Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: I hear this Jesus person is a progressive socialist!

Posted 11 years ago on March 7, 2013, 1:52 a.m. EST by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I find it ironic that his followers tend to be conservative fascists.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3340) 11 years ago

Jesus would be incarcerated or hounded as a a radical, leftist firebrand if he were around now and we should never forget that his only recorded act of violence was against property, when he turned out the 'money changers' from the Temple. Jesus was really a pro-99% radical but many of those who purport follow him are not and the organised churches have become suffocatingly conservative and reactionary

Also see - http://www.nationofchange.org/will-next-pope-embrace-liberation-theology-1362500804 , from which I quote - "It is widely noted that, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the office of the Inquisition. There he earned the nickname “God’s Rottweiler,” leading the effort to silence creative and non-conformist voices within Catholicism. During Ratzinger’s tenure as doctrinal enforcer, the church is said to have officially rejected liberation theology."

Never Give Up! Go Occupy! Solidarity.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 11 years ago

I thought this post from my blog might be applicable to your thread, thanks:

Truth In The Mutable World

December 14, 2012

In keeping with the intent of this blog, I’m going to try to write the most difficult post I have attempted so far. . . What I mean by “in keeping with the intent . . . ” is that I am trying here to help us reach inward towards truths we may know, yet sometimes only on a very deep level – deeper than the level of our daily, “rational” consciousness, and if possible bring them to light.

What I am trying to get at in this post is this. . . that although Truth exists and is eternal (a kind of fixed reference point in existence), and although we know what it is instinctively, and we know that it exists alongside other eternal aspects of The Good, we can never own it. We can never codify truth into an iron clad belief system. When we attempt do this it seems to me that we immediately begin to lose our grasp on it – it begins to slip from our hands.

Truth and divinity simply defy all of our efforts to cage them, to codify them, to own them – the reason being that although truth is eternal, the physical world we inhabit is in a constant state of flux, of change, of mutability – and therefore although truth itself remains constant, its relation to us in the material world changes as the terms of our existence in the world changes . . .

“For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” – Corinthians

It seems to me that there is an appalling lack of humility in thinking one can own the truth. I don’t own it . . . no one owns it. It is a central aspect of divinity. One generation’s truth may become the next generation’s lie, as human society and human thought reshape themselves over time. This is why I believe the best stance toward life is one of critical thinking, of rational skepticism; because once one adopts Any belief system, once we give ourselves over completely to any fixed blueprint of thought – be it political, religious, or economic – we immediately begin to lose our grasp on the fluid nature of truth reflected in the world. Thus, a stance of reasoned skepticism based upon a reverence for truth and for divinity itself, rather than upon a schema that attempts to codify these things into a fixed system, seems the only way to keep our spirits close to the light.

The stance of the moral iconoclast with a reverence for nothing but truth itself and a skepticism of all attempts to chain truth to a fixed system, seems alone to me to recognize the mutable nature of truth in the material world and the purpose for human life in relation to divinity. This is not an easy outlook to take. It requires great courage to confront existence without fixed answers to the great mysteries of Being, but it seems that only once we accept this situation can we really grow. In accepting that neither we, or anyone else, has a lock on truth we can begin to experience the beauty of the process of reaching towards truth, and see that only in that process does the Dynamic Spirit live.

Through that process we become co-creators of our spirits, and as we engage in that dynamic we grow in understanding and in wisdom, and as we transform ourselves so we transform the world. As we reflect our growing fluency with the light of truth reflected upon the world, so then the world reflects that growing understanding.

To me this seems to be nothing less than the meaning of human life – to participate in this dialogue with divinity. It is the very essence of freedom, of dignity, and of the divine rights of mankind; but it takes great courage to participate in it, because although that process may encompass the meaning of life, it is not in the interests of those who would commodify life for profit, who would reduce us to mere producers and consumers of wealth for their own potiential gain. Nor is it in the interests of those who would indoctrinate us into a spiritual dogma that they can then control, and through that control nullify the power of the human spirit, and harness its energies for their personal ends.

This is the great question we face today . . . can mankind reassert its right to a real and genuine freedom, through a morality tied to the essential nature of spiritual truth, and re-forge the courage to assert our rightful spiritual destiny? This deeper question seems to underlie all the other questions regarding our hope for a new renaissance of justice, equality and freedom. Only if that quest is grounded in the bedrock of eternal meaning will it have the power to prevail and endure.


[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

most orthodox religions - C or P or J or I
are based on belief and obeyance and a book
my way is the only way - yours will put you in hell

reason and thinking are generally not considered
what we are taught in school, home, and church -
is VERY hard to change
America is the greatest country
If you kill an infadel, you will go to heaven
Eating pork is a sin
If you kill 10 people, a priest can get you into heaven
etc etc etc

As the catholic church has recently proved, their church is more important than the people.
They SAY Jesus died for our sins.
But they would not risk the death of THEIR church to save their people

Power corrupts Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Of course Jesus would be a progressive socialist

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 11 years ago

The fly crawls along the canvass of the Mona Lisa and regrets the inky mounds impeding his progress.

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 11 years ago

Jesus is used for all kinds of political agendas, either progressive or conservative. Like the conservatives, progressives think they know it all.

But you know nothing about the relationship between God and Jesus, nor do you have any idea about why this universe is created. Mary Magdalene and Jesus were lovers. This universe is a virtual realtiy and God plays roles in it.

Mary Magdalene was an avatar of God, like for instance Eve and Sarah. Eve is the Mother of all the Living. Adam was Her son and Jesus was a 'reincarnation' of Adam, hence he is called Son of God. The story of Eve being made out of the rib of Adam is a modification.

More information can be found here:


You are not going to like it.

God does not love you. You are just entertaintment.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 years ago

Jesus is a fiction and, therefore, whatever it is that you want him to be. After taking eight centuries to create him--he's apparently pretty flexible.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

That is not provable is any sense. The sparse evidence that he existed, exists.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 years ago

There isn't any evidence. No eye witnesses. Nothing.

[-] 1 points by satohirona (-20) 11 years ago

Jesus was a representation of his father who is/was a dictator.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 11 years ago

Unless you can quote some authoritative Cosmic Law that I am unaware of, I'd think that if God created ALL things, then He gets to pretty much rule them any way He wishes to.

[-] 0 points by satohirona (-20) 11 years ago

I didn't state that he didn't have the right to be a dictator, I simply stated that he was a dictator. Certainly, as the universe's dictator he gets to be whatever he wants. That's what dictators do.

Nietzsche said that if there is a God we must kill him. I say that if there is a God we must kill him, but only after having tortured him a great deal.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 11 years ago

You can't compare God to a dictator, he is above human things.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 11 years ago

If you and I and Nietzsche were created by an all powerful, all knowing being that truly does direct the universe, I say it's hilarious to assume that it could be killed at all, and even more hilarious to assume that "we" are the ones to do it if it were possible.

[-] -1 points by satohirona (-20) 11 years ago

God created us in his image, therefor we are also Gods. Perhaps we are still at the stage of childhood, but we will eventually grow to be all powerful like him. At every scientific discovery we become stronger. It's just a matter of time before we form a mob of men to destroy our father.

Let's not forget that this Christian God which Nietzsche refers to punished the whole of humanity for the sins of Adam and Eve. Add the fact that he essentially set them up for failure and I'd say we have a right for revenge.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 11 years ago

So, this all knowing, all powerful God created humanity to grow up and be like Him, and then hobbled them so to speak "set them up for failure" , which made them vengeful and and driven to destroy Him in return.

Hum.....doesn't sound like the being Nietzsche viewed as "God" really thought things through very well. Doesn't sound very "all knowing, all powerful" to me. Nor does it sound like His "offspring" are destined to turn out any better than He was....with all the vengeance and destruction and all.

It's just weird that no one ever decided that perhaps Nietzsche, being a human being in his "childhood" of eventual Godness, and not capable of being all knowing yet, could possibly have been WRONG about God in general or even specifically. Very odd....

[-] -1 points by satohirona (-20) 11 years ago

Indeed, the Christian God didn't think things through. His ideas are full of contradictions. In the history of Gods, he's one of the dullest knives in the box.

If you had three kids and the oldest did something wrong, would you punish the other two as well? What about asking all three children to punish all their descendants and ask those descendants to punish their descendants until the end of time? That is indeed what the Christian God did with Adam and Eve. Luckily, we have already passed him regarding social intelligence, so even the most fervent Christians would not do such a thing.

Many have stated that Nietzsche was wrong. For example, he died before God. However, they overlook a very important point.

What I stated above is wrong. God is indeed extremely intelligent. In fact, he sacrificed himself for us. When he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins it was only the opening of his plan. You see, God made us in his image and so he wants us to become all powerful Gods like him. However, he knew we needed motivation to accomplish this. This is why he punished all of us for the sins of Adam and Eve, an amazingly illogical reaction that he knew would create a desire of vengeance within our hearts. Because Jesus died for our sins, we no longer fear sinning and are thus driven to better ourselves until we become Gods and are able to taste our revenge by killing God himself.

At first glance, this self-sacrifice might seem like a gift. After all, he has given us the possibility to become Gods. However, there's much more to it. God is trapped in eternity, and eternal life is not a blessing. He only told us it was to motivate us. The only way he can escape eternity is for us to become Gods and kill him. In a nutshell, God is using us to save himself. Once we become Gods and realize the trap that is eternity, we'll have to train new Gods to come and kill us.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Suicide by God?

[-] 0 points by satohirona (-20) 11 years ago

The only escape from the treacherous grips of eternity.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 11 years ago

Oh my. Wow. So let me get this straight...

If we KILL God, we give Him what he wants....but if we REALLY wanted revenge, it would be smarter NOT to give Him what He wants, and thus trap Him in eternity for all time. But we don't do that. Nope.

In killing God (which is what He wants) we then become Gods and then WE get to punish a whole new humanity, create divergence, which somehow makes these new humans "better themselves" until they become Gods and kill us! Fabulous! Then we get to be the dictators!

How about we don't kill God, we don't take His place, and we don't perpetuate the dictatorship?

Or better yet, how about I just decide your interpretation of God is a big bowl of interesting topped with a couple of heaping teaspoons of crazy and we call this good?

[-] 0 points by satohirona (-20) 11 years ago

If we simply killed God like Nietzsche claimed we should, we would indeed be giving him what he wants. That's why I reformulated the ideal with the part about torturing him a great deal first.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 11 years ago

How wonderfully twisted...

[-] 0 points by highlander3 (-62) 11 years ago

Yeah, but Jesus was left hanging

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

ah but I hear he ascended to heaven on a cloud. it's just a rumor i know but i am i here that is what happened.


[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 years ago

Well, that's interesting. How long have you been hearing voices?


[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 years ago

It's hard to understand what your saying. Try pulling your head out of your fat ass.



[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 11 years ago

I find it ironic when someone invokes the name of Jesus as a means to judge or vilify some other group of people that the speaker views as sinners.

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago

Jesus is a religious Jewish character who strongly supports the keeping of the Torah (Matthew 5:17-20, Luke 16:17) which of course means that the character is Creationist (Genesis 1:1-2:24), not evolutionist, supports slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46, Deuteronomy 20:10-11), opposes freedom of religion (Exodus 34:13-14) and the separation of church and state (Deuteronomy 17:18-20), and by default of Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 22:28-29, the teaching of abstinence and even the prohibition of divorce (Matthew 19:3-9, Luke 16:18) not to mention lethal opposition to male homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13).

As the Mashiach/Xristos, the character supports his own monarchy (Matthew 27:11), not a democracy (Deuteronomy 17:15), opposition to those who don't accept him (Matthew 10:34-37), nationalist ethnic discrimination (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:21-28) in contrast to the example provided in his own parable (Luke 10:25-37), and even violence against legal, socially accepted, peacefull business (Mark 11:15-16, John 2:13-16), as well as war (Deuteronomy 20:10-15) and divinely claimed commands of genocide for the cause of land acquisition (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

See here are a few problems: one your bible; whatever one you use is flawed. Really flawed, likely you use kjv or some adaptation; it is a roman political document, rewritten into a king james political document, rewritten into a document a lazy dummy can read. It bears little or no resemblance to either the christian or hebrew writings of the 1st or 2nd century and only marginally if at all to a scholar the talmud, kabbalah, torah,or any number of non conical text of even today. From a historical perspective it is a complete piece of shit. Also I doubt you fully understand the hebrew concept of god or God or any of the ancient semite religious concepts that are key to understanding the concept of God as it relates to modern concepts of theology. Think about it like this if God were to exist who defines him? If he were to not exist who defines his concept? Since you didn't mention any of the things you could have in regards to these subjects and you would have had you knowledge that benefited your argument and since any reasonable debater can twist even marginal quotes or concepts into written fact on a computer screen or a piece of paper I am going to assume you really don't know near as much as you think you do. ----Cheers!!!

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago

The fact that you reduce yourself to merely assuming what I may or may not know says it all.

The fact that you make inaccurate claims about the worth of current transliterations without even providing your own preferred transliteration of the material cited says even more.

And the fact that you refer to "the hebrew concept of god" as if it has ever been a single concept reveals your lack of understanding on that subject as well.

If you think the clarity of the material cited is so flawed, nothing prevents you from providing your own perspective for whatever position you choose to hold on the matter.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

face it. you got smacked down. it's okay just move on with your life.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago


"If you think the clarity of the material cited is so flawed, nothing prevents you from providing your own perspective for whatever position you choose to hold on the matter."

Bottom line, I will forget more about the TaNaKh, Christian scriptures, and Near Eastern history than you will ever even have a desire to learn about. The fact that you have challenged the clarity of the material cited but have now exposed your own inability to support such a challenge is a smackdown upon yourself. But that's okay. People often speak out on matters they know nothing of only to reveal their own ignorance. The key for them is to be able to realize their mistake, learn from it, and move on. Will you be able to do that?

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 11 years ago

are you attempting to engage me in a quantification fallacy argument???

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago

You've made a declaration of hearing of Jesus being a progressive socialist and expressed a sense of irony in his followers being conservative fascists.

In response to the presented material showing the character of Jesus not being different from the character of those who follow him, you've expressed objection with the material.

You've presented no basis for your expressed objection with the material.

You've presented no basis for the perspective that the character Jesus is a progressive socialist.

And yet, as I've clearly stated before,

"If you think the clarity of the material cited is so flawed, nothing prevents you from providing your own perspective for whatever position you choose to hold on the matter."

Clearly, you haven't done that either.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 11 years ago

Did Jesus argue for communal ownership or class conflict?

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

I think its very hard to imagine what government system that Jesus would have fit into. Most likely, in my opinion, anarchist type of view of things.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 11 years ago

Understanding was important to Jesus. The teachings indicate principles, responsibility and freedom were prime. There are many indications that he did not die on the cross, but instead moved to southern Europe where he started a number of societies. The Magna Carta may be a mix of pagan Christian sentiment, Roman law and social convention developed in societies created by Jesus.

[+] -4 points by 1sealyon (434) 11 years ago

Conservative fascists like:

Dr. Martin Luther King Mother Theresa Jimmy Carter Joe Beiden Barack Obama Martin Sheen Ben Carson Harriet Tubman Ralph Abernathy Al Sharpton Susan B. Anthony Nancy Pelosi John Kennedy Andrew Young Jesse Jackson Coretta Scott King Solzhenitsyn Dostoevsky

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago

It's highly likely that one day, the Catholic Church will officially recognize Mother Teresa as a saint, a position she's held in the popular imagination for years. A new study in the religious studies journal Religieuses, however, says that the late Mother Teresa's reputation is mostly hype — a result of a church declining in popularity trying to boost its image.

Mother Teresa's biggest supposed sin? According to the Times of India, it was "her dubious way of caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it."

How did researchers reach this controversial conclusion? The team of Canadian researchers studied nearly 300 documents, and discovered reports of poor hygiene standards and a shortage of medicine, supplies, and care in Mother Teresa's 517 "homes for the dying" — although not for lack of cash. According to the report, her organization, the Order of the Missionaries of Charity, received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations.

Of course, this isn't news to fans of Christopher Hitchens, the erudite atheist who made it his mission to battle religious dogma before he died in 2011. He even wrote a book on the topic called, crudely enough, The Missionary Position:

"Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first-class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so, and indeed to run instead a haphazard and cranky institution which would expose itself to litigation and protest were it run by any branch of the medical profession, is a deliberate one. The point is not the honest relief of suffering but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjugation."