It’s always puzzled me and reading a thread on reddit just how has reignited that puzzlement. Someone on reddit asked people opposed to universal healthcare to explain why and the conservatives in the thread have given reasons like they don’t want to wait their turn for treatment, and that people don’t have an intrinsic right to live, along with the usual “WHY shOUld i PAy fOR YouR HealTHcarE?”

Christians seem to lead the charge with objections such as these. And in my experience of asking for help accessing food, Christians were the cruellest and the least likely to help.

I just don’t understand how someone claims to follow Jesus but holds beliefs like this. When Jesus handed out the loaves and fishes, did he check everyone’s employment and tax status first, and only feed those who were working and paying tax? When he healed the sick and disabled, did he make sure they had health insurance first and refuse to treat those who couldn’t pay?

What makes these people such incredible hypocrites?

  • porcupine@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    It’s true that I was making some demographic assumptions. I was unfamiliar with the oriental orthodox tradition; it seems like they have a reasonable claim to being of a roughly similar age give or take a few years. Given how comparatively small their population is as a proportion of global Christianity, it seems unlikely that the overwhelming majority of modern Christians base their understanding of what “Jesus’ message” was on these particular traditions rather than something derived from the more widespread Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant traditions. Obviously someone raised in a specific tradition is going to have beliefs based in a specific canon regardless of how many other Christians acknowledge the same canon, but that’s sort of my point: any Muslim would claim to have an understanding of “Jesus’ message” that differs in a pretty considerable way to most Christians’ understanding (i.e., did he claim to be god). As far as I know, Jesus is not generally accepted to have written any surviving works directly outlining a definitive version of “his message”. All of the primary sources for what constitutes “Jesus’ message” are, to the best of my knowledge, purportedly second or thirdhand accounts at best, with significant discrepancies between them. One person’s deeply held conviction of what the message really is can differ considerably from another person’s understanding of it, and there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate material bases on which to empirically declare one more or less “correct” than another.

    What I’m not doing is making a positive claim that the Catholic Church is inherently good, liberatory, or compatible with a post-revolutionary socialist state. Marxism-Leninism is fundamentally materialist and consequently atheistic. Every Abrahamic tradition I’m aware of would have some irreconcilable degree of contradiction with the Marxist conception of socialism in the long-term. It’s not the primary contradiction at present, which is why I don’t have an immediate strategic interest in convincing any believers that they’re wrong if they’re acting in service of the global proletariat and managing their own ideological contradictions for the time being. What I will say is that I’ve not seen evidence that Catholicism is qualitatively more incompatible with Marxism (or the aggregate average conception of Jesus’ teachings) than every other (mostly derivative) form of Christianity I’ve ever heard of. They are all ultimately incompatible for broadly similar reasons. Contradictions are present in all actually existing people, and I’m sure you can find examples of both revolutionary and reactionary actions from people across the spectrum of self-identified Christians, Muslims, etc.