• DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    He was a divine right monarchist. He didn’t once talk about seizing the means of production, and I don’t think his healthcare plan of “laying hands on everyone” is scalable to today’s population!

    Being anti-authority simply doesn’t mean the same thing when the authorities are the Romans.

    • DaSaw@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When James spoke of helping the poor, he said, “is is not enough to say ‘be warm and well fed’, you must actually give him food and clothing”. He might also have said, “it is not enough to say, ‘be healed!’, you must also pay his medical bill”.

    • DaSaw@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, the “divine monarchist” point is a weird one. When asked about it, Jesus asserted that his kingdom is “not of this world”. And when the Israelite demanded of them relief from the anarchy of the period of the Judges in the form of “a king like the nations have”, the response was “don’t you already have an even better one?” Which is what John Locke cited when writing against monarchy as practiced at the time.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So, a divine monarch.

        Him. The King of the Jews. Their God.

        Your cope is weird, purposefully myopic, and misses the obvious joking tone of the comment.