NationStates Jolt Archive

Christians, Liberals, what's the fighting about?
From the outside looking in, it's so strange to me that you both are not synonymous.
I can't even begin to comprehend how the uber-right has taken up a truly "Satanist" or "secular" position (Rand, Machiavelli), while the left has taken such a (let's face it and not ignore the elephant) anti-Christian stance. Wasn't Jesus the ultimate communist?
Can anyone who understands what I'm talking about explain this to me?

Please, don't flame!

Edit: Changed terminology apropriately from socialist to communist.

He's speaking in near-logic, get him!

He's speaking in near-logic, get him!
If that's the best you can do discussing philosophy and politics, I really do feel bad that you're such an asshole.

If that's the best you can do discussing philosophy and politics, I really do feel bad that you're such an asshole.
Humor, man, you lack it. :D It's funny watching THIS from the outside-in.

If that's the best you can do discussing philosophy and politics, I really do feel bad that you're such an asshole.

I think there was a sense of sarcasm there.

If that's the best you can do discussing philosophy and politics, I really do feel bad that you're such an asshole.
I thought that was Oscar Wilde you were quoting there- but come to think of it wasnt it Plato?

Christians, Liberals, what's the fighting about?
From the outside looking in, it's so strange to me that you both are not synonymous.
I can't even begin to comprehend how the uber-right has taken up a truly "Satanist" or "secular" position (Rand, Machiavelli), while the left has taken such a (let's face it and not ignore the elephant) anti-Christian stance. Wasn't Jesus the ultimate socialist?
Can anyone who understands what I'm talking about explain this to me?

Please, don't flame!
I've been wondering the same thing. Christians and liberals disagree on social issues. That's why there is sometimes tension.

Jesus wasn't a socialist; you can't retroactively assign someone a political label/philosophy, especially when we're talking about a couple thousand years separating the person and the philosophy.

I don't know really what to think of this, but what I do know is that the left is more of a collection of causes, and that most of those causes are in direct opposition with Christianity. While individual leftists may not be anti-christian, the group as a whole would seem so.

I think the question you should be asking is: "Why hasn't Christianity sided with the left?"

Jesus wasn't a socialist; you can't retroactively assign someone a political label/philosophy, especially when we're talking about a couple thousand years separating the person and the philosophy.
But what if Jesus was a time traveller?

But what if Jesus was a time traveller?

He could certainly pull it off, being the son of god and whatnot.

Christians, Liberals, what's the fighting about?
From the outside looking in, it's so strange to me that you both are not synonymous.
I can't even begin to comprehend how the uber-right has taken up a truly "Satanist" or "secular" position (Rand, Machiavelli), while the left has taken such a (let's face it and not ignore the elephant) anti-Christian stance. Wasn't Jesus the ultimate socialist?
Can anyone who understands what I'm talking about explain this to me?

Please, don't flame!

Christianity =/= socialism

The anti-materialism which runs throughout the New Testament tells believers that they should focus on seeking the kingdom of heaven ( whether on earth or after death is debatable ... I suspect it's both ), rather than "storing up riches on earth."

The early Christians held "all things in common" because of this, rather than adhering to some variant of socialism. This quickly went by the board because Christian "communism" ( an oxymoron if ever there was one! ) presupposes "perfected" human beings.

I've seen a handful of communities which practiced this "pure" form of Christianity, but I don't know if any survive to this day.

I thought that was Oscar Wilde you were quoting there- but come to think of it wasnt it Plato?
I do have a SOH, and this was funny. :p

But really, it's a legitimate question, so please stop the flaming (not the above poster).

Christians, Liberals, what's the fighting about?
From the outside looking in, it's so strange to me that you both are not synonymous.
I can't even begin to comprehend how the uber-right has taken up a truly "Satanist" or "secular" position (Rand, Machiavelli), while the left has taken such a (let's face it and not ignore the elephant) anti-Christian stance. Wasn't Jesus the ultimate socialist?
Can anyone who understands what I'm talking about explain this to me?

Please, don't flame!
A person can be a liberal and a Christian or a conservative and an atheist; I know both types of people. Personally, I am a center-right Christian. However, you do have a point: the economic teachings of Christ were very socialist-based (note: this is different from communistic, like Ted Kennedy and pals). Alas, though Jesus is very loving and accepting (Neocons, Jesus was not a 'gay-basher;' he taught love. Quit using this argument. It gives people the wrong idea.), but by modern standards on most issues he'd probably be socially conservative.

Is there not a basic difference between christian, i.e someone who thinks that the social message thet Jesus Christ delivered has some value, and Christian, this being someone that follows the teachings of one of the most reactionary and conservative institutions that the Western world has managed to create?

This may answer your question

I've seen a handful of communities which practiced this "pure" form of Christianity, but I don't know if any survive to this day.

Quakers and Amish societies still exist, and they have that community first orientation.

Edit: Ironically, the Quakers have been some of the more socially progressive people in American history.

Let's not forget Liberation Theology, which is certainly leftist...

Not all Christians and Lefties are at odds. I think that the majority of Leftists don't like the CHURCH, not the religion itself...whichever denomination of Christianity we happen to be talking about. I'm sure Jesus would be smiting idols and frothing at the mouth to see what has been done in his name...

If biblical info is even close to the way Christ was, then Jesus was definitely a liberal.

Quakers and Amish societies still exist, and they have that community first orientation.

Edit: Ironically, the Quakers have been some of the more socially progressive people in American history.
They make damn good oatmeal too:)

Christianity =/= socialism

The anti-materialism which runs throughout the New Testament tells believers that they should focus on seeking the kingdom of heaven ( whether on earth or after death is debatable ... I suspect it's both ), rather than "storing up riches on earth."

The early Christians held "all things in common" because of this, rather than adhering to some variant of socialism. This quickly went by the board because Christian "communism" ( an oxymoron if ever there was one! ) presupposes "perfected" human beings.

I've seen a handful of communities which practiced this "pure" form of Christianity, but I don't know if any survive to this day.
Thank you! I understand the nitpicky issues (right and left), but I think real followers of Jesus would have more in common with the left.

I'm bringing this up becuase I've recently heard about my favorite Uncle belonging to a Jesus cult in the 70's, and he's now a Republican.
It's just raised a few questions that were always there to the surface.

EDIT: Granpa, you're right. I was an idiot for using the word Socialism. Communism is really the right word. :)

I think Jesus' ideas were roughly communist. Loaves and fishes, anyone? Eye of a needle? Acts?

They make damn good oatmeal too:)

Jesus loved oatmeal.

First of all....Ayn Rand is a Satanist??? How did that happen?

Also, there are more than just liberal and conservative philosophies in the world. I though that was obvious, but I guess it isnt.

Jesus loved oatmeal.
Apparently he had the miraculous ability to turn oatmeal into rockhard shits.

First of all....Ayn Rand is a Satanist??? How did that happen?

Also, there are more than just liberal and conservative philosophies in the world. I though that was obvious, but I guess it isnt.
Um, there are more philosophies than Liberal and Conservative, but aren't all philosophies somewhere along the spectrum of liberal and conservative? Am I missing something?

Um, there are more philosophies than Liberal and Conservative, but aren't all philosophies somewhere along the spectrum of liberal and conservative? Am I missing something?
No. Where on this imaginary spectrum do you put the Stalinist system? The Libertarian party ideology?

First of all....Ayn Rand is a Satanist??? How did that happen?

Also, there are more than just liberal and conservative philosophies in the world. I though that was obvious, but I guess it isnt.
No kidding. I happen to be a Classical Liberal/Libertarian.

But yes, her philosophy is the antithesis to the Christian doctrine, if you take the implications further.
Objectivism is not about the meek, poor or suffering ruling the Earth.
Christianity is not about the strong, talented and more intelligent ruling the Earth.

By Satanist (as a non-Christian, I meant AntiChrist, or in direct opposition to Christ's teachings).
Take it in a Levey sense, not a Baptist one.

Thank you! I understand the nitpicky issues (right and left), but I think real followers of Jesus would have more in common with the left.

I'm bringing this up becuase I've recently heard about my favorite Uncle belonging to a Jesus cult in the 70's, and he's now a Republican.
It's just raised a few questions that were always there to the surface.

EDIT: Granpa, you're right. I was an idiot for using the word Socialism. Communism is really the right word. :)

"Pure" communism, not the corrupted versions of it which some governments have used to hide the fact that "The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat" never goes away.

No. Where on this imaginary spectrum do you put the Stalinist system? The Libertarian party ideology?
I'm using classic liberalism and conservatism here... that's why I'm using a little 'l' and a little 'c'. Liberal and Conservative can mean different things in different countries...Liberal in Canada is not the same as Liberal in Australia, is no the same as a classic liberal.

there is actually a rather significant christian left, even in the u.s. check out most of the positions held by most of the mainline protestant denominations and roughly half of the catholics. the thing is that the christian left isn't as loud and well organized as the fascists who call themselves christians.

both disagree on issues and some on both sides take it to the point of fanatasism.

there is actually a rather significant christian left, even in the u.s. check out most of the positions held by most of the mainline protestant denominations and roughly half of the catholics. the thing is that the christian left isn't as loud and well organized as the fascists who call themselves christians.
Very interesting, and probably true. *strokes goatee*

Why is this faction so damn quiet?

there is actually a rather significant christian left, even in the u.s. check out most of the positions held by most of the mainline protestant denominations and roughly half of the catholics. the thing is that the christian left isn't as loud and well organized as the fascists who call themselves christians.
Well, just look at this whole gay marriage thing...most people see it as kind of a non-issue (I'm talking Canada here), and don't really care...but all you hear is the vocal, bigotted minority, because they make a point of screaming about it...the ones who support it aren't wasting time writing letters and doing interviews, because they figure it's an okay idea...I guess they need to start ranting too...

I was raised a Jew and am a socialist and a materialist now; thus, I can claim very little knowledge on the subject of Chirstianity.

That said, I think I have a few things I can add:

Jesus' Parable of the Vinyard is very sociallistic, suggesting that people should be paid not for the amonut of work they do, but should be paid everything that they need. The 19th century critic wrote an economic pamphlet call "Unto the Last" illuminating some of the issues surrounding the parable. This text, mostly ignored by economists was a favorite of two influential religious socialists, Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Many of our brothers and sisters on the left hold to such religious beliefs, and I respect them for it. However, Martin Luther King commented on a problem with religious institutions in his 1967 speech "A Time to Break Silence." His critique was not new, but his status in the religious movement of America lent this analysis new creditbility. He said that relgious leaders were on the whole too slow to speek out against their government. This issue of religious leaders' complicity with tyrannical regimes dates back to biblical times, and remains problematic to this day.

Jesus would have been pretty much conservative all the way through. While He did tell people to care for one another, He said nothing about it being done by the government. It's "In God we trust" rather than "In Government we trust." Socially, He would have definately been a conservative. Forget gay marriage, He had issues with divorce laws at the time. He said that divorce was wrong except in cases of adultery.

And I think that I should probably point out that no one has anointed the Republican party the "Chrstian" party. It's just that it seems to be the party that most closely aligns with Christian morality.

there is actually a rather significant christian left, even in the u.s. check out most of the positions held by most of the mainline protestant denominations and roughly half of the catholics. the thing is that the christian left isn't as loud and well organized as the fascists who call themselves christians.

Neither group represents "primitive" or "pure" Christianity or communism. If Jesus were here today, I rather suspect he would be at great pains to point out the errors on both sides. The deviations from "pure" Christianity on the right are probably very well known among this group, but the deviations among those on the left calling themselves "Christians" are a bit less obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus ever indicate that government should feed the poor, heal the sick or anything else he urged his followers to do. So far as my memory serves, the only mention he made of government was when he was asked about a Roman coin, his reply was "Render therefore unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and unto God those things which are God's."

I rather suspect that he would do the same thing today that he did in Biblical times ... convict men of their error so they could do good works on an individual and family level and eventually "obtain the kingdom of heaven."

Why is this faction so damn quiet?

i don't know. they show up to our anti-war rallies and organize a few of their own, and their churches have 'prayers for peace' and ministry for social justice, and all that good stuff. but i guess at the end of the day, it just isn't as entertaining to listen to them talk about the ground work for creating peace and the brotherhood of man as it is to listen to falwell claim that america had 9/11 coming for not opressing the homersexuals more.

. *strokes goatee*

I misread that as "strokes goatze" thanks for giving me another unintentional laugh dude.

Jesus wasn't a socialist; you can't retroactively assign someone a political label/philosophy, especially when we're talking about a couple thousand years separating the person and the philosophy.

Correct, and we can infer from jesus' teachings that he was strongly in favor of the free market economy and the accumulation of wealth by an elite with as few social programs and other efforts to help the poor as possible.

So far as my memory serves, the only mention he made of government was when he was asked about a Roman coin, his reply was "Render therefore unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and unto God those things which are God's"
Am I wrong to assume that this is quite left, politically? Pay your taxes, as they ask (no mention of "screw the Roman gov" here, quite the opposite.
Then be a helpful, nonjudgemental human being who values societal security over personal gain?

i don't know. they show up to our anti-war rallies and organize a few of their own, and their churches have 'prayers for peace' and ministry for social justice, and all that good stuff. but i guess at the end of the day, it just isn't as entertaining to listen to them talk about the ground work for creating peace and the brotherhood of man as it is to listen to falwell claim that america had 9/11 coming for not opressing the homersexuals more.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with a guy with your forum name ( ;) ), but you've just changed another adult's thinking about the so-called "Christian Majority", with which I'm no longer in touch with.
It's nice to resurrect a little personal optimism in the religious majority every now and then.

Thanks.

Correct, and we can infer from jesus' teachings that he was strongly in favor of the free market economy and the accumulation of wealth by an elite with as few social programs and other efforts to help the poor as possible.
;) Exactly.

Am I wrong to assume that this is quite left, politically? Pay your taxes, as they ask (no mention of "screw the Roman gov" here, quite the opposite.
Then be a helpful, nonjudgemental human being who values societal security over personal gain?

actually, that passage isn't really a commandment to pay you taxes, so much as 'look at jesus being a tricky bastard'.

But Jesus knew their evil motives. "You hypocrites!" he said. "Whom are you trying to fool with your trick questions?" - matthew 22:18

and taxes aren't a left or right issue. no groups other than us anarchists reject the idea that the state has a right to collect taxes. the right can't pay for its police state and biggest goddamn military ever without some source of funding, no matter what they tell their followers.

actually, that passage isn't really a commandment to pay you taxes, so much as 'look at jesus being a tricky bastard'.

But Jesus knew their evil motives. "You hypocrites!" he said. "Whom are you trying to fool with your trick questions?" - matthew 22:18
I'm not sure what you mean here, but it's Friday. You're probably drinking as much as I am, and making more grammatical and other structural errors as I've been doing tonight.
and taxes aren't a left or right issue.
As a Libertarian, I certainly (and strangely) agree with you there. They're both for more taxation to support the warfare-welfare state.
no groups other than us anarchists reject the idea that the state has a right to collect taxes. the right can't pay for its police state and biggest goddamn military ever without some source of funding, no matter what they tell their followers.
Bullshit. We Libertarians agree completely. Of course, both parties dismiss us as anarchists anyway, so you may not be in that deep.

Truthfully, christianity is very leftist, believing in helping healing the sick that sort of thing. But the christian right is not. Basically to be "christian" now you must fight change, most importantly science for instance genetic enginerring and evolution threaten the churches position so "christians" fight it. Though Jesus most likely would have been a proponant of birthcontrol and stem cell research cause he was a proponent of health care and fighting capitalism [he was put on the cross for smiting the moneylenders..smiting people lol] so he isnt exactly lefty as lefties are too panzy about war lol me i am centrist i believe in folowing my own heart and agreeing with what i agree with, not wearing an ideology like a hat.

Whoa whoa Anarchists...LOL i love Anarchists...cause they make no sense lol.
yes lets have a world with no law and no police, rule by street gang woot! ok how many of you online anarchists would honestly last 5 minutes in your anarchistic utopia...none not one of you. ok you Love Anarchy why not move to an anarchist country? there are plenty in africa like congo and Sudan i mean trust me its your paradise. Lol this is the same kind of thing as white suburban rich kids wishing they could live in comptons..wait till you see the true reality.

I think we miss a major point that some people have eluded to, but not made a big deal about. Jesus certainaly was for evaluating people on the basis of need. (Btw, im a randian, not an ecofeminist, nor a christian). However, like it was said, 'in god we trust' not 'in government we trust'. The key in jesus's capitalist stance is 1) he recognizes the concept of property and 2) its through god, not government that we in a sense become altruistic. We act individually to do sacrificial deeds, not through the temple, not through the state. His movement was in a sense a rejection of altruism through government, to do a good deed, one did it as a personal choice.

Think about it this way: would jesus smile at the thought of you giving five dollars to a beggar? would jesus smile instead for you paying five dollars in taxes to help the welfare system? Its obvious, jesus would smile at your personal choice, not one done by a senator.

Check out my nation of North Randia

Truthfully, christianity is very leftist, believing in helping healing the sick that sort of thing. But the christian right is not. Basically to be "christian" now you must fight change, most importantly science for instance genetic enginerring and evolution threaten the churches position so "christians" fight it. Though Jesus most likely would have been a proponant of birthcontrol and stem cell research cause he was a proponent of health care and fighting capitalism [he was put on the cross for smiting the moneylenders..smiting people lol] so he isnt exactly lefty as lefties are too panzy about war lol me i am centrist i believe in folowing my own heart and agreeing with what i agree with, not wearing an ideology like a hat.
I have no idea who the hell you are, even after 700 posts here.
But I think , personally, you may turn out to be one of the more interesting people here... by far.

I think we miss a major point that some people have eluded to, but not made a big deal about. Jesus certainaly was for evaluating people on the basis of need. (Btw, im a randian, not an ecofeminist, nor a christian). However, like it was said, 'in god we trust' not 'in government we trust'. The key in jesus's capitalist stance is 1) he recognizes the concept of property and 2) its through god, not government that we in a sense become altruistic. We act individually to do sacrificial deeds, not through the temple, not through the state. His movement was in a sense a rejection of altruism through government, to do a good deed, one did it as a personal choice.

Think about it this way: would jesus smile at the thought of you giving five dollars to a beggar? would jesus smile instead for you paying five dollars in taxes to help the welfare system? Its obvious, jesus would smile at your personal choice, not one done by a senator.

Check out my nation of North Randia
Are you looking for a cyberboyfriend? :D

Christians, Liberals, what's the fighting about?
From the outside looking in, it's so strange to me that you both are not synonymous.
I can't even begin to comprehend how the uber-right has taken up a truly "Satanist" or "secular" position (Rand, Machiavelli), while the left has taken such a (let's face it and not ignore the elephant) anti-Christian stance. Wasn't Jesus the ultimate communist?
Can anyone who understands what I'm talking about explain this to me?

Please, don't flame!

Edit: Changed terminology apropriately from socialist to communist.

Stop trying to make Republicans & Satanism sound evil. Both the left and the right have had their problems. Devil worship and Satanism are two different things.

And I think if Jesus had to pick. He would be in the independent party. Think about that for a minute. He would agree with some of the veiws from Republicans and Democrats and still have his own ideas that are different from both partys.

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

Whoa whoa Anarchists...LOL i love Anarchists...cause they make no sense lol.
yes lets have a world with no law and no police, rule by street gang woot! ok how many of you online anarchists would honestly last 5 minutes in your anarchistic utopia...none not one of you. ok you Love Anarchy why not move to an anarchist country? there are plenty in africa like congo and Sudan i mean trust me its your paradise. Lol this is the same kind of thing as white suburban rich kids wishing they could live in comptons..wait till you see the true reality.

this thread is not the time or the place to discuss your lack of knowledge about anarchism. there are plenty of other threads out there for it though.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but it's Friday. You're probably drinking as much as I am, and making more grammatical and other structural errors as I've been doing tonight.

the passage about giving unto cesar is about the pharisees and the supporters of herod trying to get jesus to say something which would get him in trouble. he sees thorugh their ploy and gives a tricksy sort of answer. on the face of it he said "yeah, pay your taxes". but he can also be taken to mean "we don't need or want cesar's money". a sentiment that was rather widely held by the various jewish radicals of the time, as well as fitting jesus' own teachings about the love of wealth.

and i only drank a bit tonight.

Stop trying to make Republicans & Satanism sound evil. Both the left and the right have had their problems. Devil worship and Satanism are two different things.

And I think if Jesus had to pick. He would be in the independent party. Think about that for a minute. He would agree with some of the veiws from Republicans and Democrats and still have his own ideas that are different from both partys.

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh
:p Anyone here will tell you..
This post is funny in all kinds of ways. Check out my political/philosophical stance by using the search function.
You'll quicly find the diff between who is on you're team and who isn't.
(Clue: Levay is cool).

this thread is not the time or the place to discuss your lack of knowledge about anarchism. there are plenty of other threads out there for it though.
After his post (the one you were referring to), I was going to delete my praise. But that would be a lil' too authoritarian for me. :p

:p Anyone here will tell you..
This post is funny in all kinds of ways. Check out my political/philosophical stance by using the search function.
You'll quicly find the diff between who is on you're team and who isn't.
(Clue: Levay is cool).

Hmm... Perhaps I misjudged you. You seem alright after all.

Hell yeah LaVey is cool.

Hail Anton LaVey!

Hail Satan!

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

Very interesting, and probably true. *strokes goatee*

Why is this faction so damn quiet?

Actually they're quite loud, but they don't really get reported on.

Pretty much only the Southern Baptist church was in favor of Bush's policies. Most Christian denominations, even other baptist denominations, were against him.

There's a book out now called (I think I have this right)
God's Politics: Why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it.

The writer is a pretty prominent evangelical Christian, and I haven't read the book, but I"ve heard lots of interviews with the guy. He pretty much says that the neo-con loonies who are in power right now have put the religious spotlight on the Billy Graham, Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell loonies. A truly evil crop of homo oscurus if ever there was one. And all they do is tell everyone that war is good, greed is good, and that charity means giving money to them personally so that they don't have to get real jobs.

The real message of Christ was very much in accord with modern left/liberal political thought, and totally antithetical to the neo-con agenda. But then again, rational thought is totaly antithetical to the neo-con agenda, and the Southern Baptist religious teachings. So there's your explanation of the appearantly paradoxical concord.

Hmm... Perhaps I misjudged you. You seem alright after all.

Hell yeah LaVey is cool.

Hail Anton LaVey!

Hail Satan!

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh
Holy SAhit, your sig.
Didn't notice.
I take back any association you've incorrectly perceived.

GOD d00d, are you for real?

Actually they're quite loud, but they don't really get reported on.

Pretty much only the Southern Baptist church was in favor of Bush's policies. Most Christian denominations, even other baptist denominations, were against him.

There's a book out now called (I think I have this right)
God's Politics: Why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it.

The writer is a pretty prominent evangelical Christian, and I haven't read the book, but I"ve heard lots of interviews with the guy. He pretty much says that the neo-con loonies who are in power right now have put the religious spotlight on the Billy Graham, Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell loonies. A truly evil crop of homo oscurus if ever there was one. And all they do is tell everyone that war is good, greed is good, and that charity means giving money to them personally so that they don't have to get real jobs.

The real message of Christ was very much in accord with modern left/liberal political thought, and totally antithetical to the neo-con agenda. But then again, rational thought is totaly antithetical to the neo-con agenda, and the Southern Baptist religious teachings. So there's your explanation of the appearantly paradoxical concord.
I can't wait to read more of your posts. This may be a more modern explanaition, but I'm with you there.

Post More!

snip
The real message of Christ was very much in accord with modern left/liberal political thought, and totally antithetical to the neo-con agenda.
snip

So where in the Bible does it advocate large government welfare programs and inclusion of those whose moral choices God finds abhorent? Jesus only said to remember the poor, not to create taxation programs and a War on Poverty. He did accept society's outcasts, but only after they had turned from their evil practices. This was not just the prostitiutes and adulterers, but the cheaters and swindlers as well.

Communist's devotion lies to the state. Jesus taught that regardless of nationality or government you should, while abiding by the rules of man "render to Ceasar that which is Ceasars, render to God that which is God's", devote yourself entirely and soley to God.

The fact of the matter is that government as concieved of in the Bible is completely different than government as we know it today. Government is the embodiment of justice on earth, while the church is the embodiment of love. It is not in government's function to provide massive social programs, large scale disasters like the Great Depression a possible exception. It is the the function of the church and other private organizations to provide welfare and such.

The fact of the matter is that government as concieved of in the Bible is completely different than government as we know it today.
Rob, (my name too), you're missing the point because you're dropping the philosophy for the history,

Wrong subject.

Definitely, Christ would've been for welfare, obviously.

Definitely, Christ would've been for welfare, obviously.

Maybe, but he is definitely anti-lazy, degenerate bum. Heaven helps those who help themselves, a wise man once said.

So where in the Bible does it advocate large government welfare programs and inclusion of those whose moral choices God finds abhorent? Jesus only said to remember the poor, not to create taxation programs and a War on Poverty.

Render unto Ceaser those things that are Ceaser's, render unto God those things that are God's. Jesus had nothing against taxes, and was very much in favor of charity. In a democratic society, for the government to enact taxes for charitable purposes is for the people to be charitable. For the people to deprive the people's government of revenues that it needs to function (those things that are Ceaser's) and only for greedy purposes, that is anti-Christian greed. Not to mention detrimental to the nation itself.

Low taxation so that the rich may choose to reapportion wealth strictly through churches (as the neo-cons say we ought) is just an excuse for the rich to deprive the government of money and authority so that both of those things can remain in their own hands and out of the hands of the people.

Maybe, but he is definitely anti-lazy, degenerate bum. Heaven helps those who help themselves, a wise man once said.

Was that man Jesus?

To judge by Jesus' actions his definition of lazy degenerate bum would have been those who earn their living as bankers and merchants. This is a fairly popular historical belief around the world.

Think about it. What does the music industry really make its money from?
Music.

And yet all the money goes to people who's only function is to take money from one place and put it in another.

The mercantilist parasites who contribute nothing to society in neither the form of production of goods nor useful labor, were the only ones to earn Christs wrath in life. In his day it was the money lenders in the temple who tried to unite pursuit of wealth with God's name. They traded in the temple.

He'd probably be fairly blase about bankers, stock brokers, HMO companies and so on, but those who, like the neo-cons, claim that they do so in Christs name would piss him off big time.

so where are all those capitilistic people donateing?

you do realize that the people who support welfare.do all the donateing right?
how much has bush domanited this year?certinly not his christian mandated amount(untill poverty)

I don't know really what to think of this, but what I do know is that the left is more of a collection of causes, and that most of those causes are in direct opposition with Christianity. While individual leftists may not be anti-christian, the group as a whole would seem so.

I think the question you should be asking is: "Why hasn't Christianity sided with the left?"

Its difficult to assign christianity to any particular side. It just HAPPENS to be the fact that on some issues the religious base sides with conservatives to make up the REpublicans .. Christians only care about social law and morals.. If you look at how society has been moving, more things are open and regaurded with less concern, sex, marriage, vulgar langauge etc. While liberals and the left are groups who advocate change in all cases. the Left care only about civil liberities and "precived rights" so things like abortion and morality in government come into play. morality is all about contraints on every life.. this is somethign Jesus taught also (Not to give into temptation) the Left wants total freedom (few constraints as possible) ... but there are plenty of points where the Right and religion disagree as well.. war, capital punishment, social welfare programs ... atleast with the catholic church there have been plenty of instances where the pope has repudiated some of Bushes stances. IT just so happens that concervatives dont like change .. they like things the old way.. (the old way almost always means more constraints on life) and religion likes constraints on immoral acts.. and the left wants the fewest constraints possible (short of killing each other).. that is why religion is usually with the right

I've been wondering the same thing. Christians and liberals disagree on social issues. That's why there is sometimes tension.
I am a christian. I am liberal. It is not my place to force my personal beliefs on others through politics. I belive homosexuality is wrong, but I'll vote to allow gay marriges, because it is not my place to force my views on them. IF only more christians saw things this way. Or more non-christians. More people period

so where are all those capitilistic people donateing?

you do realize that the people who support welfare.do all the donateing right?
how much has bush domanited this year?certinly not his christian mandated amount(untill poverty)

Donate yourself into poverty? There's a new one on me. And don't go quoting the story of the rich young ruler. That was an exercise in greed, not poverty. Donating oneself into poverty just ups the number of poor by one. God never said that we should turn ourselves into paupers.

Rob, (my name too), you're missing the point because you're dropping the philosophy for the history,

Wrong subject.

Definitely, Christ would've been for welfare, obviously.

Hang on a minute. I'm a philosophy major, so I'm definately not dropping the philosophy. I was refering to the philosophy when I was talking about government. Charity is good, and I know that Christ supported it fully. But where does it say that government-run charity is the best way to go?

I have one very quick question on evaluating government charity vs. private charity. Think of every instance where someone has frauded welfare/medicare/etc. that you have ever heard of. Now think of every instance where people have frauded private charity. Which is greater?

so where are all those capitilistic people donateing?

you do realize that the people who support welfare.do all the donateing right?
how much has bush domanited this year?certinly not his christian mandated amount(untill poverty)
Hey, I'm obtuse, but it needs to be said...


You, Sir, are a fucktard. Perhaps you need to concentrate more on uniting our country, instead of making gross generalization that hurt us.

That post (even though I'm not of the party to be offended), was offensive as an American.

Whattadick. :rolleyes:

Maybe, but he is definitely anti-lazy, degenerate bum. Heaven helps those who help themselves, a wise man once said.
And you make the last guy I posted about look like Machiavelli.

In other words, read more and create a new name.

Actually they're quite loud, but they don't really get reported on.

Pretty much only the Southern Baptist church was in favor of Bush's policies. Most Christian denominations, even other baptist denominations, were against him.

There's a book out now called (I think I have this right)
God's Politics: Why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it.

The writer is a pretty prominent evangelical Christian, and I haven't read the book, but I"ve heard lots of interviews with the guy. He pretty much says that the neo-con loonies who are in power right now have put the religious spotlight on the Billy Graham, Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell loonies. A truly evil crop of homo oscurus if ever there was one. And all they do is tell everyone that war is good, greed is good, and that charity means giving money to them personally so that they don't have to get real jobs.

The real message of Christ was very much in accord with modern left/liberal political thought, and totally antithetical to the neo-con agenda. But then again, rational thought is totaly antithetical to the neo-con agenda, and the Southern Baptist religious teachings. So there's your explanation of the appearantly paradoxical concord.

It's kind of like how the Muslim fundamentalists have hijacked Islam into making it appear to be a religion devoted to hatred and terrorism. Christianity also has its loud faction that wants to divert it away from what Christ intended.

The author of the book you mention is the Rev. Jim Wallis, and he's editor of Sojourners magazine (www.sojo.net).

-snip-
Perhaps it is because both those groups want freedom in one area of our lives but want to restrict it in the other (be it social, or economically).

I'm using classic liberalism and conservatism here... that's why I'm using a little 'l' and a little 'c'. Liberal and Conservative can mean different things in different countries...Liberal in Canada is not the same as Liberal in Australia, is no the same as a classic liberal.
Sorry, I assume that you, like most people on this forum, mean "democratic socialist" when you say liberal. No, not all ideologies are along the liberal-conservative line. They are both free-market ideologies.

Very interesting, and probably true. *strokes goatee*

Why is this faction so damn quiet?
Maybe because they don't feel comfortable with either American party? Republicans are ideologically opposed to them, but religiously comfortable. Democrats are ideologically similar to them (if not to the right of them) but religiously uncomfortable.

and taxes aren't a left or right issue. no groups other than us anarchists reject the idea that the state has a right to collect taxes. the right can't pay for its police state and biggest goddamn military ever without some source of funding, no matter what they tell their followers.
Taxes are a left-wing issue. The right-wing economic theories are all about reducing government spending so as to reduce taxes. In your post above you assume all right-wing people to be of the authoritarian/conservative/fascist kind. This is, in my opinion, a perversion of the free market ideology, just as the USSR was a perversion of the socialist ideology. Free-market Libertarians (who don't want a massive military and police state) are indubitably against taxes, but they are not anarchists.

morality is all about contraints on every life.. this is somethign Jesus taught also (Not to give into temptation)
But did he advocate the government enforcing constraints on life?

I am a christian. I am liberal. It is not my place to force my personal beliefs on others through politics. I belive homosexuality is wrong, but I'll vote to allow gay marriges, because it is not my place to force my views on them. IF only more christians saw things this way. Or more non-christians. More people period
I concur, I'm not christian, but I believe that considering I want to be able to live my life how I choose to live it, it would be extremely hypocritical of me to try and dictate how other people should live their life. Love and free will are the two things I value the most in life, and as long as exercising your free will does not violate the free will of others, why make a problem out of something that dosen't concern you? What's wrong with consenting adults doing something with each other you'd never personally do for whatever reason if they want to do it? If a person wants to die, or two people want to fight each other to the death, what gives me the right to say "no, you must continue to live" and why is it so important that they do when they're inevitably going to die at some later point anyways?

Christianity is all about telling people what to do. Not very liberal is it?

Whoa whoa Anarchists...LOL i love Anarchists...cause they make no sense lol.
yes lets have a world with no law and no police, rule by street gang woot! ok how many of you online anarchists would honestly last 5 minutes in your anarchistic utopia...none not one of you. ok you Love Anarchy why not move to an anarchist country? there are plenty in africa like congo and Sudan i mean trust me its your paradise. Lol this is the same kind of thing as white suburban rich kids wishing they could live in comptons..wait till you see the true reality.

LOL. Ignorance.

Educate yourself. (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html)

Christianity is all about telling people what to do. Not very liberal is it?
There is a difference between telling what people should do, and forcing them to do it. Did Jesus ever force people to follow his teachings? I know supposed christians later on very much did, but did JC?

Unlike Republicans Jesus believed in Taxation. So that leads him closer to moderate but leaning to Left.

So Democrat us closest where he'd fit. Not saying Democrats ae better but taxes are pretty much used by Republicans alot. They keep trying to cut taxes and pay for things with reduced funds putting govt more in debt causing schools to not give raises because they haven't the money.

And since Jesus was for Teachers. That means he was more a democrat.

I think the main difference between socialism/communism and christianity is this:

For socialists and communists all men are equal and as such, should have equal living standards.
For christians, all men are only equal before God. Which means that there is no compulsory on the neutralization of social inequality.

Also, most (not all) socialists and communists are atheists which means that for them man himself is the one who has the ability to create his own paradise (which in that case would be the realization of the true communism). Man has to redeem himself without any help from above.
Most christians, on the other hand, see man as a fallen being, a worthless sinner who can't do anything right and furthermore needs the grace of God to find redemption. That's an important difference between socialism/communism and christianity too.

Taxes are a left-wing issue. The right-wing economic theories are all about reducing government spending so as to reduce taxes. In your post above you assume all right-wing people to be of the authoritarian/conservative/fascist kind. This is, in my opinion, a perversion of the free market ideology, just as the USSR was a perversion of the socialist ideology. Free-market Libertarians (who don't want a massive military and police state) are indubitably against taxes, but they are not anarchists.

you won't be able to have a justice system or a military (the two major things that the non-anarchocapitalists want the state to provide) without some source of funding. that source of funding will be a tax of some sort. therefore the argument is over what taxes should do and how high they should be, not over the right of the state to tax per se.

Also, most (not all) socialists and communists are atheists which means that for them man himself is the one who has the ability to create his own paradise (which in that case would be the realization of the true communism). Man has to redeem himself without any help from above.
Most christians, on the other hand, see man as a fallen being, a worthless sinner who can't do anything right and furthermore needs the grace of God to find redemption. That's an important difference between socialism/communism and christianity too.

well, secular communism is a christian heresy. the entire socialist movement essentially flows out of the ideas of earlier christian radicals. these radicals took as their starting point that all people are equal in the eyes of god and that the earth was provided in common to all, and the sought to bring about the 'kingdom of god on earth'.

Jesus wasn't a socialist; you can't retroactively assign someone a political label/philosophy, especially when we're talking about a couple thousand years separating the person and the philosophy.

He did pass out lots of free loaves and fishes.

well, secular communism is a christian heresy. the entire socialist movement essentially flows out of the ideas of earlier christian radicals. these radicals took as their starting point that all people are equal in the eyes of god and that the earth was provided in common to all, and the sought to bring about the 'kingdom of god on earth'.
Agreed, but you have to see that the idea of the equality of all men was there before christianity and that the major part of christianity very early went an else way.
(Although there were many christian communities who followed the ideals of communism in the past two millenia, the church ensured that none of them survived.)

Agreed, but you have to see that the idea of the equality of all men was there before christianity and that the major part of christianity very early went an else way.
(Although there were many christian communities who followed the ideals of communism in the past two millenia, the church ensured that none of them survived.)

I was unaware the Church was the one that did them in. Is there a URL you can set me on to start my education?

For example, try to google something about the so called "Catharians". Generally, a book about church history from the crusades till the Inquisition should provide you some info.
In Germany, a relative famous example is the story of a christian-communist community which existed in Münster during the time of the 30-years-war. Because they doubted the authority of the catholic church, they were all encaged into giant bird cages without any food and therefore died of hunger.
These cages still exist and you can behold them if you visit Münster.

For example, try to google something about the so called "Catharians". Generally, a book about church history from the crusades till the Inquisition should provide you some info.
In Germany, a relative famous example is the story of a christian-communist community which existed in Münster during the time of the 30-years-war. Because they doubted the authority of the catholic church, they were all encaged into giant bird cages without any food and therefore died of hunger.
These cages still exist and you can behold them if you visit Münster.


Thank you. I did know about the cages, and have seen the photos but, somehow lost the knowledge of their purpose.

As I brainstorm a bit, I will need to checkout the Shakers, a commune Christian sect whic h flourished after it's founding but was doomed as the tenets prevented all sex, even for reproduction. Obviously not self-sustaining.

Keep in mind that most people are dumb, intelligence is an aberration, and of the people who are not dumb, you still have to calculate for the ones whose intelligence is directed almost exclusively towards areas other than politics or social science. With this in mind, its easy to see how people end up believing that the republican party is the christian party. The Republican party is only the christian party if all of christianity is based on only two issues (being against abortion and being against gay rights). The Republican party has abandoned the christians on every other christian issue. So, why is christianity linked with the Republican party in the US? Because the hippies were liberal and the Republican party was able to sell its self as anti-hippie.

But did he advocate the government enforcing constraints on life?

No.. but then things are rarely that clear cut. The constitution never actually says slavery is wrong.. and yet the constitution was ultimatly used to over turn the practice of slavery. Constitution only refers to MEN being created equal, and yet women recieved rigthts under the constitution as well... It is not the words that are important, but the ideas.

Jesus didn't have to say that the government needs to put constraints on life, only that constraints are needed remain moral good people. So religious people favor political factions which encrouage constraints.. (ie. the republican party)

Christianity is all about telling people what to do. Not very liberal is it?

thats a rather cynical way of putting it.. the way i see it, Christianity is all about rules and laws.. liberalism is all about freedom.

Laws more often then not constrain freedom putting social limits on our otherwise natural right to do whatever we want. Thats the difference

No.. but then things are rarely that clear cut. The constitution never actually says slavery is wrong.. and yet the constitution was ultimatly used to over turn the practice of slavery. Constitution only refers to MEN being created equal, and yet women recieved rigthts under the constitution as well... It is not the words that are important, but the ideas.

Jesus didn't have to say that the government needs to put constraints on life, only that constraints are needed remain moral good people. So religious people favor political factions which encrouage constraints.. (ie. the republican party)

The Republican party is the "laissez-faire laissez passer" party. The party that believes in smaller government, less laws, more individual freedom, more freedom for the states, less government intervention or involvement, etc. The Democratic party is the one that believes in more laws, more government intervention, a bigger government, etc. Your logic would lead to the inevitable conclusion that christians should be Democrats.

The party that believes in smaller government, less laws, more individual freedom, more freedom for the states, less government intervention or involvement, etc.
Even for non-christians? Because it doesn't really seem so.

Even for non-christians? Because it doesn't really seem so.

Yes.

The Republican party is the "laissez-faire laissez passer" party. The party that believes in smaller government, less laws, more individual freedom, more freedom for the states, less government intervention or involvement, etc. The Democratic party is the one that believes in more laws, more government intervention, a bigger government, etc. Your logic would lead to the inevitable conclusion that christians should be Democrats.

in terms of economics they are laissez faire... and they are against BIG government intevention, but they are all for State power, and advodcate many more laws on social policy, such as abortion, education, and more scruplation on things like free speech and distribution of content through the media.

THey wouldn't be democrats because democrats persue freedoms in their big government approach, rights such as choice in abortion, freedom of expression in schools wearing whatever you want, distribution of content and freedom of speech.

You have to pull economics out of the equation, because at the end of the day religion has very little to do with economics.. and rarely push economic policy.

Yes.
What about the rights of gay people, hm?

in terms of economics they are laissez faire... and they are against BIG government intevention, but they are all for State power, and advodcate many more laws on social policy, such as abortion, education, and more scruplation on things like free speech and distribution of content through the media.

THey wouldn't be democrats because democrats persue freedoms in their big government approach, rights such as choice in abortion, freedom of expression in schools wearing whatever you want, distribution of content and freedom of speech.

You have to pull economics out of the equation, because at the end of the day religion has very little to do with economics.. and rarely push economic policy.

Yes, but you are putting the cart before the horse. The Republican party is against abortion and for censorship because of christian lobbying within the party. Had the christians not hopped aboard in the 60s, the Republican party would still resemble the libertarian party it was shaping up to be. So, you cant examine those issues as a cause for christians hopping aboard, they are an effect of christians hopping aboard, not a cause.

The simple break down is, Liberal parties are parties advocating change, pushing individual freedoms...

Concervative parties, advocate stablitiy, pushing more constraining laws on society to maintain that stability...

Religion is all about constraint on everyday life... so its easy to see why religion falls along the Right on the political scale.

Yes, but you are putting the cart before the horse. The Republican party is against abortion and for censorship because of christian lobbying within the party. Had the christians not hopped aboard in the 60s, the Republican party would still resemble the libertarian party it was shaping up to be. So, you cant examine those issues as a cause for christians hopping aboard, they are an effect of christians hopping aboard, not a cause.

Well concervative groups were always for more laws, just state laws.. they wanted the power of the STATE to be the central body for law making, not the Federal government... Concervatives are only lessie fare in economic terms.. i think I could make a strong argument that on a social level, they are anything but liberal when it comes to social policy.

Well concervative groups were always for more laws, just state laws.. they wanted the power of the STATE to be the central body for law making, not the Federal government... Concervatives are only lessie fare in economic terms.. i think I could make a strong argument that on a social level, they are anything but liberal when it comes to social policy.

You just rehashed the same argument. My point remains unchallenged. They are that way now, they werent that way before the christians hopped aboard (unless you wanna go way back to when the Republicans were the liberal party).

Religion is all about constraint on everyday life... so its easy to see why religion falls along the Right on the political scale.

which just runs into the little problem of utterly conflicting with the actual ideas and practices of many of the mainline churches in the u.s. go check out what the elca lutherans have to say about things, or the bush's own united methodists.

No.. but then things are rarely that clear cut. The constitution never actually says slavery is wrong.. and yet the constitution was ultimatly used to over turn the practice of slavery. Constitution only refers to MEN being created equal, and yet women recieved rigthts under the constitution as well... It is not the words that are important, but the ideas.

Jesus didn't have to say that the government needs to put constraints on life, only that constraints are needed remain moral good people. So religious people favor political factions which encrouage constraints.. (ie. the republican party)
I completely understand this. I just wanted to test you! I wanted to write a response to what the conservatives in this thread had been writing ("Jesus never said anything about government welfare"). You've reponded to them for me. Thanks.

thats a rather cynical way of putting it.. the way i see it, Christianity is all about rules and laws.
Most Christians told me when I was growing up that Christianity was about love. They believed that in the past the laws and dogma had been over-emphasised.

The Republican party is the "laissez-faire laissez passer" party. The party that believes in smaller government, less laws, more individual freedom, more freedom for the states, less government intervention or involvement, etc.
What? If you've been even casually following US politics over the past few years you would know that Republicans don't believe in most of these things anymore.

Had the christians not hopped aboard in the 60s, the Republican party would still resemble the libertarian party
The Republicans were never libertarian on social issues. They used to be more moderate than now, but it was 1920s Republicans that instituted the "Muslim theocracy" rule of prohibition.