Note also that in the only gospel where the whip is mentioned, the construction of the weapon is premeditated. He didn’t just grab some leather strips off a table and start swinging; the action in John 2:15 starts specifically when he has made a φραγέλλιον, phrageillon in Greek, more famous in Latin as the flagellum.
φραγέλλιον phragéllion, frag-el’-le-on … a whip, i.e. Roman lash as a public punishment:—scourge. source
A different Greek word is used for ‘whip’ elsewhere in the New Testament; this one only occurs here in John, and in Matthew and Mark to describe the particularly Roman whipping Jesus receives later on.
Anyway, a flagellum is basically a cat o’ nine tails, and has either a braided leather handle or a heavy stick attached to cords with knots. Making one takes a while, and one worth using to drive out the cattle is going to take some chunks out of a moneychanger. Fancy Roman flagella that feature later on in the scripture had hooks and chains, and were sometimes gladiatorial weapons. Castlevania shit.
This has been your regularly scheduled moment of the dad from My Big Fat Greek Wedding. There you go.
As a Christian Anarchist, this is one of my favorite facts.
My dear brother in Christ, not only did our Lord whip the money changers, He took the time to construct the whip and contemplate just how badly He was gonna fuck up those bastards.
I wish churches would teach that to kids braiding lanyards in Vacation Bible School.
And big ups to anyone who goes hard for Tolstoy!
How freaking awesome would that be, man? I grew up on VBS and Kawanis, Wednesday night dinners and Sunday school at Baptist churches in the south. I loved those times, but would never dream of putting my kids (If I’m ever so fortunate) in those same groups because of the awful politics. It would be amazing if there were something like that that taught radical Christianity. We’d live in a different country.
Grew up in similar fairly liberal environment and ended up running the Christian fellowship group at my college, was big in to New Monasticism and Shane Claiborne etc. Eventually left but it definitely had some radical elements that seem to be lacking now. There was always a toxic side to the church culture as well that never sat well with me, very cliquey and hetero. You could feel the politics seeping in a lot during the Bush years too, even more than in the 90s. Glad I left before I married in to it though, I could never be in a Christian marriage in the way my friends from those days are.
I’ll be honest, I’m not familiar with new monasticism.
But yes, I loved growing up in the Baptist church, I loved the sense of community, the feeling of connection. But the politics of the far right that has taken over these once radical traditions is honestly depressing. It makes me sad to know that if I ever have kids, they will not be able to have those same experiences. I wish there was something similar in the more lefty churches, like the episcopals, the the United church of Christ, or the metropolitan community Church, but it seems like, in my area at least, mainline and fringe lefty churches don’t generally offer those some kind of things. :/ and of course, there is no Christian anarchist community to speak of.
Please don’t conflate markets, products and services with capitalism. That’s yee old liberal con. Capitalism is a modern invention and it’s all about speculation, non-existent liquidity, shell and shelf companies and bringing back usury run amok, what would have people burned at the stake during Jesus times.
Those things wouldn’t be possible in Jesus’ time because the mechanisms fir them could not exist without more modern forms of communication and transport.
Which means current day Christian Capitalists are even worse according to Jesus?
Sort of. The part of the story that’s often overlooked is the original emphasis on the sale of animals for sacrifice.
Everyone zeros in on the money changers as if Jesus was worried about FIAT rates, and overlook that it was people selling animals to be sacrificed as sin offerings that was the whole reason the money changers were there in the first place, and then why it’s followed in Mark with a prohibition on carrying things (i.e. sacrifices) through the temple.
And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.
- Mark 11:15-16
The bit about not carrying things through the temple is noticeably missing from Matthew, despite copying the rest nearly verbatim from Mark.
So while yes, the commercialization of salvation didn’t seem very favorably considered, it may have had more to do with the of salvation part than the commerce part in general.
This attitude is further reflected in the apocrypha too, such as saying 88 of the Gospel of Thomas:
The messengers and the prophets will come to you and give you what belongs to you. You, in turn, give them what you have, and say to yourselves, “When will they come and take what belongs to them?”
Yeah you don’t find Jesus smashing up moneylenders shops in general… just that one time when they were in a temple.
Get these mother fucking money lenders out my mother fucking temple.
IKR!!!
[Matthew 19:24] "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” ~Jesus
Yeah using Roman currency to purchase animals for sacrifice wasn’t allowed, it first needed to be exchanged for temple currency. The money changers charged fees on top of this, effectively using the temple as a business for themselves. So what was supposed to be a holy place was turned in to a place of bartering and commerce.
Capitalism wasn’t a thing back then but don’t let the subtleties and context of the events stop you from your conclusion that Jesus would not like capitalism because he clearly would not on any level think it is OK.
Noooo, Jesus loves America and guns. Why else would he give Joe football the ability to make a sports point?
Right?! White Jesus is the right Jesus, and my Jesus teaches ‘Don’t care, got mine.’
/S
yeah based on what Jesus did say about wealth, fair treatment of others and community it is reasonable to deduce that He wouldn’t have been pro capitalist.
Seriously he’s the “if you have two shirts and you see a guy who needs a shirt give him yours” guy. He wouldn’t like the “but i need two shirts more than the guy needs one” guy.
Adding on to this.
Oppression of the Poor and Injustice to the Wage Earner are two of the four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance.
Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.
Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.
Jimmy’s 5th chapter.
this argument is not so strong though the issue there was that they were doing business in the temple. There are many many verses and themes in Jesus’s teaching, the rest of the new testament, and old testament that while capitalism didn’t yet exist to criticise very explicitly critique and reject the moral and philosophical basis for capitalism.
And while Socialism didn’t exist yet a lot of proto-socialist groups and movements such as the 1381 peasants revolt and diggers (who are arguably the origin of anarchism) had explicit Christian origins so similarities between Christian religious values and Socialist values are no coincidence
He also killed a fig tree out of spite when he was hungry but there was no figs on it
Because it wasn’t the season.
Hey, why are you spoiling the ending?
Spoiler he just fuckin left
jesus was a fascist oppressing the small business owner smdh
He just like me fr fr
He was upset that it was happening in a church you walnut, not that they were selling goods and services.
Jesus was also the one to say that rich people can’t get into heaven. [Matthew 19:24]
I’m not denying that
First off, Jesus isn’t against Capitalism. He never said that selling things wasn’t allowed. Get your facts right.
Jesus wasn’t against capitalism because capitalism didn’t exist when he was alive. However, he was pretty clearly against people getting rich at the expense of others which is at the core of capitalism. Have you even bothered to read the other comments on here? In addition, your definition of capitalism is wrong. One more thing, Jesus wasn’t against selling things. He pretty clearly said “sell your possessions and give to the poor.”
However, he was pretty clearly against people getting rich at the expense of others which is at the core of capitalism.
How did you know? Which verse says that? Jesus’s only issue with the people selling fish were that they were selling it in the temple of God. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have cared. In the Bible, he has never spoken a word against tax collectors, much less Capitalists. Proof?
Sis, I’ve been sending you quotes like these for at least a week. “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.” - matthew 6:24
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” - Matthew 19:24
“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” - proverbs 31:9
“And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.” - Leviticus 23:22
“ For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.” - 1 Timothy 6: 10
Go read the Lemmygrad comments too.
I meant…like…I mean, Jesus only encountered them once. That one time.
He was always talking about how the rich can’t get into heaven and the poor deserve more. It’s important to note that this is the only time he openly got angry at anyone, and also as someone in this thread pointed out, he fashioned a whole whip to do it, which took time.
Elon Musk is Christian. He isn’t getting whipped by Jesus lol.
Lol, just because people claim to be something doesn’t make them so. Elon Musk is a hypocrite , a racist, a transphobe, a benefactor of slavery, and a massive exploiter, of course Jesus wouldn’t approve. Would Jesus have approved of Chattel slavery in the US because southerners used Christianity to justify their way of life? Jesus isn’t out here whipping people anymore. He made it pretty clear that the punishment for exploitation and cruelty on earth is spiritual suffering. “It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.” Elon Musk does not appear to be happy now, and I’m sure if hell exists, he’s going there.
So was Hitler. What’s your point?
Mathew 19 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Also, why bring up tax collectors? Not related at all.
Clearly, America delenda est.
from the bible "Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. "
hear we have a verse where underpaying workers is linked with the displeasure of God. Not only that but the actual profit itself is the source of condemnation and punishment
Jesus’s only issue with the people selling fish were that they were selling it in the temple of God
You’re clearly behind on your mysticism. Jesus did not believe the temple was a physical place. Jesus believed every person could commune with God where previously to speak with god you had to do it in the holiest of holys which could only be found in the temple. Essentially saying that God resides in people and people are the temple and they only have to pray to be able to speak directly with God.
Or some shit like that.
Yeah obv, I know that. But like, Jesus isn’t against Capitalism!
Jesus died
So that I
Do not have to work
A nine to five
–Say it with me friends–
Jesus died
So that I
Do not have to work
A nine to five
Jesus died for our sins. Not for you to be lazy.
Jesus QUIT his job because he was leading by example!
Why else would God have a job but to demonstrate how frivolous it is!
[Matthew 19:24] says otherwise
he most literally was.
Capitalism is when selling things
Capitalism didn’t even exist at the time, wtf are you smoking
Gasp reading “capitalist” as someone seeking to exploit something in order to make capital must be hard. There’s no way anyone could have possibly done something similar to that before supply side Jesus handed capitalism to white people in London or whatever.
It is a great shame that the influence of Judaism and Christianity didn’t permanently instill Western society to maintain a robust concept of usury.
I guess if you redefine reality to match your authoritarian ideology, no one can effectively argue with you.
My dude you do realize this is a meme and not a historical document written in Hebrew right?
While the concept as capitalism didn’t exist, there are certainly many facets of the ancient economy that are facets of capitalism.
Most of the economy was privately held, just certain facets of modern capitalism like corporations didn’t exist.
So, while you are technically true, you know exactly what they are talking about. We can’t 100% relate, but issues like laborers getting a fair wage and the rich exploiting the poor were just as relevant then as now.
EXACTLY BRO!!
Figure out a way to implement communism without creating a Stalin that takes advantage of the situation to seize power, and we can talk. Until then, that is a major problem requiring a solution, and ignoring it makes people look blind.
Figure out a way to implement capitalism without creating genocides through imperialism and we can talk. Until then, that is a major problem requiring a solution, and ignoring it makes people look blind.
Who have we genocided in the past century? Any of us “western” countries would be an acceptable example that proves your point.
Did you specifically choose 100 years in order to not include the Great Famine in Ireland? Or what the East India company did in India? Lassez faire capitalism in action right there, baby.
How about US funded right wing death squads in central and South America that eliminated whole peoples in the 70s and 80s? There are entire languages that are no longer spoken in countries like Guatemala because the people who spoke it were all murdered systematically with US taxpayer money.
The East India company predates capitalism
Not a function of capitalism. Function of human greed. Communism doesn’t solve this. It just moves the greed from corporations and politicians to bueareacrats.
It sounds like you’re arguing more against extreme materialism, where people believe that accumulation of physical goods holds more value than human life.
Also, citing genocide due to use of US taxpayer money isn’t critiquing capitalism. It was taxpayer money, not market or investor money. That’s government corruption, which is independent from capitalism. You see this kind of corruption in both capitalist and communist systems.
I think your main argument should be the prioritization of human dignity over anything else and an extreme vigilance for corruption in institutions of all sorts.
For your first paragraph, yes, I did choose just one century because I am aware that our behavior has changed over our history, many times.
edit: Just to provide an example, we used to genocide our Native Americans and steal their wealth. Now we let them build casinos even though we usually prohibit ourselves from building them, and we gamble away our money to them. These are different things. This indicates a change in our behavior.
For your second paragraph, can you provide a source for that?
Genocide of native Americans is solved because they get to build casinos lmao I hope you lose all your money there and go bankrupt, gtfo
Have you seen the hold France and Russia keep in Africa?
- The CFA Franc still exists in Africa, even though France uses the euro and is an EU country. France enjoys a de facto veto on the boards of two banks of the CFA Franc zone.
- Those “Wagner” pieces of shit were doing business in Africa before they went to Ukraine.
If that’s not imperialism, I don’t know what is.
Wagner is still active in Africa
How about Israel & Palestine and Saudi Arabia & Yemen? Or does it not count if the capitalism is in the middle east and it is just sparkling shitty economic systems then?
If so then look no further than the USA in south east Asia with agent orange or does it not count because it was done during a totally justified and noble war?
Then take a look at the 20,000 migrants who have died trying to cross the Mediterranean in the last decade or so while the European authorities turn a blind eye to mass drownings.
Genocide is a very, very specific word. Your examples do not qualify.
Middle Eastern countries had their borders carved out by the west, yes. For how long do we stay responsible for their actions? When do they get their free will back?
Vietnam was a loss, a disaster and a bad joke, all at American expense. One of the largest failures we’ve ever engaged in. It was not a genocide, we did not attempt to erase Vietnamese culture.
Your migrants case is your best example due to the amount of hate flying around these days, but you do understand that genocide takes more than not helping people, right? We are not feeding the starving people of the world, is that genocide because we do not give them all food?
Exactly. We, as people, espesically NATIONS, cannot tend to all issues at once. We simply can’t. You touch on a very important point that has to be made.
Ethnic minorities in Indonesia with US guidance 🙃 Koreans 🙃 Vietnam 🙃
Bro really thought no genocides happened in the 50s huh
The poor
The problem with this argument is that the risk for someone taking advantage of the situation to accumulate power is the same under any system. I would rather take that risk for an economic system that aims to treat everyone more fairly than for one that, by design, sends wealth up to a select few who hoard it.
If the risk is so equal, why did the USSR fall to it very quickly, where the US, 300 years after our founding, just resisted Trump when he tried to do the same?
I think your risk is higher, because you are taking down the current system in order to put in a potentially improved one. But during that downtime you have extreme vulnerability.
We do not have that problem unless we also dismantle our system to a similarly vulnerable state.
I don’t stop with authoritarianism as the only measure of people being oppressed. There are a ton of ways USA citizens are being oppressed. We just vote for who our oppressors are.
“Dictatorships are inherently unstable: you can slaughter, imprison, and brainwash entire generations and their children will invent the struggle for freedom anew. But promise every man a chance to impose the will of the majority upon his fellows, and you can get them all together behind a system that pits them against each other.” Source
I agree, there are many forms of oppression. However, without the rule of law, the oppression would become rather Mad Max, instead of just disappearing.
We had oppression before we had states. So long as one man can hurt another with physical damage, oppression will be possible
“Vote for our oppressors”. Maybe we are, but if you look through history, you’ll find that every time period has oppression. Doesn’t matter where. You can’t get rid of oppression. It’s not something you can toss away.
This is true and sort of adds to my point. If I am going to risk being oppressed oppressed anyways, I might as well risk it for a system that, if done halfway decent, can lead to more fair distribution of resources. Currently a lot of wealth is being funneled into the hands of a few.
I think it has to do with how they deal with certain things. Democracy is inherently stable, although there are major flaws.
The USSR fell because Yeltsin illegally dissolved the USSR by withdrawing the RSFSR from the union. Yeltsin illegally dissolved the USSR because after decades of anti-communist propaganda and an escalation of the Cold War from Reagan, the people elected liberal leaders (Gorbechev and Yeltsin) from the communist party, who tried to appease the west and destroyed the party, weakening the government, and making it vulnerable to a stunt like Yeltsin’s.
Just out of curiosity, would you describe the Stalinist USSR as a communist society?
No. If you knew how ridiculous that statement was, I don’t think you would have said it. The USSR was never a communist society. Do we change between direct democracy and a democratic republic depending on which party is elected in the US?
Never? Even when they tried to get rid of the ruble, implementing their strides system instead, that tried to measure work based on the average exertion it required?
This occured before Stalin, under Lenin. It lasted about 20 years.
A communist society is a stateless, classless, moneyless society where the means of production are owned by the workers, the basic needs of all people are met, and all people give what they are able. Considering the fact that the means of production were owned by the state, the state maintained currency, and that they were a state, I don’t think they met the criteria. This can be said even if an informed leftist has a different definition of communism. Lenin was experimenting with methods of implementing a socialist economy. As the first country to have a proletarian democracy with a communist party, they didn’t exactly have a lot of historical examples to try and model.
you are in over your head if you think replacing a currency with a different currency pegged to the value of labor is communist. Socialist, maybe, communist, not even a little.
This document is very dated and fairly simplistic but it’s a good 101 basis for what we believe. Just so we’re speaking eye to eye, go read this (it’s very short and light reading, don’t worry), then come back, and use this definition of communism. It’s the definition that communists actually use and it’ll do you well to know your enemy before you pick fights with them.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm jk the Manifesto is more relevant here, a little less short and substantially more dense but if you’re gonna argue with Marxists about Marxism you should probably read the 23 page pamphlet that Marx is actually famous for https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf
Because every single other dominant power teamed up more thoroughly than they had ever done prior or since for the sole purpose of ratfucking them down to every last brick and feasting on the carcass?
So? We did not invade and destroy them. Was the USSR so weak it was unable to be self-sufficient on the world stage?
We didn’t invade them because of mutually assured destruction. We did proxy war them, espionage them, propagandize them, sanction them, embargo them, engage in brinkmanship with them, send blank checks to their enemies, sabotage them, and more, and all of NATO was of a one track mind in doing so.
Was the USSR so weak it was unable to be self-sufficient on the world stage? No, the USSR was so strong that starting from a mean 27 year life expectancy and zero productive infrastructure, it was able to survive this onslaught for nearly a century, and while doing so, put the first human in space, achieve world-class technological innovation, gender equality, literacy rates, and more.
North Korea has even fewer friends and allies than the USSR did, with their Warsaw Pact. Kim is doing just fine, even got Putin to lick his boots recently.
I think they shouldn’t need us to play nice with them in order to survive.
Yeah, but the people are suffering.
Well, US did do a huge part in the fall of the USSR, but you’re right, we did not invade them.
True. I was kinda hitting back at this idea that the USSR was getting lots of credit for anything good that happened there, but when it came to their fall, well, that was all our fault.
I generally agree with your other comments as well.
Yeah. However, that doesn’t mean that US is the villain. Nations are well…rather complex.
“Figure out how I’m gonna be completely happy and healthy for the rest of my life and then we can discuss chemotherapy”
That’s now how you fix things. Relinquishing capitalism doesn’t mean Stalinism, nor communism to be honest.
I fully agree. I was more interested in a conversation on communism and history, so my comment took the conversation in that direction. Personally I support social democratic systems like you find in the Nordic countries.
social democracies still rely on exploitation, they just push all the negative aspects of capitalism somewhere else
Stalin is a really mixed bag. Yes he was responsible for the murder of millions of people and especially towards the end of his life was not working to better the Soviet people, but he’s also one of the few leaders in Russian ir Soviet history that actually tried and succeeding in bringing up the quality of life for the average person in significant ways.
As a former boss put it “Yeah Stalin killed my uncle for no reason but he’s also why my village had electricity, plumbing, and telephones”
Democratic Socialism exists
It’s hilarious hearing people like you talk up Stalin as a bloodthirsty monster, and finally reading what he wrote and seeing a quiet academic.
If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?
Can you please edit Stalin’s wikipedia page? I’m sure it could benefit from the input of someone with your level of expertise. Particularly the areas around his vindictive personality, executions, and torture.
There are hundreds of cited sources in there, those will also need to be updated. Thanks!
There are hundreds of cited sources in there, those will also need to be updated. Thanks!
Which primary sources support your claims?
Fucking lol. He was up there till he died. He was a monster that killed millions of people. Fuck him and fuck any people worshipping him or whitewashing him or his crimes.
Fucking lol. He was up there till he died. He was a monster that killed millions of people.
Is this impression based on any primary sources, or just a general vibe?
Actions speak louder than words. Words aren’t just cheap, they’re free.
If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?
Actions speak louder than words. Words aren’t just cheap, they’re free.
🧐
There’s a big difference between trying to resign and someone saying you are trying to resign. When a man really, genuinely wants to resign, then he simply does so.
According to the accounts you describe, did the people beg him to stay or something? What prevented his resignation?
https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/
VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!
MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.
It was just two men that asked him to stay? How convenient. How can you trust that? I barely trust my own government, much less someone else’s. People lie, and people ask people to lie. This is very common on Earth.
-
click into the source please (or at least read the URL), he tried to resign 4 separate times and every single time the motion was even entertained he was voted to stay unanimously, once even by Trotsky’s delegation.
-
if you want to turn this into “your sources are fabricated”, well then, no YOU, and with that, we’re done here. I’ve seen this play out too many times to bother with it again.
-
Figure out a way to implement communism without creating a Stalin
According to the accounts you describe, did the people beg him to stay or something? What prevented his resignation?
Is there a reason that you’re confident in your knowledge of Stalin, yet unaware of the facts? What is your confidence based on?
Also, you didn’t answer the question. Is it because you don’t actually know anything about Stalin?
No, I know several things about him. He had a very large moustache for instance.
Perhaps you could educate me on these accounts you are describing? I clearly am unfamiliar with them, otherwise I would not be asking you about them.
You made the claim, you should back it.
Or you should acknowledge that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Either way works for me. ♥️
Source?
Do you mean a source for Stalin having a quiet, academic, writing voice?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/introduction.htm
