The rise of the religious left in America

[MisterOJ]

As a progressive Christian, this story makes me happy. I am glad to see more people are opening their eyes to what I feel Christianity should be all about.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Forgive me if I find religious political movements distasteful in any form. Raising taxes for Jesus isn't really any better than lowering them on his behalf.

Jesus himself was notoriously uninterested in government.

[Free Northman]

As a progressive Christian, this story makes me happy. I am glad to see more people are opening their eyes to what I feel Christianity should be all about.

Not sure what to make of it, to be honest. I wonder how the "old" conservatives of today classified themselves in their youth?

A lot of the issues that conservatives tend to care about appeal more to people who have achieved stability and "something to lose", in their lives, in other words, older people, whereas youngsters tend to be less focused on that.

Poll these same youngsters again in 20 years time, and their views may have shifted to reflect those of their parents.

[MisterOJ]

Jesus himself was notoriously uninterested in government.

I don't know about that. "Give back to Caesar, what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Jesus was about loving everyone - even (or maybe especially) the lowly outcasts of society. He was also for feeding the hungry and healing the sick. So, yeah, go Jesus!

[Free Northman]

I don't know about that. "Give back to Caesar, what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Jesus was about loving everyone - even (or maybe especially) the lowly outcasts of society. He was also for feeding the hungry and healing the sick. So, yeah, go Jesus!

But how do you decide which of his teachings you should follow? Because he also says he is the way, the truth and the light. There is no path to God but through him. And other fairly straightforward, black or white, rather divisive commands.

That's what I struggle to understand among religious liberals. They seem to cherry pick some kind of "transcendant message" that suits their humanistic world view, and just ignore the parts in the Gospels that don't fit with that.

(Scratching my head.)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I don't know about that. "Give back to Caesar, what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

You have to understand that quote in context. Jesus' enemies set up a question to trap him into speaking against Rome, and thus being brought up on treason charges.

From Matthew 22:

¹⁵ Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. ¹⁶ They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. ¹⁷ Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax^[a] to Caesar or not?”

¹⁸ But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?¹⁹ Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, ²⁰ and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

²¹ “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

In this he displays his characteristic disinterest in traditional politics. What do you owe Caesar? Just what carries his image and inscription (aka, the money he makes you pay) What do you owe God? By implication, that which carries his image and inscription. Which is a reference to the Book of Genesis, where it states that man was created in God's image. Here you see Jesus drawing a division between the terrestrial and the spiritual.

[MisterOJ]

But how do you decide which of his teachings you should follow? Because he also says he is the way, the truth and the light. There is no path to God but through him. And other fairly straightforward, black or white, rather divisive commands.

That's what I struggle to understand among religious liberals. They seem to cherry pick some kind of "transcendant message" that suits their humanistic world view, and just ignore the parts in the Gospels that don't fit with that.

(Scratching my head.)

I'm no Bible scholar or anything, but I don't see anything in Jesus teachings that doesn't fit into my own personal, political beliefs. Now, I do have problems with some of the writings of men - in both the Old and New Testaments. And I think some of those texts should be looked at critically for what they are.

Jesus, though, you really can't go wrong with following Him.

[Sci-2]

Jesus was about loving everyone - even (or maybe especially) the lowly outcasts of society. He was also for feeding the hungry and healing the sick. So, yeah, go Jesus!

I've heard shepherds were despised in Jesus's time, and to align with himself with them was especially symbolic?

I do think it'd be good to have more religious support on the Left, as it would make the umbrella bigger. But I suppose there might be ramifications I'm not thinking of that could stymie progressivism's own left side...though I find the conservatism amongst liberals themselves isn't necessarily religiously based.

Poll these same youngsters again in 20 years time, and their views may have shifted to reflect those of their parents.

20 years is a long time. Who knows where the two parties (and a possible third?) will be then, or if the religious/fiscal conservative marriage will hold.

I suspect we may have more social/fiscal Libretarians. [And less religious people overall.]

[Free Northman]

I've heard shepherds were despised in Jesus's time, and to align with himself with them was especially symbolic?

I do think it'd be good to have more religious support on the Left, as it would make the umbrella bigger. But I suppose there might be ramifications I'm not thinking of that could stymie progressivism's own left side...though I find the conservatism amongst liberals themselves isn't necessarily religiously based.

20 years is a long time. Who knows where the two parties (and a possible third?) will be then, or if the religious/fiscal conservative marriage will hold.

I suspect we may have more social/fiscal Libretarians. [And less religious people overall.]

Fair enough.

But for example. What percentage of America was really into the super liberal movement in the 60's, when Free Love, the hippie movement and the rebellion against established authority was in full swing? I didn't live back then, so I have no idea. But I bet the older generation of the time thought all was lost and the future would be a liberal takeover.

And yet, where are those youngsters today? A whole bunch of them must be voting conservative now, else the tight Republican/Democrat contests wouldn't exist.

So I can only assume that at least some of the irresponsible youngsters of the 60's reverted to the values of their parents as they hit their 40's, 50's and 60's.

[All-for-Joffrey]

But how do you decide which of his teachings you should follow? Because he also says he is the way, the truth and the light. There is no path to God but through him. And other fairly straightforward, black or white, rather divisive commands.

That's what I struggle to understand among religious liberals. They seem to cherry pick some kind of "transcendant message" that suits their humanistic world view, and just ignore the parts in the Gospels that don't fit with that.

(Scratching my head.)

It's not like religious conservatives don't do the same sort of cherry picking themselves. If the religious left seems to baffle you so much, I don't see why the religious right wouldn't equally baffle you.

[Howdyphillip]

From the book of Acts 4:32-35

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Christians it seemed used to practice Marxism before Marx actually wrote about it.

[The Marquis de Leech]

"Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus was an anarcho-socialist.

It should also be pointed out that the religious left has deep roots in the US (from the many of the abolitionists, through William Jennings Bryan, and as late as Jimmy Carter). A shame that the religious right has clouded things for several decades.

[Sci-2]

But for example. What percentage of America was really into the super liberal movement in the 60's, when Free Love, the hippie movement and the rebellion against established authority was in full swing? I didn't live back then, so I have no idea. But I bet the older generation of the time thought all was lost and the future would be a liberal takeover.

I'm sure most people become more sexually conservative personally as they age, if only for lack of opportunity or not wanting to be the "old man in the club".

And I'm sure a good number of people become more fiscally conservative, but I've no idea if people become more socially conservative as defined by today's political platforms?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Jesus wasn't telling Caesar to tax people more, and then to give that money to the poor. He was saying that people should choose to help the poor on their own.

Jesus was all about private charity, not the government.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

From the book of Acts 4:32-35

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Christians it seemed used to practice Marxism before Marx actually wrote about it.

This is pretty easy to do when you literally believe that the world is fixing to end next week, or the week after. Still, quite laudable, and consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

As an aside, Dan Carlin did a podcast about Proto-communist Anabaptists in Munster, Germany in the 1500's that was absolutely fascinating (especially as it progressed into true crazy-land towards the end). Totally worth the listen. Check out the Hardcore History podcast episode "Prophets of Doom".

[Free Northman]

I'm sure most people become more sexually conservative personally as they age, if only for lack of opportunity or not wanting to be the "old man in the club".

And I'm sure a good number of people become more fiscally conservative, but I've no idea if people become more socially conservative as defined by today's political platforms?

Well, if you have a daughter you might think differently about a sexually liberal lifestyle and all its associated risks, compared to when you were a teenager or in your twenties yourself. Kind of like "Yeah, I was like that too, before I learned better. If only I can pass on some of that wisdom to my daugther without her having to go through my mistakes herself."

I think that's quite a natural part of growing older. And wiser.

[MisterOJ]

Jesus wasn't telling Caesar to tax people more, and then to give that money to the poor. He was saying that people should choose to help the poor on their own.

Jesus was all about private charity, not the government.

Well, to me, Jesus was simply saying that folks should pay their taxes.

At the time, there was no such thing as government programs to help the poor and sick. If there were, I have a hard time believing Jesus would have spoken against them.

[thecryptile]

I've heard shepherds were despised in Jesus's time, and to align with himself with them was especially symbolic?

I've never heard that shepherds were despised in Jesus' time. I've heard that same argument, but usually with prostitutes and/or tax collectors in place of the shepherds.

...I've no idea if people become more socially conservative as defined by today's political platforms?

I would say that people retain the social views they had as youths, but the "progressive" views of yesteryear are not the "progressive" views of today. They have been superseded by new causes.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Well, to me, Jesus was simply saying that folks should pay their taxes.

At the time, there was no such thing as government programs to help the poor and sick. If there were, I have a hard time believing Jesus would have spoken against them.

Yes there were. Rome had subsidized grain for the poor for centuries. The politics over just this subsidy could fill volumes.

[Free Northman]

Well, to me, Jesus was simply saying that folks should pay their taxes.

At the time, there was no such thing as government programs to help the poor and sick. If there were, I have a hard time believing Jesus would have spoken against them.

To me his focus was far more on the hereafter, and all the stuff about how to live life now were just incidental and in support of the cause of converting everyone to the truth, the way, and the light.

The fate of your soul was far more important than the fate of your body.

And yet religious liberals seem to focus almost exclusively on the here and now, and kind of let people follow their own conscience without much comment as far as the fate of their souls are concerned.

The Gospels aren't a charity manual. They are a roadmap to saving your soul. Surely that is quite apparent from a thorough reading thereof.