You must log in or register to comment.
I hate when the far right says, “Who’s gonna pay for it?!” Referring to any program that would help the poor or needy… What would Jesus do? Asshole.
There’s a bill in the Canadian senate right now for UBI, and yeah, this is what the conservatives are saying.
For anyone interested in the bill: https://www.ubiworks.ca/guaranteed-livable-basic-income
Jesus would make sure they are tested for drugs before curing their leprosy.
how do we know they don’t want to stay leprous ?
What would Jesus do? Asshole.
This is going to be my go-to response from now on.
WWJD.A
Jesus would make a dupping glitch with food
We already see what happens with you duplicate glitch books/knowledge/art
Magic?
Good answer, and maybe. But you can be sure the magic would help, and even without magic he would help.
Yes, the magic of an impromptu potluck
Literally the whole point of this “miracle” was to show how if everyone pools resources, there’s more than enough to go around
But that didn’t fit the message the Romans were going for, so they magic’d it up
The only food mentioned is the little kid fishes and bread. If it were more, pretty sure they’d mention it as well.
The whole point was that they were far away from the nearest place to buy food and money for feeding about 15k people would exceed even a yearly salary
Literally there was not enough food in the whole group for a “potluck”
Jesus made a speech, they passed around the baskets his group had for the meal, and suddenly they more than enough
Do you think they had grocery stores? That they catered events? That they even had a salary, and carried money instead of food?
I don’t even know where all these numbers and money focus are coming from, but they weren’t in the text
Everyone shared their lunch… That was the whole thing. They shared the food they were initially unwilling to share, and when everyone was full (including those who came with nothing) they had baskets of leftovers
when the far right says, “Who’s gonna pay for it?!”
It’s funny, the obvious answer is “rich people who have magnitudes more money”, but plenty of poor stupid people respond “BuT tHeY aLrEaDy PaY mOrE” as if someone with 100000x as much money as you should get off paying maybe pays 100 or 1000x when you’re paying 25% and they’re paying 5 or 10% of take home.
When they’re asking genuinely, I don’t mind giving a genuine reply. But when it becomes clear they’re doing the online equivalent of filibustering? “You, you specifically are going to pay for it, and I hope it makes you go bankrupt.”
Sorry, feeding you might make more money for the shareholders 2 years from now but not feeding you makes money for the shareholders today.
I won’t even be working here in 2 years, the second that bonus hits my bank account I’m taking the CEO role at a startup religion
This is heresy.
He would explain that the baker and fishermen had an inviolable right that their craftsmanship not be replicated without their permission.
Yeah. You wouldn’t download some kid’s lunch of bread and fish!
Republican Jesus.
There’s a conservative chud in these comments who apparently thinks this is exactly what Jesus taught.
Political satire is dead; it’s impossible to satirize conservatives because for any ridiculous joke anyone can come up with, there’ll be N + 1 conservatives out there going “yeah that’s exactly what I believe”
Interestingly enough, right after feeding about 15k people, these same people tried to make Jesus their king. I mean, free food right?
And the absolute Chad just went out and retreated, refusing to involve himself in politics as he was to be already king of another kingdom
Even more interesting than that, the next day, the same people were expecting to be fed again…he clearly understood people were associating with him for material gain. He does exhort them to work for their sustenance.
But it’s important to understand that at the time, Jesus was putting more focus on exhorting people to work on the pursuit of his father’s kingdom and excellent deeds, declaring himself the son of god, and himself (as the word of god) living bread to be fed on
At which point most of these people lost all interest, being shocked as, as always, they suffered of literal thinking, asking themselves in disgust, “how can we eat this man’s flesh?”. This was the people who literally wanted him as King the day before.
This was basically all it took for everyone except the 12 apostles to leave
Interesting take. There’s the standard conservative anti-welfare message, but also very old-fashioned anti-catholicism. I guess this is from a conservative US version of Protestantism. But which denomination exactly? Or is that standard fare for evangelicals these days?
I’m not sure I see the anti-catholicism?
It always comes down to transubstantiation versus consubstantiation.
-Lisa Simpson
I don’t think that the whole transubstantiation issue is big for Catholics, in practice. But they are supposed to believe that during mass, bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Protestants have a slightly different take. Maybe it only becomes an issue in the context of the British domination of Ireland. I’m not sure, but at least in some Protestant/Anglican circles the Catholic belief was/is considered barbaric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Anglicanism
Maybe it’s derived from 19th century Anglicanism, when there were poor houses and Famine Roads?
Side note: As a neutral person (ie atheist), I find the retelling of the “feeding of the multitude” rather dubious. The anti-welfare message isn’t there. It’s a common conservative talking point in the US, that government welfare makes people dependent. The thing about eating Jesus is from elsewhere. It doesn’t belong in that story. The author adapted these pieces from the bible and made inserted their own teachings.
It’s funny how little connection there is between scripture and actual teachings. For abortion, they bothered to change the text.
“If I give all these starving people free food nobody will want to work anymore!” —Supply Side Jesus
So I have never actually understood the name of this meme. Why “supply side”? What does that mean?
It’s from supply-side economics:
Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory postulating that economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade.
Ahhh, thank you.
Supply and demand are two major parts of capitalist economic theory, Regan implimented economic relief for the supply side of the economy only. Corporations, owners, importers, and resource owners, like oil, gas, food, industries. While totally ignoring demand side, that’s the working class side of the economy, if there isn’t enough money in the demand side of the economy, it will eventually collapse. Which has happened several times, why are we still here and still doing this? Because were not a capitalist economy. We’re a state capitalist economy. Financial institutions fail? Government bail outs, stagnating wages hurting demand? Work tax credit, still not enough money in the market? Deregulate credit lenders, payroll still can’t cover basic living? SNAP program subsidized the cost of living, letting owners continue to stagnate wages while not paying enough to keep the middle class capable of participating in the market.
We’ve been doing this a long time.
The State now controls the economy, almost exclusively helping corporations and the very rich, with no strings attached.
Supply side only economics at work.
It’s a caricature Al Franken (who went on to become a Democrat senator) came up with for his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.
You can see some of the original comics here: https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx
I’m non-religious, but I’m more in line with that Jesus wanted people to do than most self proclaimed Christians
On the issues of war, healthcare, wages, rights to bodily autonomy, rights to actually have control over the things you buy. I’m with Jesus on all that.
hells yea, atheists with Jesus !!
I will just point out that most of Christendom does have pretty strong workers protections/universal healthcare etc… (or at the very least has flirted with it in the past between corrupt governments: see Italy/Russia/Greece/Venuzula). America Is very much the odd-ball here.
Thomas Robert Malthus literally a cleric of Christianity who exposed these morals.
Probably the largest reason economics is completely fucked.
Come back OG Jesus, all is forgiven.
Conservatives would literally murder him if he were to come back. A brown-skinned wokist telling people to love each other would not be popular
I’m not sure I’d like the actual guy, either. The stories we have are the result of several decades of embellishment before eventually being written down. Some no doubt make him look better than the actual story, and others are just made up entirely.
From what we do know about him, he was a weird apocalyptic peasant preacher. He probably was executed for exactly what he was accused of before the Romans: trying to make himself the king of the Jews by leading an overthrow of the Romans. People like that aren’t healthy people to be around; see your modern apocalyptic cult leader for details.
Yeah I doubt the historical Jesus (or Jesuses – apparently there may have been more than one) was nearly as nice as the Bible makes him out to be.
Might want to re-read the Parable of the Talents sometime.
yeah remember when Jesus said “if I were to feed you, it would disincentivize you from finding a job and just enable your laziness. Use your god-given talents to feed yourself you moocher” and then gave all the fish and bread to the rich?
No.
Use your god-given talents to feed yourself you moocher" and then gave all the fish and bread to the rich?
That’s literally what the Parable of the Talents is about. Matthew 25:14-30 if you are having trouble finding it.
Wow this Jesus guy is starting to sound like kind of a dick
In all seriousness, respect for showing up with the receipts. I don’t put much stock in the book myself, but I learned a bit more about it today.
It’s almost like I worded the end exactly like that because I know that’s LiTeRaLlY what it says you utter cabbage. I was just parodying your Supply Side Jesus concept further; it’s not like that was the central message that Jesus had, except in conservative readings of course
Supply Side Jesus isn’t MY concept, in fact, it was Al Franken (yes, the senator) who came up with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them
https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx
Now Franken of course is a Jew, so it’s easy to see why he might have a bone to pick with Christianity.
Supply Side Jesus isn’t MY concept, in fact, it was Al Franken (yes, the senator) who came up with it.
No shit? And yes, that was sarcasm – just so you don’t take that literally as well.
Now Franken of course is a Jew, so it’s easy to see why he might have a bone to pick with Christianity.
That’s certainly a take.
That’s certainly a take.
I mean, I hope I’m not saying anything too controversial here, but I think it’s pretty well understood that one of the major theological differences between Christians and Jews is how they feel about Jesus.
Hitler died like the pussy he was.
Godwin’s Law strikes again
Matthew 25:14-30
Are you seriously taking something that is called a “parable” literally? Do you need help in understanding what a parable is? The whole thing is not even about money, but about god (the master) and his stewards who shall work on spreading the gospel while Jesus is gone. Those who spread the word of god shall be rewarded and those who are resentful of god will be punished. It has nothing to do with that capitalist shit people like you interpret into it.
It has not to do with resentment at all
It is about carrying their responsibilities to his kingdom with diligence
The talents, a thing of Great value then, represent the mandate to go about preaching and making disciples
Each of the receivers were expected to carry out their duties using the talents diligently, that is, doing said preaching/ disciples work
That one who worked against his master interest by hiding that talent, showed bad faith and a bad spirit and is to be a warning on the need to remain diligent in multiplying that talent, basically exhorting them to do “business” with it to increase it (that is, to keep on preaching and making disciples)
It’s not about resentment
Okay, but that’s exactly what’s happening in the OP’s picture, isn’t it?
I mean, without any context we are left to assume what “lack of results” means but if all he did was eat and made no effort to spread the gospel, then he’s basically the wicked servant in that parable, no?
That’s why 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck! All they have to do is invest the pennies they have left over! Crazy how a group of people that motherfucking huge aren’t just pulling themselves up by their bootstraps!
I think the moral of that story is that you should at least make a bare minimum effort in order to justify your existence. The Parable of the Wedding feast has a very similar lean: there, a guy gets thrown out of the wedding (after having been invited for free because the original guests wouldn’t come) because he wouldn’t even dress up for it.
The point is, there ARE examples of Jesus cutting people off because they’re not worth his continued investment in them.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point sounds like, “[The god of my religion] does not find your existence is worth enough to help, therefore, the United States Government is not obligated to change a system where 60% of it’s citizens are not financially stable.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point sounds like “the God of YOUR religion better not be telling the God of MY religion what to do.”
Yes, you are wrong. When it comes to the USA, NO religion should dictate governmental decisions. Whether it is yours or somebody else’s.
Right, which implies that the God of your religion is the state, because that’s who you want to give supreme authority to.
… No? Are you an idiot? Nothing should have supreme authority
What?
I just want to point out that in the wedding illustration, that guy who gets thrown out it’s not because he didn’t put an effort dressing
He was thrown out because he he could not have got insode the building without the wedding garment
So he shouldn’t be there
That’s why they thrown him out
Because he was not recognized as being one of the invited AND chosen in any of the 3 rounds of invites that went out , the dude had to go.
The whole deal is basically telling people at the time that each rejected invitation made you part of his enemies, and even then if you tried to pass as if you had been invited and chosen, you’d be found out
Okay but it still roughly fits the situation in the OP, doesn’t it? He got thrown out because he wasn’t producing the expected result (i.e. being a proper wedding guest).
All guests were given the garment for free.So maybe he thought his own garment was better than the one provided by the host, which it wasn’t.All guests were given the garment for free.
Where does it say that?
You’re right, I must have misremembered that. I totally thought that it was explicitly stated in this parable.
Nah, it’s because he wasn’t even supposed to be there. He was not chosen
Okay, then perhaps the guy in the OPs meme wasn’t chosen either
Probably, I don’t understand the meme at all
I did, and though we can expect those with a talent to be profitable, what about those with a tenth of one?
Let’s put that parable in modern terms. One day a hedge fund manager decided to leave the country for a while to his other home overseas. He went and told His workers to go and be profitable with the money. And so he gave one a million dollars , another 100, 000, and another $50,000.
The one with a million dollars, invested his money and time into making a new business. He managed to turn that $1 million into $2.3 million. The one with 100,000 managed to make $170,000 with shrewd investing. But the man with $50,000 sat on it and didn’t do anything. He put it in a savings account and left it there.
The hedge fund manager came back, and saw how successful the other managers were. And he asked the one with 10k "Why didn’t you do anything with what I gave you?
The one with the 50 k said “I didn’t want to lose any of the money.”
The manager rebuked him though because he could have at least taken 1 year bonds and beat interest.
It’s a parable about using what God gave you. God gives us gifts to bring in profits. Not in money, as that’s not what God really needs, but in faith. You could live for a while with 50k even. But there are people who live paycheck to paycheck who don’t have that 1 talent of silver in the first place. They’re paid 800 dollars bi-weekly. Rent is 800 dollars. Good luck living with 800 left for everything else. And you still call them lazy
What does Jesus say about people with money? Two things stick out to me. The first one are the Rich donors to the the synagogue, and the poor woman who gives a quarter of her wealth to it. Jesus remarks that the woman gave more than those Rich donors ever will. The other is about a rich man who seeks to enter the kingdom of God and ask Jesus how to do this. Jesus tells him that he must give all his money to the poor. The man was disappointed because he had a lot of wealth.
What boggles my mind as a Christian is that we idolize Rich people and shame poor people. When in fact The most pious people I know, are poor
Prosperity Gospel is a scourge and a poor excuse to claim that God is on the side of the rich.
Thanks for your response, but I don’t think I was promoting prosperity gospel? I understand that this parable is a favorite of theirs, but as you correct pointed out, there’s more to Jesus than that, and the point of the parable is by no means to rag on poor people, but on people who make poor decisions.
My understanding is that if someone has little talent but still makes the most of it, that person is still more welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven than someone who has a lot but makes little use of it. In other words, if it was the servant who received the most money who ended up burying it and making no profit, it would have been him who would be cast out instead. See also the Parable of the Wedding Feast, where everyone receives exactly the same (an invitation to the king’s wedding), but one person shows up without the proper clothes on.
but on people who make poor decisions.
What types of poor decisions? Decisions in faith? Family? Finance? Fitness? From the top level comment of the comment thread I read it as finance as that’s the thing related to food in the original post. I read this story as our stewardship of things God gives us. (Everything from the work of our hands to our minds to our relationships to wealth) He who is given much should use them and not keep them hidden away for later
little talent
Talent refers to money in the literal sense (Or more accurately a weight for metals which could be traded as money) It is a large amount of money.
The parable of the wedding feast is about people neglecting their faith and still expecting to be a part of the Kingdom of God. It’s not about how much money they have, but instead if they actually practice their faith. If you know the scriptures, but say you’ll be righteous later, then you’re that person who isn’t clothed for the feast. We are called to keep our faith and grow faith in others with the gifts that God gives us.
Supply Side Jesus on the other hand tells us that it’s not worth investing our time and resources into people who are poor, and that instead the rich will lead us to have an efficient church. That is fundamentally backwards to Christianity, as it is the poor, the hurt and the suffering who need it the most. There’s a reason why some churches put the Beatitudes in their liturgy. But at the same time, this is how our welfare system is run. To get the freeloaders off
