Who’s church is closer to following “true” Christianity: BRTD’s, or ER’s?

[PSOL]

There seems to be a strange viewpoint here that conservatism is by default always closer to "true" Christianity.

True Christianity is based off teachings from 2,000 years ago, so yes, it is conservative.

Karl Marx's writings are almost 180 years old. Conservative?

Certainly are in some parts of the world.

Karl Marx had unsavory views of unemployed people that are immensely classicist and was conservative relatively to relationships between the sexes and social rights to LGBT people. He also did not talk about racism all that much which to other theorists became very important.

I’ve spoken against egregious attacks on his character before from these angles, but he was not some perfect individual for whom is the end all be all, he had issues and was a guy with many smart ideas.

[PSOL]

There seems to be a strange viewpoint here that conservatism is by default always closer to "true" Christianity.

True Christianity is based off teachings from 2,000 years ago, so yes, it is conservative.

Karl Marx's writings are almost 180 years old. Conservative?

Certainly are in some parts of the world.[/b]

Karl Marx had unsavory views of unemployed people that are immensely classicist and was conservative relatively to relationships between the sexes and social rights to LGBT people. He also did not talk about racism all that much which to other theorists became very important.

I’ve spoken against egregious attacks on his character before from these angles, but he was not some perfect individual for whom is the end all be all, he had issues and was a guy with many smart ideas.

You have a BS Bob-esque tendency to think of "conservative" as indicating a specific set of political stances across time periods and cultures, rather than as a set of attitudes and social emotions that people can take towards a variety of historical conditions and processes. This has led you on several occasions to what strike me as unhelpful and unnecessary misunderstandings of how other posters are using the word.

Well excuse me, I thought they were referring to the “now” and how many Marxists in the “now” are viewing this.

[PSOL]

An atheist is just as capable of reading a religious text and applying it to a given situation as a believer is.

No, he isn't - as, for example, the history of nonChristian BibleCritics has proven very well with its endless series of as arrogant as ignorant hypoTheses, most of them having already been refuted.
Generally a historian must - like any novelist, with whom he is not unrelated - first of all love (at least a little bit), what he describes then critically.
"Whatever is, is right." is finally certainly insufficient from a logical point of view, but nonetheless necessary to understand anything empirical.

So in order to be a decent historian of the Khmer Rouge, one must "love" Pol Pot?

Yes - no historian writes without passion, no historian writes cum studio et ira.
The historian forgives the stupid for they did not know, what they were doing. What requires to be - contrary to all the ideoLogues&uTopists - so used to human tragedies&catastrophies, so used to expect the worst, that he is already in the cloud-free Olymp (HERODOT was the ideal in this regard). And is another reason, why the greatest of them (BURCKHARDT, RANKE, HUIZINGA aso.) were fairly close to Christianity.

Instead of saying my own thoughts like a naked primitive and idiótes i should have wrapped myself into the clothes of ... perhaps GOETHE: "Were not the eye itself a Sun | No Sun for it could ever shine; | By nothing Godlike could the heart be won | Were not the heart itself divine." ["heart itself divine" was meant in a pagan way, not in a monistical one]. As a conSequence He - an established poet and honourable minister - admitted, that "In every moment of my life i was capable of committing any crime."
And for those, who do not take poets serious (exactly those, who i do not take serious...), DILTHEY wrote it in prose: "You cannot go back behind life." (His famous "hermeneutical circle": we can understand only, what we have already understood).
"Any historiography is obviously always an autobiography." (GOMEZ DAVILA)
All empirical science is based purely on anaLogy.

So it's even worse than i said: In order to understand Mr.PolPot You must Yourself incorporate Mr.PolPot...

Oftentimes the people with the most experience on the matter of what is wrong are people of that "lane", yes, but you don't have to incorporate or respect a failure–indeed the harshest critiques of DK and the leader in particular are former members in the movement who soured on him or former supporters abroad who soured on him from a marxist perspective. There are a ton of those who knew that he did make mistakes, very big ones, but know the nuances and exact examples of those mistakes. However, even these people are oftentimes blinded by spite or even implicit nostalgia, so it takes a diverse range of people to get the story exactly right.

I am not responding to the gobbledygook of poorly cited references of late romantic writers and pure errors regarding definitions here, if we are basing your ideals on citations alone you would fail high school Lit. Also get better and more interesting citations and sources for inspiration rather than long dead people in your fields course of focus, it would be more relevant to explaining the "now". At least Vittorio used and cited at least one person's work who died less than fifty years ago as his go-to, and with all his citations he was fairly good at proper citations that would not lead to a zero in high school Lit. Plus he kept some things current too by pointing out stuff people were doing and saying now that defended his argument, always keeping it fresh.

[PSOL]

An atheist is just as capable of reading a religious text and applying it to a given situation as a believer is.

No, he isn't - as, for example, the history of nonChristian BibleCritics has proven very well with its endless series of as arrogant as ignorant hypoTheses, most of them having already been refuted.
Generally a historian must - like any novelist, with whom he is not unrelated - first of all love (at least a little bit), what he describes then critically.
"Whatever is, is right." is finally certainly insufficient from a logical point of view, but nonetheless necessary to understand anything empirical.

So in order to be a decent historian of the Khmer Rouge, one must "love" Pol Pot?

Yes - no historian writes without passion, no historian writes cum studio et ira.
The historian forgives the stupid for they did not know, what they were doing. What requires to be - contrary to all the ideoLogues&uTopists - so used to human tragedies&catastrophies, so used to expect the worst, that he is already in the cloud-free Olymp (HERODOT was the ideal in this regard). And is another reason, why the greatest of them (BURCKHARDT, RANKE, HUIZINGA aso.) were fairly close to Christianity.

Instead of saying my own thoughts like a naked primitive and idiótes i should have wrapped myself into the clothes of ... perhaps GOETHE: "Were not the eye itself a Sun | No Sun for it could ever shine; | By nothing Godlike could the heart be won | Were not the heart itself divine." ["heart itself divine" was meant in a pagan way, not in a monistical one]. As a conSequence He - an established poet and honourable minister - admitted, that "In every moment of my life i was capable of committing any crime."
And for those, who do not take poets serious (exactly those, who i do not take serious...), DILTHEY wrote it in prose: "You cannot go back behind life." (His famous "hermeneutical circle": we can understand only, what we have already understood).
"Any historiography is obviously always an autobiography." (GOMEZ DAVILA)
All empirical science is based purely on anaLogy.

So it's even worse than i said: In order to understand Mr.PolPot You must Yourself incorporate Mr.PolPot...

Oftentimes the people with the most experience on the matter of what is wrong are people of that "lane", yes, but you don't have to incorporate or respect a failure–indeed the harshest critiques of DK and the leader in particular are former members in the movement who soured on him or former supporters abroad who soured on him from a marxist perspective. There are a ton of those who knew that he did make mistakes, very big ones, but know the nuances and exact examples of those mistakes. However, even these people are oftentimes blinded by spite or even implicit nostalgia, so it takes a diverse range of people to get the story exactly right.

I am not responding to the gobbledygook of poorly cited references of late romantic writers and pure errors regarding definitions here, if we are basing your ideals on citations alone you would fail high school Lit. Also get better and more interesting citations and sources for inspiration rather than long dead people in your fields course of focus, it would be more relevant to explaining the "now". At least Vittorio used and cited at least one person's work who died less than fifty years ago as his go-to, and with all his citations he was fairly good at proper citations that would not lead to a zero in high school Lit. Plus he kept some things current too by pointing out stuff people were doing and saying now that defended his argument, always keeping it fresh.

Ah, You are the one, who has problems with me since i unmasked homosexual partnerships as illusory. (But that even fits to heterosexual ones!)

You’ve always had a weird schtick, but obviously when you move on to my turf in the political and personal and do so with poor yet excessive citations, I’m going to comment on that.

This doesn’t detract from the main message that you don’t need to love or really know anyone to get a good sense of history or even write down reality, just go for the good sources and you’ll see most of reality similar to as it was.