Why are there no leftist Christian terrorists?

[Alcon]

There were some Christian kids who bombed conservative churches, I think.  And there are certainly liberal Christians who have committed terror attacks.

But Christianity is a fairly moderate-tempered religion, and does not generally provoke zealotry.  Liberal Christianity is that way, too, so it's exponential.

This is really a dumb question.  Why aren't there many Kaballahist terrorists?

[Alcon]

I doubt capitalism would be any part of Jesus's ideal society, so the idea that Jesus was "pro-capitalism" is pretty inane.  I also don't think that Jesus spent much time judging the better of impure lifestyles.  I don't think there's much additional substance to this debate...

[Alcon]

I doubt capitalism would be any part of Jesus's ideal society, so the idea that Jesus was "pro-capitalism" is pretty inane. 

Agreed just as the idea that Jesus was "anti-capitalism" is pretty inane.

I'm not sure I agree.  Jesus's utopian vision was probably an empathetic, collectivist society, by human behavior as opposed to government enforcement.  Calling him "anti-capitalism" is, in that sense, apt -- fundamentally, he opposed it.  It would be like calling me "not anti-puppy-punting" because I'd prefer it as an alternative in a culture that boils 'em in a stew.

[Alcon]

I'm not sure I agree.  Jesus's utopian vision was probably an empathetic, collectivist society, by human behavior as opposed to government enforcement. 

Agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't agree.  He never, as far as I know, gave any indication which method of economy the state ran that He favored.  He wanted His followers to give all they had that they didn't need to the poor.  He never suggested the state should get into the business of telling carpenters when and what to work on or to buy all the sheep and then pay the sheppards to take care of them.  Again, as far as I know.  If He did, I'd like a cite.  If He didn't, then I don't think He cared all that much.

But my argument was that his vision of a just world would entail no capitalism, so capitalism is inherently unjust.  Being that he probably opposed unjustness, he was in that sense "anti-capitalistic" -- but beyond that, maybe willing to make concessions to pragmatism.  But again, the lesser of two evils is still an evil.  I see only indications that he viewed capitalism as an evil, y'know?

If something is evil, and against my ideals of a decent society, I'd still call myself anti-that, even if the alternative is worse.  Kind of semantic, but also very much not

[Alcon]

I'm not seeing that.  Why would He have a vision of a just world.  He knew, assuming He is who He claims to be, the world would never be just. 

He didn't have views on just behaviors and acts that culminate in a just world...?  That goes against my understanding of most non-brimstone Christianity.

I don't think He viewed it at all.  I don't think it mattered much to Him what sort of economy any future state would have.

Like I said, in a society that followed Jesus's teachings, there would be no need for economic competition.  Christian compassion would be economic incentive.  Servitude to God would get the juices flowing.  Am I saying that's possible?  Hell naw, I ain't even a Christian.  But to start out at least, do we agree that it's the Christian ideal fairytalebook-land?

But the things that make a capitalistic system inherently effective are not necessarily in pure, direct opposition to Jesus's teachings, but I would argue that they are antithetical to some of his goals.  Christianity teaches (from my understanding) someone to move toward purity.  Would Jesus be kosher (so to speak) with something, just because it was the lesser of two societally-imposed choices?  Obviously not

Would Jesus be OK with something with evil properties, situationally, because it gravitated that society toward more Christian values?   From my understanding of the Bible, yes.

Does that mean Jesus would not oppose the evil of that concept in itself?  I don't think so.  And I think that, conceptually, that would make Jesus anti-concept, in this case anti-capitalist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

errrr ok

Sorry, maybe that was unclear, it's really damn late

It's semantic in the sense that the distinction between "supported it as a matter of pragmatism" and "supported it as a matter of philosophy" are identical on the practical level

It's non-semantic in the sense that, removed from that pragmatic A-or-B scenario, the philosophical opposition is meaningful.

My argument is that Christian teaching does not teach one to be OK with A just because it is superior to B, and culture demands A or B.  It may teach "turning the other cheek," but I would argue that tolerance does not equal neutrality.  So, it's not semantic.

(those two last sentences pretty much said the same thing as the response to the last quote...)

[Alcon]

dead0man,

I think I understand you're argument and I'm representing it fairly.  Our central disagreement seems to be over whether situational support means that someone is not "opposed" to a concept, if it contradicts their fundamental values.  I also can't help but think that the sentence "I don't think He believed a just world was possible, why would He concern Himself with it?" makes just as much sense with pious replacing just...what exactly was Jesus around for, then?

It seems to me that Jesus would encourage a world that is as just or pious as possible.  I actually reject the idea that collectivism does not work on a very micro scale, and if it does, I see no reason why it wouldn't align better with Jesus's morals.  Being "more just," it would seem that his practical support would gravitate there.  I suppose you could argue that this would inhibit scientific progress and other things that would make the world juster.  But, beyond the theoreticals that relate to his fundamental philosophy, are you sure capitalism is even that?

As for the "forgiving Lord" part:  I don't believe that choosing the lesser evil in a culturally-imposed dichotomy, absolves us of moral responsibility.  The very fact that He'd have to be forgiving kind of implies that he's philosophically anti-whatever.  I didn't say it would cause eternal damnation, or that He wouldn't be understanding.  I see no indications that Jesus wasn't empathetic toward human weakness.  But I still don't see how that does not make him anti-whatever.

I know your Sunday School education probably trumps my non-theism.  But I don't really think the nature of salvation is relevant, unless you're arguing that works are immaterial to Jesus's philosophy.  But there's a good chance, when it comes to theology, that I'm misconstruing your beliefs unintentionally.

[Alcon]

think of that old stereotype of a Liverpool docker with a framed picture of Karl Marx next to a Crucifix and a statue of the Virgin Mary...

I think this stereotype was lost somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean

[Alcon]

But Christianity is a fairly moderate-tempered religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

what!  i've never heard of this!

Fine:  Mainstream American Christianity is a moderate-tempered religion

"Moderate" does not mean placid, anyway.  I would never compare Christianity to Buddhism, which is almost incredibly bloodless.  They have much better records than Christianity, but that was a pretty trivial point

P.S. dead0man, sorry for how weirdly paced this morning's post was.  I was tired.