"Socialism" VS Christianity

[jimmyjazz 46000]

A fundamentalist Christian friend (OK, the brother of an old girlfriend) forwarded this to me.  I disagree with almost everything it says, but I thought I'd see what others here think before digging in with my views.  I'll start with the low-hanging fruit:  "socialism" is not a serious political movement in America, so arguing against socialism, even if done with academic rigor and the best of intentions (neither of which appears to be true in this case) is a waste of time.

 

Socialism VS Christianity

 

[tantric superman 4667]

I don't agree with you 100%, but why would I waste time reading something that you totally disagree with and what is likely drivel?

Don't pedal the drivel.  There is enough bullshit on the internet not to pile more on.

But here is my take without reading:

Socialism:  a complicated  economic/political approach to deal with the production and allocation of resources.

Christianity:  a religion with almost fantastical amounts of bullshit nonsensical rabbit holes but at it's heart about giving all your shit away and helping others.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by tantric superman

[SimonBolivar 10958]

I disagree that Socialism isn't a serious political movement. Bernie Sanders and and Elizabeth Warren show that it is, but absolute communism, which their detractors wish you to think all socialism falls under, isn't popular. As far as Jesus...I really don't give a shit what a dude that died 2,000 years ago in the Levant thinks about our economic models in 2019.

[formermav43 4606]

The politics of Jesus begin and end with the Kingdom of God. Any talk about his view of socialism, capitalism, or any other “ism” is just an attempt to co-opt him for the speaker’s preconceived ideology. It’s essentially idolatry.

[Bama Chick 28596]

If you’re calling Elizabeth Warren a socialist.....you don’t know what socialism really is.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

8 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I disagree that Socialism isn't a serious political movement. Bernie Sanders and and Elizabeth Warren show that it is,

That's one place we differ.  They aren't socialists.

Regarding the article:  the writer posits 5 reasons why socialism is at odds with Christianity.  I don't agree with her arguments, but I don't think it's drivel.  Furthermore, it's important, because this is the type of thing that is fueling half the country right now.  Don't read it if you can't come at it with a semi-objective eye. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

If you’re calling Elizabeth Warren a socialist.....you don’t know what socialism really is.

She has socialist policies and she has free market policies just like every elected official in the US in 2019. She just happens to have more socialist ideas than Donald Trump does. Not everything has to be an absolute like communism or unregulated capitalism. 

[DixonHur 11344]

Bernie is totally a socialist.  But we've been programmed to interpret that as a bad thing, so the knee jerk reaction is to say they aren't socialists.  In and of itself, socialism is a good thing.  I'd argue that the US is already a socialist country, it's just a matter of HOW socialist.  The government collects taxes and redistributes it in the form of common defense, roads, schools, libraries, etc.

 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Bernie is totally a socialist.  But we've been programmed to interpret that as a bad thing, so the knee jerk reaction is to say they aren't socialists. 

It all depends on whether or not you see Bernie's identification as a "democratic socialist" as being unique from "socialist" or falling under a broader classification with many variants.  Most people don't ascribe to the latter, but rather see "democratic socialist" (Sanders, Warren) as somewhere between "capitalist" and "socialist".

[bad_teammate 13220]

A classic case of reading the article and being dumber at the end.

Jesus Christ...

Also, jimmy is 100% correct that Bernie isn't really a full-on socialist. He's a New Deal Democrat who would be fine with tons of private ownership everywhere and even very very rich people who are just taxed very highly.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Jesus Christ...

Well played.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Bernie is totally a socialist.  But we've been programmed to interpret that as a bad thing, so the knee jerk reaction is to say they aren't socialists.  In and of itself, socialism is a good thing.  I'd argue that the US is already a socialist country, it's just a matter of HOW socialist.  The government collects taxes and redistributes it in the form of common defense, roads, schools, libraries, etc.

 

Socialism for me, but not for thee!  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You guys know the military is single payer right. 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

That whole website is only nominally Christian.  It is precisely dedicated to conflating religion and politics.  

Most of what's on it, therefore, is drivel.

And trying to tell people that x political philosophy is not Christian is the worst kind of demagoguery.  If you're honest, every political philosophy contains elements of Christianity and elements that are not very Christian, and you can toss in the other world religions, as well.

Those assholes are just looking for support from the Big Guy/Gal, who's just shaking His/Her head.

[SaucyJack 3498]

3 hours ago, tantric superman said:

I don't agree with you 100%, but why would I waste time reading something that you totally disagree with and what is likely drivel?

Don't pedal the drivel.  There is enough bullshit on the internet not to pile more on.

But here is my take without reading:

Socialism:  a complicated  economic/political approach to deal with the production and allocation of resources.

Christianity:  a religion with almost fantastical amounts of bullshit nonsensical rabbit holes but at it's heart about giving all your shit away and helping others.

 

WAT

[jimmyjazz 46000]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That whole website is only nominally Christian.  It is precisely dedicated to conflating religion and politics.  

Most of what's on it, therefore, is drivel.

And trying to tell people that x political philosophy is not Christian is the worst kind of demagoguery.  If you're honest, every political philosophy contains elements of Christianity and elements that are not very Christian, and you can toss in the other world religions, as well.

Those assholes are just looking for support from the Big Guy/Gal, who's just shaking His/Her head.

I'm really angling to see what people think of the 5 points in the article, though.  Obviously I can't make anyone assess it, but I thought it would foster more commentary than "religion bad, tits good".  ("Paraphased" -- Adam Schiff)

[tantric superman 4667]

Religion, is more often than not perverted.  I could imagine a world in which Christianity was a loose affiliation of groups that attempted to simply and in a focused way follow the teachings of the New Testament Jesus.  So in other words, charitable organizations and apolitical churches. 

To the extent that recoiling at everything Trump stands for is apolitical.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

<sigh> 

What the fuck ever.

[formermav43 4606]

24 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm really angling to see what people think of the 5 points in the article, though.  Obviously I can't make anyone assess it, but I thought it would foster more commentary than "religion bad, tits good".  ("Paraphased" -- Adam Schiff)

You’ve actually had some commentary from people who think religion is good, but that article has nothing to do with it. Analysis beyond that seems pretty irrelevant to me.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

<sigh> 

What the fuck ever.

You're good at this, asking for response kind of thread.

Not as good at Tahoe, but still.

t

[TwiceHorn 31512]

34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm really angling to see what people think of the 5 points in the article, though.  Obviously I can't make anyone assess it, but I thought it would foster more commentary than "religion bad, tits good".  ("Paraphased" -- Adam Schiff)

Well, what I think of it is kind of encapsulated in my fifth sentence.  Christianity is a philosophy among other things, and most political systems are or incorporate philosophies.  So there's always going to be some overlap, and some conflict.

I think it's fairly useless to compare political systems with religions, at least for arguing that one is more or less compatible with the other. One is intended to govern mankind's external life, the other its internal life.

The altruistic aspects of socialism are wholly compatible with Christianity.  The point she raises about Marx' materialism is an interesting one that probably has some validity.  But I think therein lies the problem I note.  Christianity is largely unconcerned with the external or material well being of man.  No political or economic system can afford to be similarly unconcerned.  The latter fact will always create a degree of conflict between the two.

Edited October 31, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46000]

I think her focus on materialism was a betrayal of (true) Christianity.  This is the aspect of the article I wanted to see people discuss -- I don't think she failed to assess socialism as much as she failed to assess Christianity.  

This is a fundamental problem in discussing politics with evangelicals.  Their blinders are far more limiting than their skewed perspectives on modern political philosophies.  Unfortunately, the discussion always degenerates into an argument about which philosophy is what, and rarely does anyone call out the evangelical on their abject hypocrisy; namely, their un-Christlike behavior and beliefs.

Edited October 31, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[TwiceHorn 31512]

35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think her focus on materialism was a betrayal of (true) Christianity.  This is the aspect of the article I wanted to see people discuss -- I don't think she failed to assess socialism as much as she failed to assess Christianity.  

This is a fundamental problem in discussing politics with evangelicals.  Their blinders are far more limiting than their skewed perspectives on modern political philosophies.  Unfortunately, the discussion always degenerates into an argument about which philosophy is what, and rarely does anyone call out the evangelical on their abject hypocrisy; namely, their un-Christlike behavior and beliefs.

Or capitalism.  Capitalism is equally, but differently, materialistic.  She completely blew right past that.

In her article, there are only two competitors, socialism and Christianity, when any honest critique would have to have to include capitalism, as the presumptive alternative political system.  And capitalism is going to fare poorly in the evaluation, as well.

Capitalism might fare slightly better because its originators were at least nominally Christians, and assumed that most of its practitioners would share similar values while socialism's originators rejected religion and mostly found it incompatible with their system.

But I tend to find these things a waste of words and brainpower.  They are fundamentally, and ab initio incompatible.

A better question might be how heavily can you participate in any political system without compromising your religious values?

[formermav43 4606]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A better question might be how heavily can you participate in any political system without compromising your religious values?

That depends on your religion, I suppose. But for Christians, frankly, I’m not sure it’s possible to participate at all without some degree of compromise.

[troph 24893]

New Testament Christianity is straight up apolitical communism. Ignore politics, redistribute wealth to the poor(er). To claim anything else is to ignore core aspects of the red letter gospels. And to claim New Testament blessings refer to material wealth ignores the focus of many of those same red letter passages.

 

So in reality, Democratic socialism is more Christian than American capitalism and it’s not even close.

[formermav43 4606]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

New Testament Christianity is straight up apolitical communism. Ignore politics, redistribute wealth to the poor(er). To claim anything else is to ignore core aspects of the red letter gospels. And to claim New Testament blessings refer to material wealth ignores the focus of many of those same red letter passages.

 

So in reality, Democratic socialism is more Christian than American capitalism and it’s not even close.

Jesus’ teachings are for his followers. All of that selling goods and giving to the poor in Acts is within the church. Neither Democratic socialism nor American capitalism are more or less Christian than the other; the very idea of applying the ethic of the Kingdom of God to any nation-state is nonsensical.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

jimmyjazz, I did attempt to read through the article, but I did not finish on account of it being thoroughly unconvincing, presumably for the same reasons you found it to be so.  But here are my views on the subject in general:

Christianity is fundamentally a set of metaphysical claims, i.e. the nature of reality is a certain way and not some other way (e.g. God is eternal, God created the heavens and the earth, man is made in the image of God, the Word of God walked on the earth as a mortal man, etc).  From those claims follow a set of ethical claims & commands for individuals to follow, but within the system those claims are dependent on the truth claims, and by themselves the ethical claims are similar to other systems; so the ethical claims by themselves are not Christianity's definable nor distinguishable characteristic. 

Furthermore, the ethical claims in the new testament are only given to individuals and not to the state.  In the gospels, Jesus expresses no interest in the state whatsoever.  Neither do any of his followers in the first century, judging by the extant writings.  I've seen some folks argue that some form of socialism is most in line with NT writings, but these are based on the assumption that commands for individuals also apply to the state.  This of course is a huge leap that would need lots of justification, but it is seldom given and I don't believe any convincing justification could be given.  There are different rules for the individual and the state, one such example being that individuals are not to judge nor exact judgment on their neighbor, but the state not only can do so but ought to do so.  I've also seen it argued that some form of capitalism is most in line with Christianity, because the end result is the most economic prosperity (so the argument goes) and it brings about the most good, and therefore Jesus would like it the most.  I guess Jesus is an ethical utilitarian in this view.  I don't find this view very convincing, either.

In summary, going by the gospel accounts, Jesus cared primarily about people understanding and believing certain truths about reality, and also how people ought to treat one another, which is with love and kindness.  He gave no thoughts at all even remotely relating to preferred economic models for the state.  Anyone stating otherwise is giving a hot load of bullshit.  

This is a great take. And it's what Christianity should be, but it isn't how it is practiced. Modern Evangelical Christianity believes in winner take all, and believes that token "gifts" can justify widespread income disparity. 

But when the fake Christians vastly outnumber the real Christians, does that not change the definition of Christian? At some point, it needs to be reeled back in and reformed again.  Considering that Jesus cared about the poorest among us, and that Jesus cared about how people ought to treat one another generally, and he saw that self proclaimed Christians weren't treating people the way he wanted, what would he choose to do?  Tell them to give more?  And if they didn't would he not turn to a coercive body like the government to make it so?

[formermav43 4606]

26 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

jimmyjazz, I did attempt to read through the article, but I did not finish on account of it being thoroughly unconvincing, presumably for the same reasons you found it to be so.  But here are my views on the subject in general:

Christianity is fundamentally a set of metaphysical claims, i.e. the nature of reality is a certain way and not some other way (e.g. God is eternal, God created the heavens and the earth, man is made in the image of God, the Word of God walked on the earth as a mortal man, etc).  From those claims follow a set of ethical claims & commands for individuals to follow, but within the system those claims are dependent on the truth claims, and by themselves the ethical claims are similar to other systems; so the ethical claims by themselves are not Christianity's definable nor distinguishable characteristic. 

Furthermore, the ethical claims in the new testament are only given to individuals and not to the state.  In the gospels, Jesus expresses no interest in the state whatsoever.  Neither do any of his followers in the first century, judging by the extant writings.  I've seen some folks argue that some form of socialism is most in line with NT writings, but these are based on the assumption that commands for individuals also apply to the state.  This of course is a huge leap that would need lots of justification, but it is seldom given and I don't believe any convincing justification could be given.  There are different rules for the individual and the state, one such example being that individuals are not to judge nor exact judgment on their neighbor, but the state not only can do so but ought to do so.  I've also seen it argued that some form of capitalism is most in line with Christianity, because the end result is the most economic prosperity (so the argument goes) and it brings about the most good, and therefore Jesus would like it the most.  I guess Jesus is an ethical utilitarian in this view.  I don't find this view very convincing, either.

In summary, going by the gospel accounts, Jesus cared primarily about people understanding and believing certain truths about reality, and also how people ought to treat one another, which is with love and kindness.  He gave no thoughts at all even remotely relating to preferred economic models for the state.  Anyone stating otherwise is giving a hot load of bullshit.  

I basically agree with this, with only one quibble: I wouldn’t describe Jesus’ commands as for individuals but rather for his people collectively-disciples, the church, The Way, the citizens of the Kingdom of God, the body, whatever Scriptural term you prefer for the community of Jesus’s followers. I think it’s key to note this dimension of his teaching in contrast to the individualistic focus of modern American Protestantism in particular.

In any case, the main thrust of your point is right on. His focus is that community, not the state.

Edited October 31, 2019 by formermav43

[jimmyjazz 46000]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

But when the fake Christians vastly outnumber the real Christians, does that not change the definition of Christian?

I have a minor quibble with this claim, going on the reasonable assumption that "fake Christians" are Evangelical Christians.  (I'm not sure that's fair to paint them all with such a broad brush, but I'm pretty confident there are some fakes outside of the Evangelical movement, too, so let's go with it.)  Pew Research claims the following as a percent of Americans:

-- Evangelical Protestant 25.4%

-- Catholic 20.8%

-- mainline Protestant 14.7%

-- historically black Protestant 6.5%

 

That represents the lion's share of the 70.6% of Americans who identify as "Christian", which puts Evangelical Protestants at just under 36% of Christians.

I think a big part of the problem is that Evangelicals are really loud.

 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

This is a great take. And it's what Christianity should be, but it isn't how it is practiced. Modern Evangelical Christianity believes in winner take all, and believes that token "gifts" can justify widespread income disparity. 

But when the fake Christians vastly outnumber the real Christians, does that not change the definition of Christian? At some point, it needs to be reeled back in and reformed again.  Considering that Jesus cared about the poorest among us, and that Jesus cared about how people ought to treat one another generally, and he saw that self proclaimed Christians weren't treating people the way he wanted, what would he choose to do?  Tell them to give more?  And if they didn't would he not turn to a coercive body like the government to make it so?

So in other words, modern evangelicals have created indulgences 2.0, if you will.

[hpslugga 4062]

14 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

If you’re calling Elizabeth Warren a socialist.....you don’t know what socialism really is.

Hell even Bernie isn’t really a socialist. He’s a New Deal Democrat.

That article is absolutely, laughably and indefensibly wrong about absolutely everything that it says.

[Iceman 2722]

12 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You guys know the military is single payer right. 

You know folks in the military are actually fucking working there for an agreed upon benefit for them and their dependents, right?

How bout you tell us the economics of said system and then add in millions of folks who don't work.

 

Nobody wants to fix the medical system.  They only want to control its enormous cash flow.  It might as well be the NCAA...

Edited October 31, 2019 by Iceman

[troph 24893]

Jesus’ teachings are for his followers. All of that selling goods and giving to the poor in Acts is within the church. Neither Democratic socialism nor American capitalism are more or less Christian than the other; the very idea of applying the ethic of the Kingdom of God to any nation-state is nonsensical.

I said apolitical. Look, I’m not in the Christian camp that demands our government look like “the kingdom of God” but those that are think socialism is from the pits of hell. IF Christians are going to demand their government be more like their religion then the closest application would not be capitalism it would be democratic socialism or some version of communism we have yet to see. That’s my only point. If you want a non-bastardized answer then the answer is as you say - two separate and unrelated planes. But for followers of Christ it doesn’t matter the type of government - the form of government is not an source of authority for how to live your life vis a vie material possessions or wealth. 

 

The best answer is to acknowledge religion isn’t government and government isn’t religion and start living your religious life without demanding the government endorse your social views on the world.

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

27 minutes ago, troph said:

 The best answer is to acknowledge religion isn’t government and government isn’t religion and start living your religious life without demanding the government endorse your social views on the world.

 

That's a relatively new concept in the history of the world, which is part of why we see so many people having trouble letting it go.

[formermav43 4606]

4 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

That's a relatively new concept in the history of the world, which is part of why we see so many people having trouble letting it go.

It’s actually a very old one for Christians. Read Tertullian’s Apology from the late 2nd century, for instance (not to mention the New Testament). But a lot of time has elapsed since then, and the practice of the earliest Christians was rejected in the Constantinian shift-and they definitely have a hard time letting go of that arrangement, you’re correct.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Yes, for the early church it was not an old idea, however the church existed as a small movement at that time. The rest of the world still intertwined religion with politics as almost inseparable, which is a big reason why it shifted after Constantine made Christianity mainstream.

[pyrohornIII 4817]

Quote

However, whenever any institution provides aid, it runs the risk of removing God-designed rewards and consequences. It can punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who are not. And, it can reward those who aren't industrious by giving them the fruits of another man's labor. This is precisely what socialism does.

Because of sin, though, there will always be inequalities in wealth. As the parable of the talents shows, those with good character tend to accumulate more; those with bad character may lose everything they have. Yet, even if we are unable to accumulate wealth, Christianity teaches that we can still have an abundant life. That's because our quality of life is not determined by how much stuff we have, but by our relationship to Christ.

I started hearing this from the Methodist pulpit in the mid 80s.  This works for those who think along the lines of formermav, whereby only those who are in that particular Kingdom of God are actually people.  The rest I assume are some sort of undeserving savages. 

So if you agree with this standpoint, then Betsy DeVos, Putin, Jeffrey Epstein and their ilk are of good character.  I call bullshit on that.

This article is so pandering to that group of people, those who have accumulated massive wealth.  Why?  Because those people support other people who write articles  (by donations) that not only absolve those greedy bastards of their sins, but somehow twist things to make those same greedy bastards come of as martyrs, or at least the chosen few who were tapped by God to control his earthbound wealth.     Thereby they built this base that brought us Trump.  It's like the money changers have won, and are once again revered. 

All this crap does is normalize greed and a lust for power.   That last line is so indicative of what is the current mindset.  In other words, if you can't accumulate wealth, it's not a big deal, because the real rewards are in our relationship to Christ.  But to have a better relationship with Christ, you have to have complete faith in his plan...which also includes accepting and supporting that certain people have been chosen to administer the wealth of the earth. 

So all of that supports the accumulation of wealth by the few.  Which puts food on the table of the author of that tripe, and the admin of that site.   Even if that food are the crumbs that fall from the table of the uber wealthy. 

Socialism flies in the face of that, because why accumulate just to have it taken away by the government and given to the less deserving?  Yeah, bullshit.  But keep defending it as God's plan. 

 

 

[formermav43 4606]

12 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

I started hearing this from the Methodist pulpit in the mid 80s.  This works for those who think along the lines of formermav, whereby only those who are in that particular Kingdom of God are actually people.  The rest I assume are some sort of undeserving savages. 

So if you agree with this standpoint, then Betsy DeVos, Putin, Jeffrey Epstein and their ilk are of good character.  I call bullshit on that.

This article is so pandering to that group of people, those who have accumulated massive wealth.  Why?  Because those people support other people who write articles  (by donations) that not only absolve those greedy bastards of their sins, but somehow twist things to make those same greedy bastards come of as martyrs, or at least the chosen few who were tapped by God to control his earthbound wealth.     Thereby they built this base that brought us Trump.  It's like the money changers have won, and are once again revered. 

All this crap does is normalize greed and a lust for power.   That last line is so indicative of what is the current mindset.  In other words, if you can't accumulate wealth, it's not a big deal, because the real rewards are in our relationship to Christ.  But to have a better relationship with Christ, you have to have complete faith in his plan...which also includes accepting and supporting that certain people have been chosen to administer the wealth of the earth. 

So all of that supports the accumulation of wealth by the few.  Which puts food on the table of the author of that tripe, and the admin of that site.   Even if that food are the crumbs that fall from the table of the uber wealthy. 

Socialism flies in the face of that, because why accumulate just to have it taken away by the government and given to the less deserving?  Yeah, bullshit.  But keep defending it as God's plan. 

 

 

Man, you have REALLY misread me.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Christian's should support socialism if they are truly Christians!

Why do Christian's think it is their job to enforce their moral code on non-Christians?

You can't really have one without the other. The commands Jesus gave to his followers were meant for his followers to follow. No where did Jesus imply that Christians should force nonbelievers to follow his commands. Vote for whichever form of government you think does society the most good.

[Incredulity 11679]

9 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

 

Why do Christian's think it is their job to enforce their moral code on non-Christians?

 

Why do Democrats, Republicans, Socialists,...?

[pyrohornIII 4817]

10 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Man, you have REALLY misread me.

Going back and re-reading, I agree that I did read some things into what you said.  This topic triggers me hard.  I apologize. 

 

This is what triggered me:

10 hours ago, formermav43 said:

Jesus’ teachings are for his followers. All of that selling goods and giving to the poor in Acts is within the church. Neither Democratic socialism nor American capitalism are more or less Christian than the other; the very idea of applying the ethic of the Kingdom of God to any nation-state is nonsensical.

I see this and think immediately of the idea that most evangelicals have is 'if you don't join us, you will burn in hell and we don't care'.  It's not only the evangelicals, but pretty much catholics and mormons as well.   But the evangelicals are the least tolerant of all, outside of radical muslims. 

When I saw the bolded parts, I immediately read into that that you were one of those followers.  Maybe you are, maybe you are not, and maybe somewhere in between.   Shouldn't matter.  I should not have singled you out. 

But I will agree with the general point made repeatedly in this discussion that the evangelical church of today is off base from what were the original teachings attributed to Jesus.

 

However, on the individual vs state issue, it seems to me since we are a government of and by the people, our religious or philosophical beliefs influence how we vote. By that then, the state is an extension of the individuals.  

[formermav43 4606]

5 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Going back and re-reading, I agree that I did read some things into what you said.  This topic triggers me hard.  I apologize. 

 

This is what triggered me:

I see this and think immediately of the idea that most evangelicals have is 'if you don't join us, you will burn in hell and we don't care'.  It's not only the evangelicals, but pretty much catholics and mormons as well.   But the evangelicals are the least tolerant of all, outside of radical muslims. 

When I saw the bolded parts, I immediately read into that that you were one of those followers.  Maybe you are, maybe you are not, and maybe somewhere in between.   Shouldn't matter.  I should not have singled you out. 

But I will agree with the general point made repeatedly in this discussion that the evangelical church of today is off base from what were the original teachings attributed to Jesus.

 

However, on the individual vs state issue, it seems to me since we are a government of and by the people, our religious or philosophical beliefs influence how we vote. By that then, the state is an extension of the individuals.  

I have multiple posts on this thread. That should have clarified those “maybes” for you.

[pyrohornIII 4817]

24 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Christian's should support socialism if they are truly Christians!

Why do Christian's think it is their job to enforce their moral code on non-Christians?

You can't really have one without the other. The commands Jesus gave to his followers were meant for his followers to follow. No where did Jesus imply that Christians should force nonbelievers to follow his commands. Vote for whichever form of government you think does society the most good.

Here's my take:  Safety in numbers.  All religion/philosophy is based on faith.  You choose one and hope for the best.  But even having a choice to make means to many that there are winners and losers.  You hope you choose the winning side.  The more people who choose your side, the more secure you feel in your decision.  So they keep pushing people to join their side, knowing that a lot of people do trendy things, they bandwagon.    Plus, as we are seeing, they form a substantial voting block that can control legislation.  Abortion is an example, gender bias is another. 

And i think a lot of those who really push that 'join or burn' agenda are power drunk.  The legislators The Family uses most seem that way to me.   They come across as those who love power over others' decisions.  That power is way more important to them than the actual salvation of the recruit. 

[pyrohornIII 4817]

5 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I have multiple posts on this thread. That should have clarified those “maybes” for you.

Whatever.  I apologized and tried to explain why i i did what i did.  Take it or leave it. 

[formermav43 4606]

1 minute ago, pyrohornIII said:

Whatever.  I apologized and tried to explain why i i did what i did.  Take it or leave it. 

It was an observation, just in case you’d missed those others. That’s all. Not sure why you’re taking things so personally.

[Zombie 284]

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have a minor quibble with this claim, going on the reasonable assumption that "fake Christians" are Evangelical Christians.  (I'm not sure that's fair to paint them all with such a broad brush, but I'm pretty confident there are some fakes outside of the Evangelical movement, too, so let's go with it.)  Pew Research claims the following as a percent of Americans:

-- Evangelical Protestant 25.4%

-- Catholic 20.8%

-- mainline Protestant 14.7%

-- historically black Protestant 6.5%

 

That represents the lion's share of the 70.6% of Americans who identify as "Christian", which puts Evangelical Protestants at just under 36% of Christians.

I think a big part of the problem is that Evangelicals are really loud.

 

Fair point.  The issue is that evangelicals are not only loud, but they are also sure to vote and they vote in lockstep.  Catholics and mainline protestants include people that are everywhere on the political and liberal/conservative spectrum.  That gives evangelicals even more power as a voting bloc.

I'd also say people that identify as evangelical most likely consider themselves devout.  A lot of those Catholics and some of those mainline protestants will self identify as such, but haven't seen the inside of a church or picked up a bible in years.

At any rate, evangelicals have all but stolen the Christian identity when viewed by the outside observer.

[workswithseed 2108]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Christian's should support socialism if they are truly Christians!

Why do Christian's think it is their job to enforce their moral code on non-Christians?

You can't really have one without the other. The commands Jesus gave to his followers were meant for his followers to follow. No where did Jesus imply that Christians should force nonbelievers to follow his commands. Vote for whichever form of government you think does society the most good.

I kinda like this. People hate religion forced down thier throat, but forcing people to pay for others is good!

Edited October 31, 2019 by workswithseed

[F250 28802]

9 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Modern Evangelical Christianity believes in winner take all, and believes that token "gifts" can justify widespread income disparity. 

This should be Modern "American" Evangelical Christianity. There are Evangelicals in other countries, primarily Europe that favor things on the socialism side of the political spectrum. I used to know a Brit that was a hybrid of Kirk Cameron's religious views and Bernie's economic views. I know some other Evangelicals with similar views in Spain as well. Evangelicalism seems to be very malleable to political and cultural influences.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have a minor quibble with this claim, going on the reasonable assumption that "fake Christians" are Evangelical Christians.  (I'm not sure that's fair to paint them all with such a broad brush, but I'm pretty confident there are some fakes outside of the Evangelical movement, too, so let's go with it.)  Pew Research claims the following as a percent of Americans:

-- Evangelical Protestant 25.4%

-- Catholic 20.8%

-- mainline Protestant 14.7%

-- historically black Protestant 6.5%

 

That represents the lion's share of the 70.6% of Americans who identify as "Christian", which puts Evangelical Protestants at just under 36% of Christians.

I think a big part of the problem is that Evangelicals are really loud.

 

I'd say the Evangelical power is also largely regionalized which gives them more power at the ballot box relative to their overall %. Also since most of us live in that region they seem to be more powerful to us than they probably are in reality.

Edited October 31, 2019 by SimonBolivar