Opinion of PragerU Jesus

[Statilius the Epicurean]

https://twitter.com/brendelbored/status/1333041529561231362?s=21

[Diabolical Materialism]

Blasphemous

[Santander]

I lol'ed.

[John Dule]

As much as American Christians would like to deny it, Jesus was indeed a socialist. This is why his teachings can be safely ignored.

[Xeuma]

As much as American Christians would like to deny it, Jesus was indeed a socialist. This is why his teachings can be safely ignored.

If Jesus was advocating for the workers' democratic control of the means of production about two thousand years (rounding up) before any such thing existed, he must be God indeed.

[John Dule]

As much as American Christians would like to deny it, Jesus was indeed a socialist. This is why his teachings can be safely ignored.

If Jesus was advocating for the workers' democratic control of the means of production about two thousand years (rounding up) before any such thing existed, he must be God indeed.

If Jesus were divine, he'd have been able to accurately predict the benefits that selfish actors can reap from participating in a market economy.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

PragerU is about what you could expect as a result when you put together the collective brain power of the libertarian ideology. Although I don't think for one second the people funding it actually believe the idiotic arguments they put forth.

[Santander]

PragerU is about what you could expect as a result when you put together the collective brain power of the libertarian ideology. Although I don't think for one second the people funding it actually believe the idiotic arguments they put forth.

I am a libertarian.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm generally of the opinion that Al Franken should stay canceled, but his "Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus" did it first and did it better.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

PragerU is about what you could expect as a result when you put together the collective brain power of the libertarian ideology. Although I don't think for one second the people funding it actually believe the idiotic arguments they put forth.

I am a libertarian.

Ok.

[John Dule]

PragerU is about what you could expect as a result when you put together the collective brain power of the libertarian ideology. Although I don't think for one second the people funding it actually believe the idiotic arguments they put forth.

There is literally nothing libertarian about PragerU.

[PSOL]

As much as American Christians would like to deny it, Jesus was indeed a socialist. This is why his teachings can be safely ignored.

If Jesus was advocating for the workers' democratic control of the means of production about two thousand years (rounding up) before any such thing existed, he must be God indeed.

“Democratic Control” exists in “primitive communism” in many societies over many periods. It exists or exists in “practice” among co-ops and informal small-scale teamwork in our society too.

“Workers” while at this time period not wholly made up of “Proletarians” taking wages, they “existed” in the forceful institution of Slavery.

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

     Would you say that the belief in an ability to construct an ideal society is intrinsic to socialism?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

     Would you say that the belief in an ability to construct an ideal society is intrinsic to socialism?

I would not. It's possible to believe that a society in which there was some form of collective or democratized ownership of land, capital, etc. would be preferable to what we have now, without believing that it would be a utopia or that all social problems or problems of public morality would be solved. I hold just that belief.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

     Would you say that the belief in an ability to construct an ideal society is intrinsic to socialism?

I would not. It's possible to believe that a society in which there was some form of collective or democratized ownership of land, capital, etc. would be preferable to what we have now, without believing that it would be a utopia or that all social problems or problems of public morality would be solved. I hold just that belief.

     What then would be a sufficiently generalized definition of socialism?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

     Would you say that the belief in an ability to construct an ideal society is intrinsic to socialism?

I would not. It's possible to believe that a society in which there was some form of collective or democratized ownership of land, capital, etc. would be preferable to what we have now, without believing that it would be a utopia or that all social problems or problems of public morality would be solved. I hold just that belief.

     What then would be a sufficiently generalized definition of socialism?

The belief that a society in which [etc., see previous post] would be better than what we have now, and the willingness to make that belief a lodestar for political action.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

     Would you say that the belief in an ability to construct an ideal society is intrinsic to socialism?

I would not. It's possible to believe that a society in which there was some form of collective or democratized ownership of land, capital, etc. would be preferable to what we have now, without believing that it would be a utopia or that all social problems or problems of public morality would be solved. I hold just that belief.

     What then would be a sufficiently generalized definition of socialism?

The belief that a society in which [etc., see previous post] would be better than what we have now, and the willingness to make that belief a lodestar for political action.

     So integral to the concept is it being a political one. I am sure I seem silly to be making that connection, but as I am not a socialist I decided that I should get an answer from someone who is before making proper statements on the issue. It is important to understand what aspects are primary and what ones are ancillary.

     There is something I am curious for your take on. In the phronema of the Orthodox Church, economic public policy is not part of the Church's moral teaching, and so the idea that the Gospel of Christ is a socialist one can be dismissed pretty readily. Without a doubt we should give generously to the poor, but we would never say that establishing a government to effect that end is a Christian imperative. I am aware though that the Catholic Church teaches what economic policy should be, though I must admit that I am not clear on the specifics. With the understanding that Catholics do believe that economic policy is subject to Church doctrine, would you say there is merit to the concept that Jesus is a socialist?

[7,052,770]

Do PragerU graduates help the homeless by setting them up with wealthy benefactors? If not, what's the point of this?

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Cringeworthy, intellectually dishonest, and theologically incorrect.

[PSOL]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

Fine

[S019]

PragerU=Automatic HP

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Looks like a South Park comic.

I heard of PU for the first time when they spread "the truth" alternative facts about the UK and Canadian health care system.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

Fine

Sorry, does something about this criticism get on your nerves? I don't intend it as an attack on you or anything.

PiT, I'll try to respond to your (really interesting and trenchant!) question later today.

[Associate Justice PiT]

PiT, I'll try to respond to your (really interesting and trenchant!) question later today.

     Thanks. I understand that it is a question that can't be answered quickly or simply. Take as much time as you need.