If one set of ideological principles conforms to another, why is it relevant if one of them hasn’t been given a specific name yet? Are the principles not still comparable?
Comment on Socialism is the actual teaching of Jesus
jaybone@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
The New Testament has been around for a couple of thousand years. The concept of socialism has only been around for less than 200.
I wonder, if religion survives for another thousand years, what will people then say Jesus taught regarding various other isms that have yet to be constructed.
Meltdown@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
pocker_machine@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I’m not religious. But your point doesn’t make sense. Being around X number of years doesn’t contradict with the possibility of one idea being a part of the other. I guess that’s what the user is trying to say, but I’m not sure how factual it is.
jaybone@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
It’s an observation. Is it not an accurate one? I’m not sure how it “makes sense” or not.
But the implication is, someone might use religious text to endorse some other concept. Does that make the concept more or less valid? Does that make the religious text more or less valid? I don’t know.
pocker_machine@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
To be clear, OP is not questioning the validity either. You are, and that’s a separate discussion.
If I tell you “playing with fire is risky”, and then you bring up an old book to me where is it written “playing with fire is risky”, the discussion is not about whether I told you that from the book. It is not about whether my advice is valid or the book is valid. The discussion is just that people who had read the book should have already known “playing with fire is risky”.