Hell. Carly Fiorina? Hell. Betsy Devos? Hell. None of those people have anywhere near the humility and meekness to be the one in a million rich people who don't go to hell.
I couldn't get the spoiler tag to work properly, and my intention was to establish cases where Jesus was explicit about requirements to establish how language is used.
If Jesus meant being wealthy would disqualify you from heaven, he would've said so, but instead he said it's "difficult." That's an important distinction and shows that the root of the problem isn't the money itself (else why would Job have received so many riches after his trial?). The thing that disqualifies you is loving material things more than God, not having the material things.
No, "Caesar" was the family name of the ruling family, as in the dynasty name. After Tiberius, the ruler was usually named "Caesar Augustus," with "Augustus" being an honorific, much like "the honorable."
So "Caesar" was likely commonly used to refer to the ruling family, much like we might say "the Bidens" in the US. So Jesus was simply saying, "give to the ruler that which is the ruler's," not "pay your taxes so you can help you fellow man." Paying taxes was a moral obligation to promote social order, giving to God was a moral obligation to show obedience and love for God. If anything, the money given to the temple was used for more good than taxes.
Exactly (though it's not your place to judge, that's God's job). It's not the money that's the issue here, the issue is prioritizing worldly things over God.
If we use the gate example (again, that's in question by experts), the idea is that to get through the gate, the camel needs to leave behind its baggage, because otherwise it's too tall to fit. A wealthy person needs to be willing to leave all their wealth behind you be with God, and that's less likely because of the way most people get their wealth. I'm not saying that's what Jesus meant, but it does have a lot of merit and fits nicely with the rest of his message.
If the young man said he's willing to give up everything to follow Jesus, he would've compared him to Job or something as a good example of what one "should" do. Worldly wealth and status are irrelevant to God, and he should be the one we want to impress, and we do that by aligning our will with his (e.g. he wants to see suffering alleviated, sinners repent, etc).
And that's my entire point here. Nothing Jesus said indicates what form of government we should have, his message was for individuals to align their will with God's and follow his example. That's it.
He didn't say it's merely "difficult". He essentually said it is almost impossible. That doesn't mean only 1 in every 5 rich people can go to heaven. That means 1 in every 5000 or 1 in every 50000.
Nope. Not a dynasty name. It was the name of the heir to the throne. But yes "Caesar" was symbolic of the government itself.
No, he used the word difficult.
From what I understand, the wisdom at the time was that money was an indicator of favor from God, and Jesus went against that. However, I don't think he meant that money was the issue, but merely a symptom of interests not aligned with God's. Many wealthy people care more about their wealth and fame than God or those around them.
If you just said "Augustus," people would think of Octavian, not the current emperor, so "Caesar Augustus" would've been used to uniquely refer to the emperor. After Tiberius, emperors typically had both titles, and the heir apparent just had "a Caesar," so it acted as a dynastic name, even if the heir wasn't a blood relation (e.g. Tiberius himself was adopted). So both the emperor and heir held the title "Caesar" and only the emperor also held the title "Augustus."
It seems odd for Jesus to be referring to the heir apparent here, he would be referring to the emperor. To add to it, Julius Caesar was deified, so "Caesar" here likely has a double meaning to show the difference between a self-proclaimed god and the true God. He's not saying you should pay taxes to benefit others, he's saying you should pay taxes because that's your legal obligation.
And yes, "Caesar" was symbolic, but I'd assume most would refer to the government as "Rome," not "Caesar."
Initially. Then he realized he needed to be more blunt. So he gave a metaphor making it clear it was almost impossible, and even bluntly said "with man this is impossible". The reaction of the disciples also prove it had nothing at all to do with any "gate".
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
They were astonished because, at the time, wealth was considered to be a sign of favor from God. Jesus' statements at the time went directly against that, and that's what surprised them. There was similar surprise at his statements that the meek and humble would inherit the earth and go to heaven.
The scandal wasn't that rich people in general probably wouldn't go to heaven, but that seemingly righteous people wouldn't go to heaven.
I think he's referring to salvation generally here. Man cannot save himself, so no amount of wealth will be helpful. God can save man, and he is the one that makes it possible.
So whether it's a gate or a literal needle isn't really relevant, God controls who gets to heaven, and God's expectations are at odds with people who love money. The message here is that wealth doesn't indicate favor with God and it cannot save you, so you should focus on what can save you. You can have wealth and those attributes, but wealth attracts selfish people, and those selfish attributes will prevent you from entering heaven.
You are mixing up socialism and communism. Fair enough, Jesus wasn't a socialist, because he lived millennia before that particular political stance was coined, but the examples you give kind of actually support the argument that he would have been a socialist if he lived today/he espoused an early type of socialism. Paying taxes, helping the poor, individual responsibility; these are all things a modern day socialist would support. Organising into communes - not so much.
Also, it seems you are suggesting Donald Trump is a socialist? If so you've completely misunderstood the meaning of any kind of socialism.
Jesus would've been closer to communist, which is a stateless society based on communal ownership. He asked how followers to eliminate personal possessions and follow him, presumably subsisting on the charity of others. That's the spirit of communism.
Socialism, on the other hand, is democratic ownership of the means of production. Jesus wanted no part in ownership of anything, much less socializing ownership of communal goods. He believed in following the law, but only so far as his legal and moral obligation went. He never discussed setting up poor houses, redistribution of wealth, or anything a socialist might push for, he instead urged his followers to follow his example in helping the poor.
If we have to ascribe a political philosophy, he's a libertarian who is morally opposed to personal ownership, but also opposed to forceful removal of ownership. He'd rather live destitute than force others to share, because this life is ephemeral and true rewards are in heaven.
No, Trump is not a socialist, he's a narcissist. He would support a socialist policy if it meant he could get recognition for it (see COVID checks, which he insisted bear his name).
Jesus, on the other hand, told people to not tell others he healed them (Luke 5:12-14). Jesus didn't want recognition, he just wanted to do good and set a good example. That's the sense that Trump is the opposite of Jesus, not wrt policy, but the examples they each set.
And yeah, Trump would be a socialist if he thought that would get him into power. He doesn't really care about policy, he cares about fame and money, and money only because it buys fame. Jesus rejected both from Satan (Matthew 4:1-11, esp verses 8-10):
Trump worships himself, Jesus calls others to worship his father.