Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Red <X@Y.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.satire,alt.home.repair,alt.politics.media,sac.politics,or.politics,soc.support.transgendered
Subject: Sermon On The Mount
Followup-To: alt.atheism.satire
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 21:36:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: d
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vci5gm$nhnv$4@dont-email.me>
References: <uubrhv$pur$1@panix3.panix.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 23:36:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="af00f341384821d61be0660be605d48c";
	logging-data="771839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yXWecWO2sqyIUXcMAjhtrKxfHH8xhnzA="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GK41Mw3MGJQSnERVjhQPXmxIE5Y=
Bytes: 4793

> | Why did the Romans crucify Jesus?  Because he had become
> | too woke.
> |
><https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1774230983350362304>
>
>    --bks
>

He was also a Communist.

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure who is often emulated for his emphasis on 
kindness, mercy and love, but many of his disciples seem to miss a very 
large part of his teachings in their attempts to mimic his virtues.

 

Many of Jesus’ ideas would be considered controversial in the modern 
world, but his attitudes regarding economics would be especially radical, 
aligning less with the conservative views of many of his followers and 
more with the far-left views we now call communist.

However, the mainstream interpretations of Jesus’ philosophy seem to 
ignore or undermine his economic ideals, most often in the interest of 
preserving capitalism. American history has given us many examples of 
Biblical interpretations being used to excuse harmful institutions such 
as slavery and attempt to de-radicalize the image of popular figures such 
as Martin Luther King Jr. It is only responsible that we separate Jesus’ 
relationship with money from that of any churches who stand to profit 
financially from more capitalist interpretations of his words.

 

We can read stories about Jesus’ emphasis on communal practices, like 
sharing meals and labor and starting the tradition now referred to as 
“communion.” We can also see that he has a particular interest in the 
needs of people who his society would rather abandon such as women who 
had committed adultery and those with leprosy or physical disabilities.

He tells his followers to forgive their debtors, that they should not 
store up treasures on earth and that they cannot serve both God and 
money. In Matthew 21, he becomes so enraged by people using a temple for 
economic exchange, he starts flipping tables.

In Matthew 19, a rich man approaches him for instruction and Jesus tells 
him to give up all his possessions and give the money to the poor.

 

“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,” Jesus said in Matthew 
19:24 NIV.

 

This notion that a rich person would have to stop being rich in order to 
follow him is explicitly incompatible with capitalist thinking. Why make 
people choose between following him and pursuing wealth unless he 
dislikes the effects of wealth and hopes to counteract them in some way 
by encouraging an alternative lifestyle among his followers?

 

Despite the context and direct nature of his statement, it seems to be 
interpreted quite differently by many wealthy and influential Christians 
who have yet to give up their possessions.

 

Under capitalism, interpretations favored by rich people are given more 
of a platform. This has created the exact type of hierarchy among Jesus’ 
fans that he devoted so much time to warning against. His attempts to 
redistribute power are often downplayed, and this is interpreted instead 
as a story about how nobody is perfect.

 

SIUE is home to a large Christian population, including 20 Christian 
organizations, whose members I sincerely hope will avoid such a 
convenient dismissal of this issue. All of us at SIUE, Christian or 
otherwise, should question the motivations of our sources. Information is 
never presented without an agenda, and it is alarmingly common for 
information to be presented in deceitful ways.

 

An idea as simple as “love your neighbors” can be used to promote the 
exact opposite message. I hope that any readers seeking to understand 
Jesus’ words will think critically about their own ideologies as well and 
whether they align more closely with the whitewashed commercial version 
that grants wishes or the radical political figure portrayed in the 
Bible.