Do left wing Christians have an almost flawless history?

[Alcon]

I think talking about people in medieval times long before the concept of left and right wings existed completely misses the point (as does arguing Luther and Calvin were "leftists".)

But you're also missing the point by arguing that this has anything to do with the "Christian" part of this.  Non-authoritarian, non-zealots rarely commit grand-scale crimes against humanity.

And the idea that the middle ages don't count because the "left" and "right" weren't concepts doesn't hold much water.  Are you claiming that they shouldn't be considered part of the doctrinal "Christian left" because they didn't self-identify that way?

[Bono]

I think talking about people in medieval times long before the concept of left and right wings existed completely misses the point (as does arguing Luther and Calvin were "leftists".)

It was you who mentioned crusades and the inquisition in the OP...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But you're also missing the point by arguing that this has anything to do with the "Christian" part of this.  Non-authoritarian, non-zealots rarely commit grand-scale crimes against humanity.

So you can't have authoritarian Christian zealots?

Also libertarian terrorists have existed (Timothy McVeigh)

[Alcon]

So you can't have authoritarian Christian zealots?

You just quoted me saying the opposite of that...

Also libertarian terrorists have existed (Timothy McVeigh)

Zealot.  Just because he was anti-government does not mean he was anti-authority.  He clearly believed that he was entitled to the authority to kill those who provided for, and underwent abortions.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So you can't have authoritarian Christian zealots?

You just quoted me saying the opposite of that...

Oops. I menat authoritarian LEFTIST Christian zealots.

Also libertarian terrorists have existed (Timothy McVeigh)

Zealot.  Just because he was anti-government does not mean he was anti-authority.  He clearly believed that he was entitled to the authority to kill those who provided for, and underwent abortions.

Uh, his issue wasn't abortion.

[Alcon]

Oops. I menat authoritarian LEFTIST Christian zealots.

Sure, but leftist Christianity rarely breeds religious zealotry.  If you want to argue that, fine.  But correlation means a lot less than causation, and there's no reason to believe that liberal Christianity is remarkable in causation relative to any other moderate ideological views.

McVeigh was, IIRC, a lapsed Catholic, but he wasn't committing his crime out of religious motivation.  What would it matter if he were a Christian?

Uh, his issue wasn't abortion.

Revenge against the government, sorry.  Whatever.  Did that really matter to my point?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oops. I menat authoritarian LEFTIST Christian zealots.

Sure, but leftist Christianity rarely breeds religious zealotry.

OK, hence my point. After all you can have Christian zealots and leftist zealots but rarely them combined.

Uh, his issue wasn't abortion.

Revenge against the government, sorry.  Whatever.  Did that really matter to my point?

It does matter since it's the difference between libertarianism and authoritarianism.

[Alcon]

OK, hence my point. After all you can have Christian zealots and leftist zealots but rarely them combined.

But what are you trying to prove from that?  What extrapolation are you making?  Liberal Christianity is not any more without bloodied hands than comparable cultural groups (agnostics, secular humanists, reform Jews, etc. etc.)  They all share something in common, non-authoritarianism and a culture of moderation.  For some reason, instead of giving credit that that, you're giving exclusive credit to your faith.

It does matter since it's the difference between libertarianism and authoritarianism.

"If I disagree with you, I will kill you" is a trademark of an authoritarian personality.  Perhaps he rationalized it with libertarianism, but you still have to have a morally authoritarian personality.  I was not speaking (at least not exclusively) of politics.

Then again, I'm not sure we're analyzing the motives of someone with such cloudy thinking.  Bombers are rarely internally consistent.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the sake of fairness here's one counter-example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

And Alcon's other examples are rather incomparable. What the hell would a militant agnostic group be like?

[Alcon]

And Alcon's other examples are rather incomparable. What the hell would a militant agnostic group be like?

That's my point.

Liberal Christianity is such an unlikely cause for a militant group to unite behind for virtually the same reasons that agnosticism is even more unlikely--it's not conducive to extremism.

It's weird that you argue that it's irrelevant because you can't envision a militant agnostic group.  So:

1. The lack of militant liberal Christian groups is impressive because it's hard to envision them but their existence is theoretically possible;

2. But, the non-existence of militant agnostic groups is unimpressive because it's harder to envision them (and I guess you're arguing that they're effectively impossible).

Your original argument was that this is indicative of liberal Christianity having an "almost flawless history."  Isn't the very point that liberal Christianity is less conducive to "flawed history"?  So, if agnosticism is even less conducive, or not conducive at all, why are you criticizing my point with "what the hell would a militant agnostic group be like?"  Taken rhetorically, you're proving my point for me.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And Alcon's other examples are rather incomparable. What the hell would a militant agnostic group be like?

That's my point.

Liberal Christianity is such an unlikely cause for a militant group to unite behind for virtually the same reasons that agnosticism is even more unlikely--it's not conducive to extremism.

But I just provided an example of one above. In addition to being Christian they are clearly quite leftist. From another article, take note of the rhetoric:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, they are the exception, not the rule. Comparable ones are quite rare.

It's weird that you argue that it's irrelevant because you can't envision a militant agnostic group.  So:

1. The lack of militant liberal Christian groups is impressive because it's hard to envision them but their existence is theoretically possible;

There was this incident in Texas where these old teenagers tried to blow up an Assembly of God church (and failed.) After being arrested the motivation was determined as that they were radical Christians who saw government and the current state of organized religion as too materialistic and self gratification orientated and an abomination toward God. So there's one potential example.

However this is one isolated example of a group of young adults/old teens who clearly were not competent and also too great lengths to ensure that no one would be killed or injured. So that's as far as it goes really, as opposed to Eric Rudolph.

[Alcon]

But I just provided an example of one above. In addition to being Christian they are clearly quite leftist. From another article, take note of the rhetoric:

However, they are the exception, not the rule. Comparable ones are quite rare.

OK.  That doesn't at all contradict anything I've said.  In fact, it agrees with it completely.

There was this incident in Texas where these old teenagers tried to blow up an Assembly of God church (and failed.) After being arrested the motivation was determined as that they were radical Christians who saw government and the current state of organized religion as too materialistic and self gratification orientated and an abomination toward God. So there's one potential example.

However this is one isolated example of a group of young adults/old teens who clearly were not competent and also too great lengths to ensure that no one would be killed or injured. So that's as far as it goes really, as opposed to Eric Rudolph.

So...again, they're rare, but possible.  That doesn't contradict anything I've said either.

My point was that you're right that liberal Christianity does have a nearly flawless history.  But there aren't any interesting inferences to make from that which aren't already obvious.  And if you're trying to show that to prove that liberal Christianity is way-cool-man, by that standard, secular humanism is just plain way-awesome, and this whole regression you've set up is way-predictable.

[John Dibble]

2. But, the non-existence of militant agnostic groups is unimpressive because it's harder to envision them (and I guess you're arguing that they're effectively impossible).

Death to the non-skeptics! It's what God would want should he exist... maybe!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But what are you trying to prove from that?  What extrapolation are you making?  Liberal Christianity is not any more without bloodied hands than comparable cultural groups (agnostics, secular humanists, reform Jews, etc. etc.)  They all share something in common, non-authoritarianism and a culture of moderation.  For some reason, instead of giving credit that that, you're giving exclusive credit to your faith.

Since when did agnostics form any kind of collective cultural group?

[Alcon]

Since when did agnostics form any kind of collective cultural group?

Never.  The entire point of this is that leftist Christians have an almost flawless history, though.  None of these explanatory caveats matter to that.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Reminder: Leftwing christians brought about things like the prohibition movement, the spread of bans on pronstitution in the US in the late 19th/early 20th century, drug prohibition, censorship for morals(remember, banned in boston was the standard for a reason).