The assertion that Jesus was a socialist is misguided and incorrect
because the premise is grounded in the liberal ideology of American
politics, not in biblical exegesis. 
Introduction
In a dispute between secular liberals and Christian conservatives, the canard that Jesus was a revolutionary radical liberal is made with no great surprise. This claim has its roots in the New Testament narrative that chronicles Christ’s ministry of helping the poor, the disabled, and the oppressed. Analogously, we are supposed to infer that since liberals advocate programs that redistribute upper-tiered wealth to the lower class that this makes them faithful stewards of God’s kingdom.
Liberalism and Conservatism Defined
Today’s liberalism, sometimes called “social liberalism” or “welfare liberalism,” is a reform movement that seeks to enhance the welfare of the populous through government intervention. This branch of liberalism seeks equality of life, and therefore tends to promote “leveling” programs that take from the prosperous and give to the underprivileged. Welfare, affirmative action, and Medicaid are good examples of such programs.
Today’s conservatism, sometimes called “classical liberalism” or “neo-classical liberalism” is a philosophy that also seeks to enhance the well being of the populous. Freedom, as understood by conservatives, is a freedom from government, not freedom through government. By promoting personal industry and a competitive free market, the populous is encouraged to be successful by the fruits of their own labor, not by government entitlements or dependency. The trademark of conservatism is keeping government small and efficient, but powerful enough to protect her citizens from the threat of harm and fraud. Crudely put, conservatism sees government primarily as a protector, whereas liberalism sees her as an enabler.
Understanding liberalism and conservatism in terms of government size and function presents somewhat of a problem for our question. Jesus didn’t talk much about government, and therefore it would be difficult to frame Jesus’ political ideology in terms of being a political liberal or political conservative. This is important, and we’ll get to this point later. However, for the purposes of this article, we will address some of the common passages liberals use to bolster their argument that Jesus was on of their ilk.
The Charitable Giving of Conservatives and Liberals
One such passage is in Luke 4:18-19 where Jesus says,
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
The obvious meaning of the passage is that Jesus was anointed to advance charitable works. Prisoners would be freed, the blind would receive sight, and barriers for the oppressed would be removed. This was Jesus’ mission. So, let’s take a look to see how charitable liberals are.
Arthur Brooks, a behavioral economist and a director of nonprofit studies at Syracuse University, authored a book entitled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.” Using ten databases from scientific surveys in the past decade, Brooks compiled statistics on charitable contributions by self-professed liberals and conservatives. He found that secular liberals who believe fervently in income redistribution via government programs gave far less to charity than conservatives. On average, religious conservatives gave 3.5 times more than secular liberals, and when “religious giving” was excluded from the analysis, conservatives still contributed more to charity than liberals annually.
In his book, Brooks concludes that liberals want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes, but are more reluctant to write checks to support such causes. Byron Johnson, a sociology professor and director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, corroborated Brook’s conclusions from an independent research project called, “A Report of Faith in America.”
Brooks’ analysis delivers a serious blow to the liberal’s claim to Jesus. Forcing others to make charitable contributions that one is disinclined to do without external compulsion is called hypocrisy. And hypocrisy was among the most serious charges Jesus laid on the Pharisees during the New Testament era. In Matthew 23, Jesus says,
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.“
Jesus Believed in Charity, not Socialism
One of the most commonly cited passages used to support that Jesus was a liberal, or perhaps even a socialist, is Matthew 19:21-22, where Jesus says,
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Some liberals interpret this passage as an endorsement of socialism. A young wealthy ruler sought Jesus’ advice, asking him what he must do to receive eternal life. After a brief exchange, we discover the young ruler was proficient in matters of the law, and yet he felt something was wanting. Jesus struck to the heart of the matter, instructing him to surrender his wealth and to follow him. The young man was unable to abdicate the one thing he valued most, his sense of security. It was a common theme in Christ’s teachings that unless you can forsake that which you value most, you cannot be his disciple (Matt 10:37 16:24, Luke 9:23, 14:26, Mark 8:34). For instance, in Matthew 10:37, it reads,
“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”
This passage is no more about promoting dysfunctional families than the passage about the young ruler is about promoting socialism. The key to understanding these passages is that Jesus utilizes one central theme – nothing must come between Jesus and his followers. In the first passage, it’s one’s possessions; in the second passage, it’s one’s immediate family. Both stories exemplify that Christ demands nothing less than complete devotion. Wealth and family are valuable possessions, but should not stand between you and Jesus. The moral of the story is sacrifice, not socialism.
In order to put Jesus’ values into proper perspective, one has to consider the purpose of good conduct. For instance, the scriptures portray Jesus as weak on defense (turn the other cheek), big on social programs (give to the poor), harsh on the wealthy (nearly impossible for the rich man to enter heaven), soft on punishment (he who is without sin, cast the first stone), and pro-taxes (render unto Caesar what is his). It would appear that the New Testament is a haven of liberal ideology. However, nowhere in the scriptures did Jesus petition a government to deliver on any of these commitments. Instead, Christ implored his followers to sacrifice of themselves. The act of kindness and brotherly love must germinate from the individual’s heart, not the policy of some lifeless institution that mandates a sacrifice. And there is a good reason for this. The purpose of charitable giving is not to level out the inequalities of society, but to benefit the soul of the benefactor.
Giving ought to be Voluntary, not Compulsory
In Matthew 6, Jesus instructs his disciples to give to the needy only in secret so one’s philanthropy is not seen by men. He warned them that if they displayed their charity in public, they would not receive their heavenly reward. This passage is enlightening. If the purpose of charitable giving were to improve the well being of the poor, then why would it matter if such acts were in public? In fact, it could be argued that public giving would promote and produce likeminded behavior, which would ultimately benefit the needy. And yet, Jesus states that God would withhold His reward if they made a public display of their giving. The answer is quite clear – it’s not about the poor, it’s about a willful sacrifice.
The Purpose of Giving is to Promote the Gospel
And this brings to me to my last point. In Luke 16:15, Jesus tells the Pharisees,
“You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.“
And in John 5:44, Jesus tells the people,
“How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?”
The moral here is that goodness is judged good by God alone; it is not man’s prerogative to determine what’s morally right. When Jesus healed the boy at Capernaum, he said,
“Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders, you will never believe.”
Jesus did not heal the boy because the boy’s illness brought him near to death, but because it might introduce onlookers to the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus healed the paralytic at the poolside, he told him to stop sinning or else something worse may happen to him. Jesus didn’t heal the man because paralytics ought to have equal standing with others in society, but rather to induce in him a morally productive life. And when Jesus applied mud to the eyes of a blind man thus restoring sight, he told his disciples that this man was blind so that the glory of God might be revealed in him. This last example is a strong testament to the purpose of good works, which is to show the world that Jesus is the light – the mediator sent for the world’s atonement. It is important to note that Jesus’ purpose of good works is not the message of secular government programs, nor is it the goal of liberalism in general.
Jesus was not a liberal in today’s sense. What he did, he did for God, not for men. In Matthew 26:7, Jesus’ disciples were angered when they saw a woman pour expensive perform on Jesus’ head. They thought it was wasteful because it could have been sold and given to the poor. Jesus responded,
“Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”
Jesus’ point was although charitable deeds are good, they do not take priority over Jesus and his message. This same message can be read in Acts 6:1-4, where the Greek Jews complained that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. As a result, the twelve disciples gathered together to render this conclusion,
“It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the world of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn over this responsibility to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
The idea is that charitable contributions, although virtuous, does not supersede the ministry of God.
Conclusion
The assertion that Jesus was a socialist is misguided and incorrect because the premise is grounded in the liberal ideology of American politics, not in biblical exegesis. Not one place in the bible did Jesus advocate it was the function of government to do what loving human beings ought to do on their own. As noted above, conservatives are not opposed to social programs. We shed our blood, donate our time, apply our labor, and voluntarily redistribute our income to the poor. And quite frankly, research shows we are better at it than liberals. Jesus was a conservative because he promoted charitable giving on behalf of individuals, not government. Jesus was a conservative because he promoted the hard work and success of the individual, not the legislative body of the government. Jesus was a conservative he saw giving as a ministry of the gospel, not a secular and spiritless exercise of government in order to level the economic playing field. Liberals may claim Jesus as their own, but Jesus would not claim them as his own. It takes a lot more to give from your personal resources than it does to compel others to give through taxation.
Perhaps the most humorous irony of this entire topic of discussion is that the modern liberal who wants to co-opt Jesus as an arbiter of social justice has most likely never read the Bible, let alone seriously analyzed it, or even so much as taken a theology class at a secular liberal arts college. Hence, the modern liberal acts on a cartoonish understanding of Jesus (as he acts on a cartoonish understanding of economics, equality, and liberty) gleened from two or three Bible verses posted on the Huffington Post, completely misunderstanding Jesus’ message. For liberals, Jesus is Martin Luther King Jr. attending a campus sit-in for minority rights. He’s not the embodiment of God and promised Jewish Messiah come to reconcile evil men to their creator by dying as an atonement for their misdeeds. Which is really the heart of the matter: Jesus wasn’t a political slogan because his purpose was not political, but spiritual.
Somehow this reminds me of an article I read many years ago about Werner Erhard and “the Hunger Project”. (Mother Jones, 1978: PDF: Let Them Eat EST). The punch line is: wealthy people gave money to Warner Erhard so that they could feel good about themselves. LOL! In this way, clueless wealthy libtards could sleep at night knowing that they “took responsibility for hunger.”
The fact that Erhard didn’t actually use the money to feed anyone is thus immaterial to the self-satisfied “feelings” of the benefactors.
A world view elevates Christ and the revelation of Himself above the political spectrum found in the Gospels and in our country. The John 12 passage is about extravagent worship or exhilaration in the presence of Christ.
Biblical Christianity has to work in the third world where violence, dictatorships, and darkness are rampant as well in our country
Christ is neither a conservative nor a liberal, He created the mind of Man to express Universals and Moral Absolutes in the human realm. In expressing them MAN has corrupted the pure espression of them as in the Gospels.
Very well done. An exegetical tour de force.
Patrick, your point is well made. It takes a person who is biblically illiterate to believe that Jesus was a socialist. But like so much of liberalism, such an assertion is based on feelings and superficial analysis.
My favorite way of describing the difference between the Gospel and socialism is this: With the Gospel, we are told that if we have two cows, we should give freely of what God has given us. Socialism says, “You have two cows. We will take them from you and give you some dry bread.” That’s the difference.
If Jesus was a conservative, how come he was always hanging out with 12 men and a prostitute? I doubt that there are many right wing conservative christians that would do that today!! Well maybe wide stance Larry and Dave “the Diaper” Vitter. Maybe Ted Haggard….well maybe Mark Foley…OOOPS maybe He was a conservative!!! My bad!!
Never mind.
jb,
Have you anything substantial to contribute, or are you just an idiot?
jbstheone,
Very clever. Real fresh too – gay Jesus has never been used before. And anyway, what you describe sounds more like a weekend at Barney Frank’s townhouse than anything. *rimshot* We done now?
Steve McCroskey: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking. LOL
Unfortunately, you obviously haven’t quit sniffing glue *doublerimshot*
Jules: That’s an interesting point. Come on, let’s get into character.
I think that it is funny that there is this so called intellectual diatribe about a fictional character’s political persuasion going on. Regardless if Hey-sus was a moonbat or wingnut, he was supposedly a lot more kind than you people. What a way to teach the word of the bible.
P.S.
I guess if you admit Jesus was a conservative, then you are going to heaven. Maybe he should take the place of Boss Limbaugh because if he can walk on water, he would have no problem walking on liberals.
Barney Frank is gay? Well I’ll be! yip yup
artvan,
You come into this forum and make idiotic assertions that are off topic and vapid, and we are somehow unkind to you?
And then you pop off with unsupported assertions, ad hominem attacks, and nonsense statements, but it is we who are not intellectual?
When you get done with junior high school, come back over. But only if you can get your head out of your a$$.
Hey Mountain Man,
Would Jesus be against water boarding? Maybe he wouldn’t consider ‘walk on water boarding’ torture, after all he IS a neo-conservative. You guys have totally convinced me.
A$$ is the prose of a 3rd grader by the way. Also, telling me to ‘get done with junior high school’ is a ad hominem attack, cowboy. Boss could tell you that, ditto head.
P.S. Yes it is you that isn’t intellectual.
P.P.S Barney Frank is gay.
MM: You’re surprised that the best argument the trolls can offer is that Jesus-walks-on-waterboarding-and-Boss-Limbaugh-hates-liberals? You really think they’re capable of debating real ideas? After Dr. K, Ozzie and the others, you still think they have anything of substance to offer? Why even bother?
MM,
Try and remember these phrases when you have to “debate” intellectual giants such as these:
Muhammad was a hermaphrodite
Bill Clinton raped black women
Obama was born in Indonesia
Speaking of Cowboys, wasn’t Hilary involved in cattle futures?
Obama was a crack dealer
JFK’s drug abuse prevented him from making any real decisions in the white house
FDR was a commie
The Rosenberg’s were guilty and got what they deserved
The media is run by liberals
I know you are, but what am I
Mine is bigger
Just throw them out there frequently, randomly, and when they seemingly have nothing to do with the intended topic, if at all possible. There’s no sense wasting real thought responding to arguments that possess none.
Hey Pat,
You forgot to mention that Jesus was a conservative!
Phillip Ellis Jackson,
Troll is quickly becoming unoriginal, and isn’t funny anymore. I used to think it was great but now it is used too much by the other wingnuts on modernconservative.com. Good try though!
“You know, you haven’t stopped talking since I came here? You must have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle.”
-Duck Soup
Art: It’s okay. We tailor our responses to the intellectual abilities of those who participate. When you offer something of substance, I’m sure someone will respond.
“When you offer something of substance, I’m sure someone will respond.”
Thanks for responding.
Art,
Barack Obama was a crack dealer.
Well said, Phil. If arty-poo comes here looking for a gutter exchange, he’ll get one, and then he gets ignored. However, if he wants to debate ideas (something about which he has yet to demonstrate any capability), then that is available as well.
Arty, when you introduce yourself with your crap-o-meter set to 11, what do you expect? And when your first post is at the intellectual level of a junior high student, it isn’t ad hominem for someone to point it out.
Your welcome to try again, this time acting like a human being who is willing to exchange ideas. You know, that leftist “tolerance” and all.
Holy Cow, Broke-back!
Check it bleed, you are a new century conservative at his best.
I didn’t know you had the capacity to hold so much vitriol. Since you have been slapping yourself to sleep due to the power of my comments, I will go ahead just keep it real.
Let’s debate. I started my charade saying that this is a considerably ridiculous topic to be talking aboot, but I guess it is really hard for someone so used to religious dogma to understand. You just have a personal vendetta against anyone with different ideas and fancy romantic, interpersonal relationships with Jesus. That is what the problem more than likely is.
Crap-O-meter is a good one by the way. Touche. So blood, hold your air pipe and we will hammer out old brick while we will discuss “The Lord” and see if he REALLY would approve of your ideologies. Know what I’m sayin? Word.
Bill Clinton raped black women.
And I fart in your general direction
Wow, arty, I appreciate the conciliatory language, but why the continued hostility? You don’t know a thing about me, but you know all about my vendetta, my religion, and my breed of conservatism?
And we can’t talk about Jesus’ philosphy because he’s fictional? Arty, you bring a lot of assumptions in with your slash and burn attitude. Care to elucidate?
You speak of hostility, and vehemently state that I am in Junior High, and I am being hostile? I understand the accusatory language, and the abhorrence toward my types (liberals you state), but you need to realize that you also don’t know anything about me either.
Oh Mountain Man, how you don’t see your own hypocrisy. You seem to have the demeanor of snake oil salesman and dictate that I am being hostile and don’t know anything about you, yet you seem to think in your own deluded way that you know more about me.
Wanna know some’in? It is pretty evident that you are probably a Christian. Know why? Well because you are on a forum that is about Jesus. I was just assuming that you aren’t a pagan or an atheist by your rather artistic prose and because you are taught to fear those things. Am I right?
One other thing Eminem, you should help out your colleague ‘Pat’ with the tom foolery posted in and around your comments. Actually don’t. I like him. He brings life to the whole notion of neo-conservatism. Still, I get why you haven’t said anything though to him, after all he is on your side, and that automatically disqualifies him from being immature. But when someone who isn’t ‘on your side’ does it, it is open season.
Sure Jesus is fictional, (I have never seem him in real life, have you? I didn’t think so), but the status quo says that anyone who believes in him should be a position of power. Wouldn’t your dedication and longing for answers in life using the Christian faith, bring a lot of assumptions to others also? Not everybody is a Christian, did you know that?
I am offering to end the shenanigans right now and start a real intellectual debate. During this time it might be a wonderful opportunity to start getting your ducks in a row.
There’s nothing quite so sad as a someone who starts out mocking “Hay-sus”, then objects to being told he has a junior high mentality; then talks about a genuine desire for an intellectual exchange, while telling us Jesus must be “fictional” since he’s “never seen him in real life”.
I’ve never seen George Washington in real life either, so I guess he’s fictional too.
These trolls who pop in every once and a while thinking this is the Daily Kos. They have to begin a debate by acting like an idiot. They then get their feeling hurt because someone points out they’re acting like a fool, at which point they now tell us all they really wanted is an honest exchange of ideas — which we’d all understand if we weren’t so caught up in being Christian (Jews and atheists need not participate).
I’ve never once found it necessary to ask Mountain Man or anyone else to tell me what his religion is. It’s simply not an issue unless the person wants to reveal it themselves. I can evaluate an idea whether the person is an atheist, Christian, Jew, Pagan, or in the present case, just a simple ordinary fool. It’s the idea that deserves to be debated, not the person’s religion.
But then again, those who frequent this site and participate in the discussions already know this.
FDR had a secret love affair with Stalin. That’s right – commie to commie. And that Jesus fellow was real too. I saw him in Passion of the Christ AND King of Kings. So you’ve been totally pwnt art. Now GTFO n00bcake.
Phil,
Cut arty some slack. He has managed to put together a few sentences that are almost reasonable. And he admitted he was immature. Yes, he came in here guns ablazin’ and yes, he is still surprised that he was called out on it. But at least he is now communicating. I call that progress.
Arty, all I know about you is what you have written. From that I know you have your mind made up about certain kinds of people, certain kinds of religion, and certain kinds of ideas. That makes you close-minded. Pursuade me differently.
If it’s Jesus you want to talk about, fine. I’m not all that interested in talking about him except to the degree presented by the author, which is why I’m here. We discuss ideas on IC, and we respond to peoples’ points. That may be foreign to you if you’re used to simply insulting people.
Patrick Mulligan was right, so I have no reason to say anything. You were throwing around slogans like a clown throwing candy at a parade. He responded in kind. So, if you want something to go your way, try disussing ideas. But empty rhetoric doesn’t qualify.
So, let’s try this. Phil made a good point. Prove George Washington existed.
MM: The challenge Art presented was not to prove that Jesus (or George Washington) “existed”. This is not what “intellectual Art” (vs. “idiot Art”) said. He defined “fantasy” as something which is not “real” unless he (or presumably you or I) “see it”.
So, any proof that George Washington is not a fantasy must be accompanied by an actual sighting of George Washington. Such is the level of intellectual exchange in this new, “real intellectual debate”.
I should just say that both of you know that Jesus was based on faith and faith alone. You speak of this individual being a conservative with eccentric zeal. How do you have the proof? Isn’t that like me saying JC doesn’t exist because you have never seen Jesus? To me, it sounds far-fetched and pumped up with more propaganda that what is reasonable.
George Washington was real because it was documented that he was the first president of the United States. Of course you didn’t ‘see’ him. He died in the 1700′s There are actual samples of his hair and many other artifacts that were DNA tested and determined to be his, so yes he was a real person. (What I know was ‘real’, basing on the contemporary means of science.) There is nothing like this for Jesus Christ. It is all based on an arcane story written by primitive people 2000+ years ago. (I should also say, ‘real’ seems to be a relative term, especially in radical terminology. What some of you here consider real, others would still consider it fake.)
I think you people need to stop being so accusatory to someone for being ‘immature’, while the same time calling people ‘trolls’, like it’s some sort of crutch to remind yourself to feel good. That is quite the antonym of ‘intellectual’. It seems that your vengeance on the nonbelievers criticizing your ideology only stands up to make you look like a spoiled evangelist vixen.
Art: If this is what passes for “intelligent conversation” on your part, high school was a too-generous description of your abilities. You’ve blended historical “proof” of someone’s existence (without, by the way, defining any real standards for that “proof” other that what appeals to you personally), with questions about the divinity of Christ, with relativistic nonsense about “seeing” something to believe it exists — which you then re-define to suggest something different than what you said when you’re called on it.
Maybe you should start asking about our skin color in addition to our religion, since this is the level of intellectual curiosity you bring to the conversation. That is, when you’re not telling us what you feel is true, instead of attempting to actually back up your assertions with something other than your sophomoric opinions.
“Idiot Art” is not much different than “Intellectual Art”, which is why no one takes you seriously; and why no one treats you in a serious manner. Like most trolls, you have absolutely no interest in being taken seriously because you have nothing serious to offer.
By the way, since we’re dealing with Idiot Art who can’t tell the difference between questions about Christ’s divinity vs. questions about Christ’s existence, here’s a brief passage from Wikipedia that addresses the issue.
The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] A small minority argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or fictional figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.
The reason we know Jesus existed as a real person is due to four historians writing around the time of his life: “the works of four major non-Christian historians contain passages relevant to Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, among others.”
Of course, what any of this has to do with anything of real substance in the “intellectual debate” Idiot Art professes to want is beyond me. Like most trolls his only interest is in telling us about his opinions and feelings and insisting that these opinions/feelings are somehow deep intellectual thoughts.
This is how you get such pearls of wisdom as you have to “see” someone to know they’re real; and such other deep thoughts as reality is a relative term.
Oh, and by the way, I was intrigued to learn that the existence of George washington was in doubt until “DNA testing” determined him to be a real person.
Whew, that’s a relief. I’d hate to think that historical documents and accounts alone might not have been sufficient.
Does this guy even have the slightest idea what he’s talking about when he tries to think?
First off, I love the pet names you have for the ‘objectionable’ on this site. Very classy and I can tell it took so much time and intelligence to come up with “Idiot Art and “Intellectual Art”. So original.
I have to tell you Phil, after reading the mysticism and “facts” in your retort I have come to the conclusion that you are definitely, without a doubt, correct. I am a born again Christian, now…at this moment. Whoa, that was hard to say. Now I gotta bite the bullet, so here it goes: For the record, I, Artvandelay0, totally forgot about those documents by those darn ancient secular progressives ( I learned that from the FACTOR!) without agendas that proved Jesus’ existence. As a matter of fact, I will wait for Jesus to vow his presence before me tonight when I go to bed. (He better show up or I might use remote viewing to tell the Jews that he didn’t!) So, if he is as real as you say, then he will show up. You proved your point…off of a Wikipedia article. Good job, sir. Sorry I sounded so monotonous and I bow before your intellect. Run for president.
I just remembered something that also proves I am wrong: there are many people on this planet named Jesus; primarily of Hispanic origin. (I am sure they are all conservatives too.) I need them to turn my blood into wine, because I have to drink/medicate because I got, as Pat says, PWNT. That Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Pirates? False Prophet. Boy do I look stupid. Everybody, clap your hands for the alias “PHILLIP….ELLIS….JACKSON. He has belittled another ‘troll’. :(
By the way, do you work? Because you sure do spend a lot of time and effort trying to confuse/indoctrinate me, and that can be worrisome for us “trolls”. I know, since I am a psychic, that you were probably going to reply back saying “But Idiot Art, you are spending a lot of effort trying to PROVE ME WRONG”! “Do you work”? “That makes you some sort of Super-Duper, Idiot, Pseudo-Intellectual, Hypocrite Art”.
Shhhh..before you say anything: I don’t have to work because I am a ‘liberal’. :P I saw you about to type that…
P.S
Jesus still loves me right?
One more thing ya big goofball:
What is this that you wrote?
““Idiot Art” is not much different than “Intellectual Art”, which is why no one takes you seriously; ”
Judging by your artvandelay0 biography, aren’t you taking me too seriously right now?
Whoa, that’s a paradox…..:O
It’s amazing that a guy who begins his diatribe with name calling objects to having his idiocy pointed out. Not that it’s really necessary to do so, but since he doesn’t like to be called a troll, Idiot Art seems to be a good substitute.
Once again, repeat after me, questions about the existence of Jesus are not the same thing as questions about the divinity of Christ. This is why Idiot Art will never be Intellectual Art, because he can’t recognize the difference between the two concepts. Challenge him on history, and he launches into an idiotic diatribe about religion.
This wouldn’t be a point worth discussing if it wasn’t for the fact that Intellectual Art raised it in trying to show that he isn’t really Idiot Art, but since there’s really no difference between the two, like most trolls he can’t keep a simple train of thought straight in his head.
Now Idiot Art wants to know about my job, as well as my religion. Most deep thinkers might come up with the thought of clicking on that weblink associated with my name, or maybe reading one of the 100+ articles I’ve written for this website (you know, the kind you find by looking for my name in the author’s index).
But, since Idiot Art doesn’t carry on a thought too well, here is a brief summary of my credentials and work history.
I have a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago, a Masters Degree in public policy from the State University of New York at Albany (full scholarship — room, board, and tuition), and a BA from SUNY Albany (graduating Magna Cum Laude).
I’ve taught graduate level courses on public policy at DePaul University and the University of Chicago. I’ve worked in Washington DC for the top political firm (Cassidy and Associates), reporting to Bob Beckel who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign, Jimmy Carter’s Press Secretary, a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several former congressmen of both political parties, and two former cabinet officers.
I was the primary staff support for the final negotiations of an international treaty, dealing directly with individuals like John Negroponte. I also ran the government affairs office of a Trade Association for 11 years, dealing with state as well as national issues. I’ve been personally briefed on legislation by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and gave expert testimony before a Federal Judge on a civil rights case.
I was staff to a US congressman during his election campaign (I wrote his speeches and developed his issues). I was the chief of staff to the committee that re-wrote the charter for the City of Dallas. I was Executive Director of 6 public-private sector management studies of governmental institutions that documented $125 million in taxpayer savings, certified by a Big 8 accounting firm. For this I was invited to the White House twice to receive personal recognition from two different Presidents of the United States, whose staff used my program to help develop a national template for other communities to follow.
And when I turned 40 I left all this behind to start a marketing firm that represented the national offices of the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and Easter Seals, among others. I sold my interest in that enterprise 5 years later, started three more successful companies, and retired in my early 50s.
This is the education and experience I draw upon to frame my judgments. Now kindly illuminate us as to your credentials.
And by the way, Jesus does indeed love you. It’s just that everyone else thinks you’re an idiot.
Special note to Idiot Art: I don’t believe in the divinity of Christ either, but I am respectful of people who do.
It is possible to have a real discussion when you don’t start off your participation by treating people shamefully, and when you actually offer a substantive thought instead of just telling us about your feelings as if they have some kind of intrinsic analytical value.
But when you do, you become fair game for having your idiocy pointed out and magnified for everyone to see. Only a true idiot would think this means they are being “taken seriously”.
Now tell us all about your credentials, like I’ve defined mine, so we can know the source of your wisdom and experience.
Or maybe you’d just like to psychically project your thoughts again and address something you think I’d say instead of what I actually write.
Congrats Phil. You have become all you ever wanted to be: a false conservative op-ed prophet (I should spell it profit) on a political smear site. Looks like all of those degrees paid off. Maybe before I type anything else I should check on the existence of these documents as opposed to the divinity of them. Or maybe they don’t exist at all because I can’t ‘see’ them. :P I take your response with a grain of salt, but at the same time believe you.
“Jesus does indeed love you. It’s just that everyone else thinks you’re an idiot.”
I don’t know if HTML or CSS works on this site but here it goes:
Jesus loves me, but you PHILLIP…
I knew I saw that somewhere. Borderline plagiarism. Nice aesthetic spin though. You are a very prolific writer, and still just like an hour or two ago, very original.
By the way, I told you that you would ask me about my credentials! Do you want me to prove the existence or the divinity of them?
Still waitin for Jesus. Goodnight Phil. Go to bed.
HTML works!
No surprise that the guy who wants me to define my credentials won’t tell us about his. So much for “Intellectual Art”.
Trolls are so predicatable.
Don’t worry buddy, I don’t have a PHD yet, but I do have a degree and a few computer certifications. Look out because someday I just might take YOUR job.
I find it ironic that art believes Roman civilization as it existed 2000 years ago to be “primitive” when even today, with more available access to information than has ever before existed, as well as more volumes of information than have ever existed, and with the opportunities of a cost-free modern education, and with modern conveyances leaving more free time available for the contemplation of complex ideas and concepts, art couldn’t construct a logical position than even rivals the uneducated religious kooks of the period, let alone the intellectuals and scholars. We’ve certainly come far.
Idiot Art: I don’t have a job. I’m retired.
Trolls are so predictable.
Patrick: Art’s purpose is not to construct a logical argument. It’s to tell us how he feels. None of this requires him to know anything or understand anything. It simply requires him to emote.
Phil,
He hasn’t really told us anything, let alone back up a statement with fact. He is a verbal anarchist, nothing more.
The fact that he doesn’t construct an argument means either he won’t or he can’t. I vote can’t.
I getting really tired of his whining about how mean we are, after which he fires yet another mean-spirited volley at us. Irony is often lost on the ironic.
If he is an example of a tolerant, thoughtful, open-minded liberal, well, I pass.
Art has a degree in what from where? Wouldn’t ask except he raises it as an intellectual defense against Phil’s abridged resume material. I am also curious about computer certifications since I have a basketfull of them to go with BS Rutgers and MBA Drexel. Art is welcome to attempt for my job all he would need is enough money to buy out my partnerships.
Seems to me that the point of the discussion was attempting to set historical perspective on today’s world using teachings from a holy man. We may not believe in the divinity but the teachings are valued and valuable.
When you call a Human into the street for a gunfight you really need to bring a gun which is loaded. A table knife really won’t do the trick. Paper degrees are meaningless in the ebb and flow of ideas with real people.
The core of ideas is more than diatribe which is really an expression a juvenile brain – some psycho babble here could help explain the inability of some with paper degrees.
Seems like pseudo-intellectuals descend into some very interesting interchange.
Another item you need to consider in this last comment #47.
Go back and read the “rantings of the holy man” and see what he said. In the words fo C.S.Lewis – not an intellectual slouch, something like, pretty close for a blog, “in what he said, he is either on the level of a man who calls himself a poached egg or He really is the Christ’”
Try John 3 and 5 for Truth or Fiction – not much wiggle room here. He was either really off his rocker or He had something to say which is not Transcendatal Meditation escape from reason stuff but Truth.
All said – Have a good day. Delight in the Sun – hmmm!
Socialism is Christianity without a face.
Capitalism is Christianity without a conscience.
Both philosophies could be good but when operated by MEN without Absolutes the corruption is fully developed.
Someone needs to write and article about the corruption of Socialism and the corruption of Capitalism.Think it is time to ride into the sun
Bumper sticker slogans are no substitute for real analysis. God speed.