NationStates Jolt Archive

Whatever happened to this group? It seems nowadays (thanks to stereotyping) that All Christians in America MUST be conservative. This is not nearly the case. I am a proud member of the Christian Left, the people who are taught to love thy neighbor, seek justice, love kindness, walk humbly with our God, etc.

However, we are caught in the middle of a power struggle. I have 2 messages to all the people out there.

To the Liberals: STOP stareotyping all Christians as conservatives! It's bad enough that Bush is President, but I am automatically assumed to like him by other people. This is ridiculous!

To the Conservatives (Particularly the Christian Right): STOP calling us traitors to the "cause", simply because we have different beliefs. That is extreme prejudice, and almost on the border of racism.

It's useless, man.
Modern day "Christianity" is all about conforming. If you don't think like them, they'll beat you out of your beliefs.
Just give it up. It's old thinking anyway.

Ah. I see, the modern-day Inquisition. This is the kind of thing that is making people hate the US.

I certainly don't stereotype Christians as conservatives. My sister is on the Christian Left, as are many of her Christian friends. Then again, many of them are also conservative, so I guess it is, just like with all people, a mixture, all having Christianity as the impetus or (in the total nutjobs' cases) excuse behind their beliefs. As for those on the Christian Right, I might refer you to the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 6:24 and Luke 3:11.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

(Yes, that is my puppet nation, :headbang: )

I don't think a real Christian is defined by anything else but what is inside of him. Jesus Christ.

what is a Christian Left?

The Christian Right in America is disgraceful. It stands not for the poor but for corporations. It is hateful and intolerant. It has little relation to Christ at all.

The Christian Republicans are trying to align US politics so that it is not Democrats vs Republicans, but rather Christians vs. the rest. Tom DeLAy is particularly guilty of this.

what is a Christian Left?
I would guess it is someone who actually follows the teachings of Christ - that is, to oppose corruption, stand up for the poor and be accepting of people who are not like you.

Given these teachings, it's amazing that any Christians line up with conservatives, let alone a majority of them.

I don't think a real Christian is defined by anything else but what is inside of him. Jesus Christ.
dude let him out, he'll suffocate!

I'm proud to be a left wing christian. Unfortunately I'm over here in GREAT britain, so I can't really help out over there.

Poor bastards, I think most english christians would be regarded as "liberals"

Whatever happened to this group? It seems nowadays (thanks to stereotyping) that All Christians in America MUST be conservative. This is not nearly the case. I am a proud member of the Christian Left, the people who are taught to love thy neighbor, seek justice, love kindness, walk humbly with our God, etc.

Conservative, fundamentalist Christians are just the loudest group. As with any group, the fundies aren't actually in the majority.

Unfortunately, those of us who lean to the left at least a little more are generally attacked from both sides, so it's hard to be heard.

I am a proud member of the Christian Left, the people who are taught to love thy neighbor, seek justice, love kindness, walk humbly with our God, etc.
Hmm. Sounds like a description of your average, practicing Christian. Care to explain why that would fit only the "Christian left?"

Hmm. Sounds like a description of your average, practicing Christian. Care to explain why that would fit only the "Christian left?"

The ideals that Christ taught were pretty far left. They may be viewed as closer to the middle now, but they certainly wouldn't be seen as right wing. That's probably what this person was talking about.

Most fundamentalists (who are generally far right) may have been taught to love their neighboor, etc, but don't even consider practicing it.

The ideals that Christ taught were pretty far left. They may be viewed as closer to the middle now, but they certainly wouldn't be seen as right wing. That's probably what this person was talking about.

Most fundamentalists (who are generally far right) may have been taught to love their neighboor, etc, but don't even consider practicing it.
Ok, how about specifics? What exactly is it that sets "Christian leftists" off from other Christians, specifically "Christian rightists?"

EDUT: For example, you might explain exactly what you mean by "love their neighbor." Are you saying that "right-wing Christians" do not love their neighbors?

They do not love their worldly neighbors, like Iraq, France, Canada, heck, the entire world for that matter.

A quote from a section of Psalm 23:

"Thou hast prepared a table for me in the presence of mine enemies", or something like that.

What I am saying is, in the ideal world, we should all be able to get along. Unfortunately, the fundamentalist EXTREMISTS of ALL THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS, namely Christianity, Judaism, and Islam refuse to get along and persist in their holy wars. It is the duty of the moderates to try and make this world get along with each other.

In my country, I am quite confortable with religious people (though i am myself an agnostic), as they are evenly distributed between left and right.

And some countries, such as brazil, the Church is actually associated with the left wing.

So yea, all religious folks that think that because they must be conservative are wrong, in my humble opinion. They can be leftists. They must only respect the separation of state and religion :)

Hello, I am a proud athiest. Yet, i am still disgusted by the steriotypes given to the christian right or left. Its better to leave people alone to think what they want to, and respect it. i.e. Amendment 1 to the Constitution.
Just b/c people belong to a certain group, doesn't mean they conform to ever belief of the majority, or anyone for that matter.

Ok, how about specifics? What exactly is it that sets "Christian leftists" off from other Christians, specifically "Christian rightists?"

EDUT: For example, you might explain exactly what you mean by "love their neighbor." Are you saying that "right-wing Christians" do not love their neighbors?

Well, I wouldn't exactly use those terms. I was simply pointing out that Christ himself was socially liberal - preaching to help the poor, to do what you can for fellow human beings, etc.

The right-wing fundamentalists that we see on T.V./hear on the radio/etc. are generally rich, staunchly opposed to helping the poor, and quite adamant in acting like they don't love anyone who doesn't agree with them on every point.

I think that either a liberal Christian or a conservative Christian is most likely guilty of selective morality and cognitive dissonance. For example, those who are pro-Iraq war but anti-abortion are, in my estimation, entirely hypocritical and fail to apply the same principals in the one instance than they do in the other. However, those on the other side, who have the exact opposite stance, are guilty of the exact same thing.

I do have some major problems with the "religious right" in our country. I'm sick of them defining for our nation what it means to be a Christian, and I'm sick of them confusing their culture with their religion. I'm so sick of the "us against them" mentality prevalent in the US, largely being spearheaded by the religious right.

Anyway, the the only other times that Christians were majorly associated with conservatve were during the times of European Colonization, and the Crusades. Look how those ended up. (The Crusades ended in failure, while almost all of the colonies in the New World rebelled against their mother nations.)

I think that either a liberal Christian or a conservative Christian is most likely guilty of selective morality and cognitive dissonance. For example, those who are pro-Iraq war but anti-abortion are, in my estimation, entirely hypocritical and fail to apply the same principals in the one instance than they do in the other. However, those on the other side, who have the exact opposite stance, are guilty of the exact same thing.

Hmmmmmm, find me anyone (except for a select few that are proclaimed atheists) that is pro-abortion, and you might have a point with that hypocrisy thing.

Hmmmmmm, find me anyone (except for a select few that are proclaimed atheists) that is pro-abortion, and you might have a point with that hypocrisy thing.

People who are pro Iraq-war aren't necessarily "pro civilian deaths," however, that is an unavoidable byproduct of the war. Human fetal deaths are an unavoidable byproduct of legalized abortion, and those who are "pro-choice" are, of course, in favor of legalized abortion.

I am Pro-life and Anti-Iraq War. I am against any real world killing. By that I mean killing of any real breathing sentient person. (I still play Morrowind and Starcraft alot though, and they involve virtual animated violence.)

Back to the point: The Christian Right are trying to play the role of God, by deciding who is "unholy" and what not. My beliefs state that Only God can decide, not us mere mortals. All we do is pray for everyone in danger areas (soldiers and insurgents alike)

" For example, those who are pro-Iraq war but anti-abortion are, in my estimation, entirely hypocritical and fail to apply the same principals in the one instance than they do in the other. However, those on the other side, who have the exact opposite stance, are guilty of the exact same thing."

What kind of comparison is that? Are you saying that a decision about personnal health is anywhere on the same scale as the decision to invade a defenceless country on false pretences, after subjecting it to a decade of brutal sanctions which resulted in the death of half a million children?

So, yes it's possible to simultaneously support a womans right to choose and oppose mass mayhem and slaughter without being hypocritical, since the same principal is used in each case. I do not have the right to impose my opinions on others, while I may do my damnedest (ha! ha!) to persuade them criminalizing their choices or attacking them is a no-no.

" For example, those who are pro-Iraq war but anti-abortion are, in my estimation, entirely hypocritical and fail to apply the same principals in the one instance than they do in the other. However, those on the other side, who have the exact opposite stance, are guilty of the exact same thing."

What kind of comparison is that? Are you saying that a decision about personnal health is anywhere on the same scale as the decision to invade a defenceless country on false pretences, after subjecting it to a decade of brutal sanctions which resulted in the death of half a million children?

So, yes it's possible to simultaneously support a womans right to choose and oppose mass mayhem and slaughter without being hypocritical, since the same principal is used in each case. I do not have the right to impose my opinions on others, while I may do my damnedest (ha! ha!) to persuade them criminalizing their choices or attacking them is a no-no.
There were 857,475 abortions among women aged 15-44 in 2000. So, if you don't subscribe to the pro-choice philosophy, yes the abortion issue could be seen as an issue of similar magnitude. Even the biggest death tolls of the Iraqi war don't reach that high.

There were 857,475 abortions among women aged 15-44 in 2000. So, if you don't subscribe to the pro-choice philosophy, yes the abortion issue could be seen as an issue of similar magnitude. Even the biggest death tolls of the Iraqi war don't reach that high.

Wow!! That's a big number!! Can you imagine the amount of human sufferring that would happen if a million unwanted babies were added the the worlds population each year, every year?

Not to trivialise your point, but is that number just in the U.S.? And does it only include ones done in a clinical sterile setting by medical professionals? If so the number would be much higher from all the women having "back-ally" abortions. Because, let's face it, women have always had abortions and always will. The only real decision on the matter is whether it's safe or not.

Wow!! That's a big number!! Can you imagine the amount of human sufferring that would happen if a million unwanted babies were added the the worlds population each year, every year?

Not to trivialise your point, but is that number just in the U.S.? And does it only include ones done in a clinical sterile setting by medical professionals? If so the number would be much higher from all the women having "back-ally" abortions. Because, let's face it, women have always had abortions and always will. The only real decision on the matter is whether it's safe or not.
Why would a woman have a backalley abortion if its legalized in every state in the US. I'm sure some still happen, but the number can't be big enough to significantly impact things. The number is just for the US, yes.

Whatever happened to this group? It seems nowadays (thanks to stereotyping) that All Christians in America MUST be conservative. This is not nearly the case. I am a proud member of the Christian Left, the people who are taught to love thy neighbor, seek justice, love kindness, walk humbly with our God, etc.

However, we are caught in the middle of a power struggle. I have 2 messages to all the people out there.

To the Liberals: STOP stareotyping all Christians as conservatives! It's bad enough that Bush is President, but I am automatically assumed to like him by other people. This is ridiculous!

To the Conservatives (Particularly the Christian Right): STOP calling us traitors to the "cause", simply because we have different beliefs. That is extreme prejudice, and almost on the border of racism.
I am happy you bring this up. Although I am Christian Far-right I can be understand why you are left.
I don't, however, understand how you can support Kerry, if that is who you support.
But it is true Christians are seen as right stereotypes

you wont get people to stop stereotyping you for your beliefs, so you might as well just do your best to express your opinions to show what you believe in. But fighting and saying negative things towards other people's views who you don't agree with, like the right, won't help you there, and is really just hipocracy towards them.

" For example, those who are pro-Iraq war but anti-abortion are, in my estimation, entirely hypocritical and fail to apply the same principals in the one instance than they do in the other. However, those on the other side, who have the exact opposite stance, are guilty of the exact same thing."

What kind of comparison is that? Are you saying that a decision about personnal health is anywhere on the same scale as the decision to invade a defenceless country on false pretences, after subjecting it to a decade of brutal sanctions which resulted in the death of half a million children?

So, yes it's possible to simultaneously support a womans right to choose and oppose mass mayhem and slaughter without being hypocritical, since the same principal is used in each case. I do not have the right to impose my opinions on others, while I may do my damnedest (ha! ha!) to persuade them criminalizing their choices or attacking them is a no-no.

I knew that I shouldn't have brought up abortion; I was merely using it as an example of the hypocrisy of the religious right.

No, I'm not saying that a decision about personal health, (which abortion isn't in most cases, and you know it,) is the same as invading a defenseless country, but here's my point:

Those who support a "woman's right to choose" may not necessarily be pro-abortion. However, they are willing to accept that human fetuses will die as a result of a policy that they support. To them, those losses are acceptable as long as the all important freedom to choose abortion is maintained.

Those who support the Iraq war aren't necessarily big fans of civilian death or destroyed lives. They don't support the Iraq war because they want Iraqi children to die or because they want our soldiers to return home with missing limbs. However, they are willing to accept those losses in order to see the US flexing it's muscles overseas and in order to see regime change. Of course, most of them supported the war for false reasons, but that is beside the point; those reasons mattered in their minds and they were willing to allow people to die for them.

For me, in neither case do the ends justify the means. I believe that a woman shouldn't have to endure an unwanted pregnancy, and I also believe that Hussein was an evil dictator and should have been taken out of power. However, I'm not willing to let innocent people die or lives be destroyed in order to see either of those things happen.

They do not love their worldly neighbors, like Iraq, France, Canada, heck, the entire world for that matter.

A quote from a section of Psalm 23:

"Thou hast prepared a table for me in the presence of mine enemies", or something like that.

What I am saying is, in the ideal world, we should all be able to get along. Unfortunately, the fundamentalist EXTREMISTS of ALL THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS, namely Christianity, Judaism, and Islam refuse to get along and persist in their holy wars. It is the duty of the moderates to try and make this world get along with each other.
So what do you use as the basis for deciding who to love and under what circumstances? I was under the impression that we were called upon to love our "neighbor." So who is our "neighbor?"

Wow!! That's a big number!! Can you imagine the amount of human sufferring that would happen if a million unwanted babies were added the the worlds population each year, every year?
Wow! Can you imagine if men and women took responsibility and didn't go sleeping around? What a concept, taking responsibility for your actions. No, there is no way that the majority of those abortions were rape or incest. Most likely teenagers or women in their 20s using it as a form of contraceptive, which is wrong.

Why would a woman have a backalley abortion if its legalized in every state in the US.

It's a mistake to assume that because a service is legal that there is universal access to that service.

Anyways, back to my original point, there is no moral dilemma in supporting a woman's right to choose and opposing imperialist adventures. They both extend from the same principal.

They do not love their worldly neighbors, like Iraq, France, Canada, heck, the entire world for that matter.


Yes they do that is why they advocate freeing their neighbors from tyranny and mass death why the left (and isolationists) just wants to let them all die, live in poverty, and live without freedom, so they can just get by without doing anything and keeping their 'morality'.

Wow! Can you imagine if men and women took responsibility and didn't go sleeping around? What a concept, taking responsibility for your actions. No, there is no way that the majority of those abortions were rape or incest. Most likely teenagers or women in their 20s using it as a form of contraceptive, which is wrong.

Well, I personally like to sleep around and it has been my great fortune to have met a number of similarly minded women. You'll be happy to know that in every incident (drunk or not) condoms were used, care was taken putting them on so that there has only been one occasion when one broke, and guess what? Nicole had ready access to the morning after pill!!! The pharmacist wasn't some conservative nut job refusing to sell it to her!! No abortion required.

The irresponsible ones are those that deny teenagers a proper course in sex education. The irresponsible ones are those that use scare tactics and misinformation to inculcate youth with guilt and fear in order to regulate their behavior.

Oh, and please don't tell me not to sleep around. I don't attack you for your behavior, please show the same respect.

I would guess it is someone who actually follows the teachings of Christ - that is, to oppose corruption, stand up for the poor and be accepting of people who are not like you.

Given these teachings, it's amazing that any Christians line up with conservatives, let alone a majority of them.
Thank you for having a brain.

I pride myself on belonging to the Christian Left - it's probably one of the biggest political things I proud myself upon in this life, and there aren't many. See, as a Catholic, I actually follow the Church's doctrines on helping others and social responsibility as well as Christ's original teachings. I recently stated in my history class that "Jesus was a communist!" and nobody could say anything to the contrary. (Note: small-c communist, not a Communist - there's a difference).

I see the Christian Left as being the perfect culmination of Christ and the values of the modern world. I've tried to live my life according to Jesus's teachings, and this led me to the Christian Left.

As one of those oh-so-often stereotyped members of the Christian right (Canadian not American though), a supporter of Bush (Not everything he does, just most of it). I've found that very often, as is proven in this thread, it is the "Christian Right" that is being discriminated against. The simple fact of the matter is Right or left wing, all people are called to love their neighbours, which if you look back at the greek form of the word as it was first used in the Bible, you'll notice that it pertains to loving EVERYONE!

I really don't think that it makes much of a difference what "side" you are, meaning right or left. I think that Christians should not classify themselves as right of left, but should think before they make an opinion about something, like abortion or something like that, ask yourself "Does God smile on this thing?" Like abortion, God would probably not smile on abortion, because it is murder, even if the baby is not conscious of itself. Another thing would be preserving the rainforests of the world and not making them into lumber and toothpicks. Anyways, GOd obviously would smile down on people preserving his beautiful Earth, his creation. SO it all comes down to what GOD thinks, not what WE think!

Also, please stop referring to yourself as a member of a different type of Christianity (i.e. Left-wing or right-wing) Jesus prayed that those who believed in Him “would be brought into complete unity so the world will know that you sent me” (John 17:23) so the simple fact is you should be standing alongside your Christian bretheren, not against.

As long as Jesus is in your heart and you have repented for your sins, you will experience Eternal life. And there is not a Christian Right Heaven and a Christian Left Heaven, so you're gonna be with a lot of Christians with beliefs you don't agree with, but God says to love EVERYBODY, no matter what color, sex, or race! (or side)
The White Dove
God Bless Everyone! no matter what "side" you're on :)

Why would a woman have a backalley abortion if its legalized in every state in the US. I'm sure some still happen, but the number can't be big enough to significantly impact things. The number is just for the US, yes.

They might because it costs money for it, and they don't have the funding for it. Nor is abortion a subsidized medical procedure anymore, so for working-class women, which are in the end the people who really need the procedure in order to keep their standard of living even approaching survival-level, a coat hanger often ends up being the tool of choice.

Really it's a great example between the dichotomy between what we want from Republican legislation, and what we often get from their implementation: we wanted to avoid using federal dollars to pay for abortions, but what we got was no fewer abortions, but more people going to the emergency rooms to treat those botched ones they'd been forced to undertake.


Wow! Can you imagine if men and women took responsibility and didn't go sleeping around? What a concept, taking responsibility for your actions. No, there is no way that the majority of those abortions were rape or incest. Most likely teenagers or women in their 20s using it as a form of contraceptive, which is wrong.

Most men and women do take responsibility for their actions, but responsibility will not form a magic shield around the ovum if the condom breaks. I suppose you could be one of those iconoclasts who insists on waiting until marriage, but of course, that conveniently leaves out the fact that the average age of marriage over the last 50 years has increased by seven years (to 26 years of age). Asking for people to avoid sexual content for the first third of their lives is a bit like asking them in the name of holiness to give up water for three months at a go. . .if God had wanted that of us, he would have built our bodies to tolerate it.

Hmm. Sounds like a description of your average, practicing Christian. Care to explain why that would fit only the "Christian left?"
Explain how supporting an ever-increasing rich-poor gap fit's Christ's ideals.
("It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven")

Explain how supporting a war that is killing tens of thousands of people (or any war) fits Christ's ideals.
("Blessed are the peacemakers, for they are the children of God")

Explain how living in gated communities and excluding minorities from jobs, clubs, organisations, etc fits Christ's ideals.
("Love thy neighbour")

Then come back here.

You are supposed to treat your body as a temple, because God made it. Virginity can only be lost once, and once it's lost it's GONE. :eek: What an idea! So be wise with how you live your life...because I don't think that Jesus ever "slept around"...

You are supposed to treat your body as a temple, because God made it. Virginity can only be lost once, and once it's lost it's GONE. :eek: What an idea! So be wise with how you live your life...because I don't think that Jesus ever "slept around"...


Yup!! Gone forever, and let me tell you, it was like getting rid of the mark of cain. What a relief! I also was able to experience a joyous feeling of intimacy w/ my significant other (at the time) :fluffle: This is by no means an endorsement of promiscuity. It would be the crudest form of intrusion into your privacy for me to demand that you engage in intercourse.

As far as the temple analogy is concerned, I will follow maintain it in my own particular idiom.

And finally, if god sent Jesus to earth to suffer and die as a mortal, why would he be denied that one quintessental human experience of love making?

He wasn't always fasting in the dessert!!

You are supposed to treat your body as a temple, because God made it. Virginity can only be lost once, and once it's lost it's GONE. :eek: What an idea! So be wise with how you live your life...because I don't think that Jesus ever "slept around"...

First off, there is nothing inherent within sex itself that defiles the "temple": it's a natural biological process that in many cases makes the body work better. People who have regular sexual relations tend to have healthier cardiovascular systems, higher immune responses, and lower levels of stress hormones in their bloodstream. Now, you could argue that what defiles the body is not sexual activity per se, but the reckless, hedonistic pursuit thereof without consideration for things like love. On that point I'd agree, but that still doesn't answer the charge. Love doesn't form a magic shield around your ovaries if the condom breaks either, and if so, then abortions might still be needed.

Secondly, there is no real evidence for or against the idea that Jesus did or did not have sexual relations. There is some evidence to show that he was fairly asexual (and a mountain of post-Augustine Christian "interpretation", but that is beside the point). There is also some textual evidence of the Bible saying that he had a romantic relationship with one of his Apostles. If you look at the passage concerning the Last Supper in Mark, Luke, and Matthew, all three refer to him speaking to ". . .the Apostle that he loved." The inference is that the writers wouldn't have referred to him (or her, as it might have been Mary Magdelene they were referring too) in such a way if this wasn't, how shall we put it, a "special" love that Jesus had, as opposed to the fraternal kind thought by Augustine and every Christian thinker since. But, this is still somewhat of a supposition. In the end, the only real conclusion is that inconclusion on the subject is the best possible answer. Jesus definately wasn't an Essene, but then again you can be a standard Jewish male and still have no sexual relations.

The irresponsible ones are those that deny teenagers a proper course in sex education. The irresponsible ones are those that use scare tactics and misinformation to inculcate youth with guilt and fear in order to regulate their behavior.

Around this age you may want to get naked and touch each other. If you do this you will get klamidia(sic) and you will die. If you have sex you will get AIDS and you will die. :fluffle:

You are supposed to treat your body as a temple, because God made it. Virginity can only be lost once, and once it's lost it's GONE. :eek: What an idea! So be wise with how you live your life...because I don't think that Jesus ever "slept around"...

Just because your interpretation of god is no fun doesn't mean I won't have fun with my temple.

Explain how supporting an ever-increasing rich-poor gap fit's Christ's ideals.

Explain how supporting a war that is killing tens of thousands of people (or any war) fits Christ's ideals.

Explain how living in gated communities and excluding minorities from jobs, clubs, organisations, etc fits Christ's ideals.

Then come back here.
Um ... what the hell is THIS all about? Why would I want to explain any of those things? Perhaps you have me confused with someone else???

Around this age you may want to get naked and touch each other. If you do this you will get klamidia(sic) and you will die. If you have sex you will get AIDS and you will die. :fluffle:

Erm, chlamydia is fairly harmless as infections go. . .one bout of penicillin usually does the trick. As for HIV, yeah, it can kill you, but that's if you have unprotected vaginal, anal, or (in very rare cases) oral sex with an untested HIV-positive person, which is still a fairly rare occurance. There are plenty of ways to touch another person without any risk of HIV at all, and plenty of ways to avoid it. To say that it's an automatic that if you have sex out of wedlock, you will die is a bit foolish.

Erm, chlamydia is fairly harmless as infections go. . .one bout of penicillin usually does the trick. As for HIV, yeah, it can kill you, but that's if you have unprotected vaginal, anal, or (in very rare cases) oral sex with an untested HIV-positive person, which is still a fairly rare occurance. There are plenty of ways to touch another person without any risk of HIV at all, and plenty of ways to avoid it. To say that it's an automatic that if you have sex out of wedlock, you will die is a bit foolish.


Buddy, he was being sarcastic. :headbang:

Whatever happened to this group? It seems nowadays (thanks to stereotyping) that All Christians in America MUST be conservative. This is not nearly the case. I am a proud member of the Christian Left, the people who are taught to love thy neighbor, seek justice, love kindness, walk humbly with our God, etc.

However, we are caught in the middle of a power struggle. I have 2 messages to all the people out there.

To the Liberals: STOP stareotyping all Christians as conservatives! It's bad enough that Bush is President, but I am automatically assumed to like him by other people. This is ridiculous!

To the Conservatives (Particularly the Christian Right): STOP calling us traitors to the "cause", simply because we have different beliefs. That is extreme prejudice, and almost on the border of racism.

Personally, I think that religion, government, and corporations are the same bunch of thugs operating under different titles. Do mind that I refer to the corporate-style religion that seems dominant in the US and some other countries, not privately held beliefs or the few religious institutions that have a more positive than negative influence on the world. Given that your beliefs, no matter how strong, are incapable of altering the non-existence of any sort of god or so-called "higher power," what your religion becomes depends entirely upon what you make it because the resulting inherent lack of any sort of absolute nature puts the actual nature of it entirely in the hands of its adherents. You could turn it into a great force for good, or you could go back to propping up tyrants. Believe it or not, you are quite capable of having a small but important influence on the outcome of things. At this point, the only hope Christianity has of going permanently onto my list of things we need to get rid of before we make any real headway down the long road to the true golden age of human civilization, whatever form it may take, is to stop supporting moron politicians whether left, right, center, or in a class of their own.

Hello. I'm Bill Mutz, and I'm a vocal advocate of political sanity, whatever I currently think is properly defined as such. It's a pleasure to meet all of you. Before you ask, no, I am not a libertarian and oppose libertarianism as strongly as I oppose any other pseudo-religious political ideology.

Well, I'm not sure about the Christian Left as a political group, but most of the denominations associated with leftward leanings (Lutheran, Methodists, etc.) have been declining in membership in the US for about a decade now.

And now the Christian Right are more vocal and emboldened because of the recent victories they have gotten, like President Bush's reelection.

Um ... what the hell is THIS all about? Why would I want to explain any of those things? Perhaps you have me confused with someone else???
Because you said that your average practising Christian does those things, and to explain how they couldn't. I merely asked you to explain how, if they are truly Christians, they do not follow those three simple things?

Can you not read your own writing...?

Because you said that your average practising Christian does those things, and to explain how they couldn't. I merely asked you to explain how, if they are truly Christians, they do not follow those three simple things?

Can you not read your own writing...?
Yes, but you obviously can't.

I was talking about the "Christian right" and "Christian left," and trying to determine what the basis for the alleged differences were. By simply quoting scripture at me you contribute more heat than light to the discussion. What, specifically, do you mean by ( for example ) love your neighbor as yourself? Who is your neighbor? What does it mean, in practice, to love him?

I go to a very left leaning christian church and I'm amazed how we can read the gospels of Christ and a left leaning one and a right leaning one can get almost 2 completely different interpretations of what he meant. I've turned a bit more conservative in my religious beliefs as I've gotten older, although many of my views are still similar to the churches beliefs.

The ideals that Christ taught were pretty far left. They may be viewed as closer to the middle now, but they certainly wouldn't be seen as right wing. That's probably what this person was talking about.

Most fundamentalists (who are generally far right) may have been taught to love their neighboor, etc, but don't even consider practicing it.
Jesus was a f*cking communist... definitely way too left-wing for me (atheist). He was for total redistribution of wealth and didn't like rich people very much.

The Christian Left would probably be considered Moderate Christians.. Or somewhere towards the middle.

The left nowadays are far TOO left. Because Christ wasn't an Anarchist. We believe in a God as a ruling power, that would mean we would be leaning Right one way or another.

People who are pro Iraq-war aren't necessarily "pro civilian deaths," however, that is an unavoidable byproduct of the war. Human fetal deaths are an unavoidable byproduct of legalized abortion, and those who are "pro-choice" are, of course, in favor of legalized abortion.

Someone who is pro-choice does not have to be in favor of abortion at all - they just have to believe in the right to religious freedom.

Someone who is pro-choice does not have to be in favor of abortion at all - they just have to believe in the right to religious freedom.

Abortion isn't necessarily a religious issue. It's an issue of human rights, whichever side of the coin you happen to fall on.

The Christian Left? What about the Christian Moderates, like myself?

The Christian Left would probably be considered Moderate Christians.. Or somewhere towards the middle.

The left nowadays are far TOO left. Because Christ wasn't an Anarchist. We believe in a God as a ruling power, that would mean we would be leaning Right one way or another.
oh yeah, all us left people are anarchists


anarchy is fictional bullshit

The Christian Left

Where did he go?


[ba-dum ching]

Jesus was a f*cking communist... definitely way too left-wing for me (atheist). He was for total redistribution of wealth and didn't like rich people very much.


Yes, as Jesus walked along preaching the word of god, he had the little red book in his hand :rolleyes:

HEY!,
I'm a passionate member of the christian right, and feel very offended by you stereotyping me. You make it seem like i'm some hate-mongering individual because i want to save little babies and make our nation safe. Maybe no one thinks there's such thing as a christian left because most leftist christians have it backwards and are liberals before christians, instead of being christians before being liberals. Most of the christian liberals, I say most because I do have some liberal christian friends who have it right and that I admire for that, are happy to keep their christianity on sundays thinking that they're souls are safe as long as they visit a building once a week. I'm sorry but that's not the way it is. I know Jesus has saved my soul, and that is more important than the fact that i'm a republican. It's time that christians care more about their God than their wallets.