Why are there no leftist Christian terrorists?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why are there no leftist Christian terrorists?

[dead0man]

There are very few Christian terrorists in the first place.  There are very few "leftist" terrorists in the first place.

edit-and leftist Christians tend to not be very....enthusiastic? about their religion.

[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?

[Lief 🗽]

Leftists are usually non-religious, especially those extreme enough to commit acts of terrorism. "Opiate of the masses" and all that jazz.

[anvi]

How would the scriptural interpretation that would inspire such leftist Christian terrorism go?  Jesus saying "I've come not to bring peace but a sword) + Jesus purifying the temple of money changers + an interpretation of "if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer the other also..." as a prohibition to strike back but an allowance to strike first + a reading of Revelation that makes it a do-it-yourself-end-of-the-world instruction manual?

Of course, I'm being sarcastic.  But I'm doing so in an effort to make the point that it makes all the difference in the world who reads a religious text.   The Hindu Bhagavad Gita is a story of how the god Krishna convinced the reluctant warrior Arjuna to do battle against his own kinsmen.  When Gandhi, who advocated non-violence, read the text, he interpreted it as a symbolic inner spiritual battle between fear and courage that should inspire non-violent resisters to have courage and be willing to die, but not kill or injure, for their cause.  Gandhi's assassin was another Hindu, Nathuram Godse, and he took the Bhagavad Gita literally and used it as justification for putting three bullets in Gandhi's chest.  It makes a big difference who is doing the reading.

[anvi]

There are lots of liberal Christians around the world, some of whose movements have had considerable influence in the United States--the Catholic inspired movement of Liberation Theology that has in Protestant forms come to be so influential in many African American Christian communities, to name the most important.  And anyone who knows such people knows they are very passionate about their Christianity.  It's just that there are not many "liberal" Christian terrorists. 

[Keystone Phil]

I love when BRTD does this stuff.

Next time, just title the thread, "Why am I/everyone associated with me/things that I like perfect?"

[Boris]

PIRA until 1998 or so?

[John Dibble]

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

Considering Christian history with things such as witch hunts and the Inquisition, I'm not sure I agree. I think what makes modern day Christianity "fairly moderate-tempered" is our improved living conditions and education - heck, those are the things that may very well make liberal Christianity possible.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I agree that the idea that Christianity is "moderate-tempered" and "does not generally provoke zealotry" is absurd, but this "inquisition-and-witch-trials" cliche is bullshit as well. It does not reflect accurately the reality of Christianity before industrialisation, before urbanisation and before mass (as opposed to popular) culture (the latter came some distance after the first two, of course). If you want to point out that, actually, there's nothing notably "moderate-tempered" about Christianity, you should look at (for example) what went on during the Reformation, or during various religious conflicts in the centuries after. Or even at the extraordinary power of religious revivals on communities and individuals before the rise of mass culture (which is something that even Americans don't quite get as contemporary American revivalism is itself a product of mass culture).

[Coburn In 2012]

Why are there no leftist Christian terrorists?

While there are some leftists who CLAIM to be Christian, you really cannot be a good Christian and a leftist so that is why I think.

But there are some leftists who profess to be Christians...and are pretty dangerous people.  Wasn't there a group of nuts who always got arrested at a military base in Georgia?  Anti nuke or pro communist or something.....Daniel Bergmann I think was the leaders name and he always had some crazy nuns with him.

[Coburn In 2012]

"Liberal Christian" is just another term for "non-Christian".  There are more atheists in the pulpits of these liberal churches than there are true Christians.  And the reason why there are no leftist Christian terrorists is precisely the reason above - leftist 'Christians' are not passionate about their faith.  And if they are so cool toward Christianity that they question its basic tenets, how on earth could they attack or kill for it? 

Better than I said it thanks

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How fascinating that you think you have the right to determine whether someone is a real Christian or not based on how they vote.

Of course, that you then went on to praise a Blubb post makes me think that you might be a (not very original) troll after all.

[Coburn In 2012]

How fascinating that you think you have the right to determine whether someone is a real Christian or not based on how they vote.

Of course, that you then went on to praise a Blubb post makes me think that you might be a (not very original) troll after all.

Oh true -- I forgot the atlas rule -- if someone is a conservative and or a Christian he is a troll , a sock or a hack.  Or all three.  I will try to remember in the future.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How fascinating that you think you have the right to determine whether someone is a real Christian or not based on how they vote.

Of course, that you then went on to praise a Blubb post makes me think that you might be a (not very original) troll after all.

Oh true -- I forgot the atlas rule -- if someone is a conservative and or a Christian he is a troll , a sock or a hack.  Or all three.  I will try to remember in the future.

Mmmm... I'm a Christian, actually. Think you'll have to try harder.

Anyway, the issue isn't your professed political affliation; it's the cartoonish nature of your politics (to the extent that thou quoted an obvious troll in an approving way). I suppose it's also possible that you're 13 or something.

[anvi]

Actually, I have a genuine question here.  I don't mean to be sarcastic or snarky or anything like that.  But something has always really puzzled me about the American spin on Christian political conservatism.  It seems evident from reading the gospels that Jesus not only shed blessings and praise on the poor, but he was always doing things for them, feeding them, healing their illnesses, teaching them, asking them to be his disciples.  He advised followers that, "if anyone takes away your coat, give him your cloak as well."  Jesus is even depicted as telling people who wanted to be his true disciples to "give everything you have to the poor and come follow me."  So, my question is: if Jesus thought that individual followers should serve the poor, how could that same Jesus believe that a government that did little or nothing for the poor was prasieworthy?  Given all of Jesus' advice to his followers about how they should treat the poor, why would anyone think Jesus was in favor of capitalism?

[dead0man]

So, my question is: if Jesus thought that individual followers should serve the poor, how could that same Jesus believe that a government that did little or nothing for the poor was prasieworthy?

Jesus told his followers to serve the poor, he doesn't talk about govts.  I agree with your initial point that Christians don't act very Christian, but that doesn't mean govts need to take up where bad Christians have dropped the ball.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What economic system do you think Jesus would approve of?

[anvi]

Well, Jesus was not a political theoriest (contrary to what George W. Bush thought in the primary debates of 2000), so apart from whatever it was he meant by the "kingdom of God," I don't think he would have advocated any form of government or economic organization in particular.  But what I don't understand is why those who associate themselves closely with Christianity who also are political conservatives in the U.S. always assume that Jesus would have thought highly of any country or government (which after all are collections of individuals) that did not do much for the poor.  He considered himself in the direct line of the Jewish prophets of the Hebrew scriptures, and they constantly and fiercly criticized the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel for not doing enough for the widow and the orphan and the poor, and predicted that this among other breeches would lead to disaster for these respective nations.  Jesus also presumably came from first century Galilee, traditionally poor farming and herding country, which held the southern part of Israel including Jerusalem in great contempt for their supposed corruption and greed.  So, I ask again, why do many American Christians who also consider themselves political conservatives assume that Jesus, an advocate for helping the poor. would think highly of a govenment that placed little priority on helping the poor and actively cut programs to do so in the name of "fiscal responsibility?"  I don't get how anyone would think Jesus would look at such priorites of a state with approbation.  I just honestly don't get it.

[dead0man]

Wouldn't Jesus want what was best for everybody?  Do you think if we had less capitalism over the last 200 hundred years poor people today would be doing better?

[anvi]

No, I don't think people would be doing better had there been less capitalism in the last two hundred years.  Indeed I think people would be quite markedly worse off worldwide were it not for free markets.  I am not mounting an argument against market economies or capitalism, as clearly markets tend to distribute resources more efficiently so long as they function properly, which requires lots of things to work right and lots of capitalists to compete fairly.

That's not the point of my question.  My point is that, even in capitalist countres with largely free market economies, there are sure to be those who will not have sufficient resources from the beginning to amass enough capital to get ahead, which is to say that predominantly free-market economies will have a certain population of poor people or struggling people who are not poor nor struggling by virtue of being, as the accuasion went above in this thread, "lazy" or "indolent."  So, my question is, why would anybody believe that Jesus would approve of a government that made no efforts to help such people?  What did Jesus ever teach to give anyone the impression that he believed a government that refused to help the poor was a good government?  You point out above that just because Jesus told individuals to help the poor, that doesn't necessarily mean he would urge a government to do it.  But consider the other alternative: would Jesus object to government policies designed to help the poor?  What if anything did Jesus ever say according to the Christian gospels to make anyone believe that he would?

I think that conviction, that a government should not actively help poor and struggling people in society, is a function of a certain set of economic convictions, not specifically Christian convictions.  In other words, I see no justification for claiming that a genuine Christian could not possibly be an economic "lefty."  Now, I am a lefty, and I am not a Christian.  But I find the belief that no genuine Christian could be an economic lefty to be completely baseless, and, more than likely, possibly contrary to what I understand Jesus teachings about the treatment of the poor to have been.           

[dead0man]

No, I don't think people would be doing better had there been less capitalism in the last two hundred years.  Indeed I think people would be quite markedly worse off worldwide were it not for free markets.  I am not mounting an argument against market economies or capitalism, as clearly markets tend to distribute resources more efficiently so long as they function properly, which requires lots of things to work right and lots of capitalists to compete fairly.

That's not the point of my question.  My point is that, even in capitalist countres with largely free market economies, there are sure to be those who will not have sufficient resources from the beginning to amass enough capital to get ahead, which is to say that predominantly free-market economies will have a certain population of poor people or struggling people who are not poor nor struggling by virtue of being, as the accuasion went above in this thread, "lazy" or "indolent."  So, my question is, why would anybody believe that Jesus would approve of a government that made no efforts to help such people?

Because they think the poor should be helped by charity and that govts should be limited in their power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He never gave any hint one way or the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I doubt He would.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He didn't say much about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never ever made such a claim.  Of course someone calling themselves a Christian can be left leaning economically (or socially for that matter).  I'm just explaining why a Christian could have right leaning economical beliefs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

why would anyone think Jesus was in favor of capitalism?

I don't think that anyone does, really. It's just that people are more than capable of holding deeply contradictory beliefs.

[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...

[dead0man]

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.

[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.