"Socialism" VS Christianity

[jimmyjazz 46000]

8 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

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.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but I'm quite confident the red swath isn't ruled by Presbyterians.

(I say this as a midwestern Presbyterian.)

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

Has anyone asked for the proof of the claims made by Christians yet? If not, I would like to ask for it now. I am still unconvinced that any of the supernatural claims are based in fact. What evidence can be provided to support the validity of the claim?

[F250 28802]

On 10/30/2019 at 9:28 PM, TwiceHorn said:

The point she raises about Marx' materialism is an interesting one that probably has some validity. 

This was the only thing I agreed with in the article. Christianity is incompatible with materialism, Christianity or any theistic religion cannot be compatible with a school of thought rooted in monism. It's like being a fat skinny person, you are either fat or skinny you can't be both. Then again, Christianity is incompatible with Objectivism yet a shit ton of Christians edify Ayn Rand's philosophy so cognitive dissonance allows for incompatible ideas, I guess.

Anyways, it's irrelevant because Bernie isn't a Marxist.

 

 

[Mole 4333]

Let’s keep the coin in koinonia.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Mole

[hpslugga 4062]

On 10/30/2019 at 9:28 PM, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Hold on, how does Karl Marx figure into this?

See, that’s kind of what I mean. That article is profusely stupid and adds value to any meaningful conversation neither about Christianity nor Socialism.

Edited November 1, 2019 by hpslugga

[TwiceHorn 31512]

On 10/31/2019 at 1:07 AM, 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?

I don't believe the fake Christians outnumber the real Christians.  They're just a lot noisier, particularly in venues to which you attend, e.g. politics.  

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

@FelixDo you not have anything to add to the thread? I am perfectly justified in being unconvinced. If you have evidence to put forth, you should do so for examination. I'm sorry that you don't like that I don't accept assertions others have made and take them at their word. It's my Constitutional Right to not have to. So let's have it.

[troph 24893]

I don't believe the fake Christians outnumber the real Christians.  They're just a lot noisier, particularly in venues to which you attend, e.g. politics.  

 

I disagree. Quick google of “how many Americans identify as evangelical” yielded this:

 

 

More evangelicals than any other Christian group and the mainline denominations more likely to be progressive at a solid 10 points behind with Catholics in the middle.

 

The GOP isn’t beholden to the evangelicals because they are louder, they are beholden because evangelicals represent one of the single largest voting blocks in politics across all categories other than race and gender.

They represent a ton of power.

[formermav43 4606]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

 

I disagree. Quick google of “how many Americans identify as evangelical” yielded this:

 

 

More evangelicals than any other Christian group and the mainline denominations more likely to be progressive at a solid 10 points behind with Catholics in the middle.

 

The GOP isn’t beholden to the evangelicals because they are louder, they are beholden because evangelicals represent one of the single largest voting blocks in politics across all categories other than race and gender.

They represent a ton of power.

Evangelical is such a nebulous term, though, that it’s essentially meaningless. That self-identification includes a lot of the people you’re talking about, but who would not be considered evangelical in the historical or theological sense; it includes those who are evangelical in that sense but aren’t part of a monolithic political block; and it excludes those who are evangelical in the historical and theological sense, but reject the label themselves because it is such a politically loaded term. 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

15 minutes ago, troph said:

More evangelicals than any other Christian group and the mainline denominations more likely to be progressive at a solid 10 points behind with Catholics in the middle.

The GOP isn’t beholden to the evangelicals because they are louder, they are beholden because evangelicals represent one of the single largest voting blocks in politics across all categories other than race and gender.

They represent a ton of power.

I posted that report yesterday -- Evangelicals are the biggest bloc, but they're also only 36% of Christians.  I think the assertion about "fake" VS "real" Christians is on point.  But yes, it's a big group that virtually defines modern Republicanism.

[workswithseed 2108]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I posted that report yesterday -- Evangelicals are the biggest bloc, but they're also only 36% of Christians.  I think the assertion about "fake" VS "real" Christians is on point.  But yes, it's a big group that virtually defines modern Republicanism.

Does giving to charities, but not wanting to give more in taxes make one fake?

[American Swindle 102]

On 10/30/2019 at 4:37 PM, 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.

 

You forgot to throw in 15K$ hammers for the Pentagon, bombs that are dropped to kill brown people in the form of collateral damage, lavish pensions for those in our government, a Dept of Education that re-invents new ways to do math to sell new math books, a system of funding that is set up to incentivize all governmental bodies to not save tax payer dollars, crony banking institutions that are too big to fail, a social security ponzi scheme, a failed war on drugs, and an Empire that has bases in 130+ countries.  

 

We've been programmed to think paying taxes are a good thing.  

You see, a free society can't exist under socialism, but a socialist society can exist under a free market, libertarian society.  If property rights are respected, conflicts are to be avoided and we all agree to live by the non-aggression principle, then socialist groups can exist.  But if it's the other way around, then voluntary exchange cannot happen as you have everything centrally planned by a body that thinks it knows how best to allocate resources better than you and I.  Force is required instead of voluntarism.  

If anything, Jesus compelled others to do good and lead by example, he did not go to the Roman Government and have them force others to do good deeds.