Was Jesus a Leftist

[ComTom]

In todays world, religon dominates the world and has created conflicts that have slaughtered millions. One religon, Christianity, has been behind much of this conflict for the last 20 centuries. But the religon's key figure, Jesus Christ, is still, very outspoken. Though I am an agnostic, I see Jesus as the worlds first peoples leader, here are some parables from the gospel that have interested me:

Matthew 19: 23-26
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, " I tell you the truth, its hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, its harder for a camel to go through a eye of a needle then to enter the kingdom of heaven 25 When his disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, " Then who can be saved? "

ACts 4: 32-35
32- All his believers were one in the heart and mind. Noone claimed that any of the possesions was their own, and they shared everything they had.
33 With great power the apostles continued to testify the ressurection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all
34 There was no needy person among them. For from time to time, those who owned houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
35 and put it on the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he need

There are more parables that I can go over. Its quite obvious he stood for the classes. He himself went without goods, he lived in the desert, moving around most of his life. He was also a anarchist and a individualist though it seems to:

Mark 10: 42-43
42 Jesus called them together and said, " You know those who are regarded as rulers of the gentiles it over them, and their high officials exercise great authority over them.
43 Not so with you. Instead, those who want to become great among you, you have to be your own servant.

I interpert this as be yourself, and stand against the tyranny of Rome. Jesus was a rebel, though I am a agnostic, I see Jesus as the world's first Che Guevara. What do you guys think?

[RedStarOverChina]

Oh gee. Not again.

[Revolution67]

In my humble opinion, the neanderthal who invented the wheel, was a leftist too! :lol:

[Lamanov]

Did he hand out leftist leaflets in the industrial area of Jerusalem?

If the answer is no, then...

:lol:

[Luís Henrique]

"Left" and "Right" weren't options in AD 30.

"Jesus" discourse in Matthew 29 should be taken for what it really says. And what it says is that being busy about wordly possessions is unhealthy for those who own worldly possessions. The subject of his sentences is not the poor, the dispossessed, the exploited. It is the rich.

While those views may have their own validity (and they might be certainly useful when asking a capitalist "yes, but what for?"), they cannot be construed as being the same, or even akin, to modern leftist views.

That's not to say that he was a political reactionary, though. He (as any person from the I century) just cannot be measured and weighed by our own standards.

And he probably never existed at all...

Luís Henrique

[More Fire for the People]

I somewhat agree with Luis, the "left v. right" model didn't exist in his time. However, from the verses (assuming they were mostly accurate) we can gather Jesus was:
(1) Communalistic;
(2) Pacifistic;
(3) Believed governments were "legitimate" but should be changed;

What would this make him if it were applied todays spectrum? A social democrat or democratic socialist. However, in 28 AD these concepts were by far revolutionary, revolutionary enough to get one executed by the state.

[LSD]

Yes "Jesus" said some leftist things ...so did Lyndon LaRouche.

Everyone trying to get the poor on their side talks about the "evil" of the rich and the "godlyness" of the poor. And indeed, "Jesus" (if he, in fact, existed) would seem to have been quite good at this sort of rhetoric; "easier for a camel to enter the head of a neede..." and such stuff.

I suppose that's how he managed to accumulate such a loyal cultish following. But more important than how good a demagogue he was, is what did he actually advocate.

When we analyze Stalin, we don't care that he promised socialism, we care that he delivered torment.

Likewise, amidst all of his flowery language about camels and needles and temples, what did "Jesus" actually practically advocate?

Well, it would seem that his primary instruction towards the disenfranchised was to "obey their masters", "render unto Caesar", and obey HIM!

In other words, he was just another religion-peddling con-man trying to get himself ahead by telling the poor what they wanted to hear. If he had truly been the "first che guevara" he would have told the slaves to kill their masters and take "what was Caesar's".

Instead he tells them to "know their place", "pay the church", and for God&#39;s sake don&#39;t sell his precious foot cream &#39;cause fuck the poor, you only have "one of him" and he needs his feet &#39;a nice and creamy. <_<

There is absolutely nothing "revolutionary"about "Jesus" or the religion he spawned, and the attempt by Christian "socialists" to pretend that there is would be laughable if it wasn&#39;t taken so seriously by far too much of the left.

[violencia.Proletariat]

(1) Communalistic;

things can be held in "common" yet it would not be "leftist"


(2) Pacifistic;

how is this leftist? it has nothing to do with leftism.


(3) Believed governments were "legitimate" but should be changed;

where did he say this?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:28 AM
In todays world, religon dominates the world and has created conflicts that have slaughtered millions. One religon, Christianity, has been behind much of this conflict for the last 20 centuries. But the religon&#39;s key figure, Jesus Christ, is still, very outspoken. Though I am an agnostic, I see Jesus as the worlds first peoples leader, here are some parables from the gospel that have interested me:

Not this shit again...



Matthew 19: 23-26
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, " I tell you the truth, its hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, its harder for a camel to go through a eye of a needle then to enter the kingdom of heaven 25 When his disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, " Then who can be saved? "

In other words, being poor is good :o

Can&#39;t you see the ridiculousness of this statement? Jebus is basically saying that being poor is better than being rich, for religious reasons. No wealth in this life is therefore "good".

Wow&#33; Nice advice, dumbass&#33;

I am suprised "leftists" can fall for this hoax so easily...but it seems it&#39;s cool for workers to get exploited since it doesn&#39;t give them as much wealth and therefore it gives them more chances of going to some kind of paradise after they die (&#33;), not to mention the fact that if everything is owned by everyone then everyone becomes "rich" in a way, and therefore without chances to get the "heaven". Nice way to stop the masses from rebelling&#33;


ACts 4: 32-35
32- All his believers were one in the heart and mind. Noone claimed that any of the possesions was their own, and they shared everything they had.
33 With great power the apostles continued to testify the ressurection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all
34 There was no needy person among them. For from time to time, those who owned houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
35 and put it on the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he need

"Sharing" can also happen under capitalism, and in fact it does ocassionally.


There are more parables that I can go over. Its quite obvious he stood for the classes.

:lol:

(emphasis added)


He himself went without goods,

How "leftist" of him (?)


he lived in the desert, moving around most of his life.

So do many animals


He was also a anarchist and a individualist though it seems to:

Yeah, sure...and a situationist too, I bet :rolleyes:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Its quite obvious he stood for the classes

where? how?


He himself went without goods

does that make him leftist? no.


he lived in the desert, moving around most of his life

kind of like retiree&#39;s with their rv&#39;s eh?


He was also a anarchist

:o
i cant believe i missed this when i first read your post.

ive never known an anarchist that tells the poor to obey their master. ive never known an anarchist that is against all hierarchy and authority yet worships and obeys an imaginery god. what the hell is your deffinition of anarchism?

[anomaly]

It is quite obvious, nate, that our friend here is simply informing us of the true meaning of anarchism: Against All Authority except for thy Holy God&#33; Bow down when you speaketh His name&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)"Left" and "Right" weren&#39;t options in AD 30.[/b]

If memory serves me correctly the terms "left wing" and "right wing" came about in France 1789 or there abouts. They were to do with whether one sat on the left side of the court or the right side.

I found it on Wikipedia...


Originally posted by [email protected]
The term comes originally from the legislative seating arrangement during the French Revolution, when republicans who opposed the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing).

Just another tit-bit that stood out from that article was this...


Wikipedia
The left is often seen to include secularism (that is, separation between state and religion), like in the United States, India, the Middle East, and in many Catholic countries, although religion and left-wing politics have at times been allied historically, such as in the U.S. civil rights movement, or in the cases of liberation theology and Christian socialism.

(Emphasis added.)

I&#39;m not aware of Jesus promoting secularism, are you?

[CCCPneubauten]

Perhaps we should say Jesus was communistic or socialist, it will piss the Christian Right off more.

[ComTom]

Well guys, I all that I gotta say is that if Jesus came back to life and noone new it, he would probily be branded as a leftist fool like the rest of us. You guys know, Hugo Chavez said that Jesus stood against Roman imperialism, I think that thats terribly true.
I would regard Jesus as the first Che Guevara.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:53 AM
Well guys, I all that I gotta say is that if Jesus came back to life and noone new it, he would probily be branded as a leftist fool like the rest of us. You guys know, Hugo Chavez said that Jesus stood against Roman imperialism, I think that thats terribly true.
I would regard Jesus as the first Che Guevara.
And I would regard you as wrong.

Sure, he did/said some good things.


But the bad he did/preached far outweights the good. Go read some of the Bible.

[Zingu]

Next person who makes a thread like this should be shot.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:53 AM
Well guys, I all that I gotta say is that if Jesus came back to life and noone new it, he would probily be branded as a leftist fool like the rest of us. You guys know, Hugo Chavez said that Jesus stood against Roman imperialism, I think that thats terribly true.
I would regard Jesus as the first Che Guevara.
jesus could not be the first che guevara. jesus wasnt a communist nor could he be at that time. if this little nut even existed he would not be branded as a leftist. he would be branded as a pot smoking hobo. if he advocated the things he did today to the left, he would be laughed at.

[ReD_ReBeL]

i would say he was probably a leftist, remember not all leftism has to do with marxism. actualy he would be a Liberation theologist=a catholic teaching that looks at life through the eyes of the poor and opressed. Even though he wasn&#39;t a catholic i recon it would be something along those lines.

[violencia.Proletariat]

i would say he was probably a leftist, remember not all leftism has to do with marxism

no he&#39;s not. nothing he has to say has anything to do with being "left". its about what you&#39;ll get in heaven. he&#39;s not saying by creating equality everything on earth will be good. he&#39;s saying "hey rich man, give up your shit and follow me and youll get your pie in the sky". now that doesnt sound very leftist to me.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:52 AM
Next person who makes a thread like this should be shot.
It is a tempting option, isn&#39;t it?&#33; :lol:

It really makes you wonder, doesn&#39;t it? What is it with the people who come here with some kind of "interest" (presumably) in revolution (that&#39;s in the name of our board&#33;) and start spewing this nonsense about a country preacher who didn&#39;t like "big city" Judaism some 20 centuries ago.

Why do they want to convert a reforming Jewish rabbi into some kind of first century "Che Guevara"? :blink:

Even if such a quixotic thing could be done, what would be the point?

Do they really imagine that communism would be more "acceptable" or even "respectable" if they could somehow link the "image" of "Jesus" with it?

How about a water-stain on Marx&#39;s grave that "looks like" the "Virgin Mary"???

Why not fake up an "ancient" Egyptian papyrus with the first paragraph of the Communist Manifesto written in Hebrew?

Why not go "whole hog" and claim that Marx "was actually Jesus" returned???

Can it be that these kids just "don&#39;t want to give up" the superstition they were raised with? Do they just want to find "some way" to reconcile their growing knowledge of the real world with their childhood mythologies?

Guess what, kids? There&#39;s no way that you can get into this revolution stuff and "save your faith" at the same time.

You have a choice: Stick with "Jesus" and forget radical politics altogether OR flush all that superstitious crap down the nearest toilet and enter the modern civilized world.

Trying to do both is impossible. All you&#39;ll accomplish is just giving yourself a headache...and pissing us all off. :angry:

We&#39;d really appreciate it if you don&#39;t do that. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[RedAnarchist]

i agree fully, redstar. almost every scientific discovery over the past few centuries has disproven all the old beliefs of religions, and society itself is loosening the hold that religion once had on it.

burn your bibles, religious people - to have both religion and revolution is a huge hypocrisy.