Why are most Christians politically right wing?

[RDKirk]

Socialist is not exactly the issue. It is Socialism.

Yes, let's keep that goalpost in motion.

 

[rjs330]

What misunderstanding? I never said it was "commanded". I said it was the practice of the early church. It wasn't commanded, nor was it forced. Socialism does not have to be forced. Do you have insurance? That is a form of socialism that is completely voluntary and not forced on anyone.

Where you come up with some of those ideas I have no idea. I think you're just repeating rhetoric that's been fed to you by pundits that you follow. There's no basis in truth for what you claim.

Socialism is absolutely Biblical. Here is a lesson for you right from the Word of God:

Acts 4
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

You know what that's called when people give their wealth to a central authority who then spreads it out? It's called "redistribution of wealth". The Apostles did a redistribution of wealth for the greater common good of the people of the Church. Notcie that "Neithe was there any among them that lacked" - it doesn't say that they had to earn what they got, it says that they pooled their wealth and redistributed it so that the ones who had less got more.

Can you show me where this passage says it was "forced upon people"? No, you can't. So much for your false assertion that it's forced upon people.

Is this coming right from the Bible? Yes, it is. So much for your assertion that it's not Biblical because it's right there, right in God's Word.

Like I said, I don't know where you get your information but it very obviously isn't from God's Word. I got my information from the Word of God and it's sharper than any sword and it sliced and diced and tore asunder your misinformation with just a few verses.

What you want isn't biblical. You want socialism. Which is controlled by the government. The socialism practiced by the early church was for the church, not society. The people of the church voluntarily chose to share. That's a good thing. But they didn't have someone watching over them forcing them to give, just like you want from the government.

Unless of course you are advocating for voluntary socialism, which I am perfectly fine with. If you want single payer health Care but participation is voluntary then I am fine with that. But if you want everyone to pay then it has to be enrforced by the government which then deviates from what the early church did. I honestly don't understand how someone who knows the Bible so we'll doesn't get the concept of the difference between voluntarily giving in the church and forced giving by the government.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Are you going to claim that Medicare for All and the very concept of universal health care has not been labeled "socialist" by the right wing?

Socialist is not exactly the issue. It is Socialism.

Fairly or not, if one policy is called Socialist, it might mean that it alone can lead in the direction of Socialism or it might be a rare exception. But when we hear Norway called a Socialist country in reply to someone warning about Socialism--and we do--that is what I am talking about. No, the apologists will never admit that Cuba or Venezuela or any other country is an example of Socialism; it is always a Scandinavian country that they offer as the perfect example of what the USA would be if we only wise up and adopt Socialism.

 

[Albion]

Correct, except that there is no such thing as voluntary Socialism.

Socialism, by definition, means government control of the economy. Exactly what it might do is not set in stone, but that it wields the power is.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

What you want isn't biblical. You want socialism. Which is controlled by the government. The socialism practiced by the early church was for the church, not society. The people of the church voluntarily chose to share. That's a good thing. But they didn't have someone watching over them forcing them to give, just like you want from the government.

Unless of course you are advocating for voluntary socialism, which I am perfectly fine with. If you want single payer health Care but participation is voluntary then I am fine with that. But if you want everyone to pay then it has to be enrforced by the government which then deviates from what the early church did. I honestly don't understand how someone who knows the Bible so we'll doesn't get the concept of the difference between voluntarily giving in the church and forced giving by the government.

Socialism doesn't have to be controlled by a government. You, and the others who say that, are making that up. Socialism means there is a collective ownership of one or more goods or services which are then distributed by the ownership. That ownership CAN be the government, but it doesn't have to be. In the case of the early Church it was the Church who was the central collective owner, administered by the Apostles themselves, and goods/money were redistributed such that nobody had need for anything.

As a Christian, I'm going to support policies that reflect my Christian values for our government. As an American, I have the right and the vote to do that. So why wouldn't I support socialist programs that I see benefiting my country in a Biblical way? The Bible says to feed the poor and hungry. It doesn't say the government has to or doesn't have to. God commands me to feed the poor and hungry, to take care of the sick, to take care of the elderly, to care for the children, etc. It doesn't tell me that this should be done only through government NOR does it tell me that this cannot be done through government.

Therefore, since I am in a position where I can obey God's commandments through both my own private, individual efforts AND through supporting my government doing those things, I will do so.

What part of that do you have a problem with exactly???

I don't see how a Christian can ever be against helping the poor, sick, elderly, and otherwise vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. This whole idea of "well government can't do that" is completely made up, made from whole cloth.

If you believe that then that's between you and God, may He have mercy on you.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Correct, except that there is no such thing as voluntary Socialism.

Socialism, by definition, means government control of the economy. Exactly what it might do is not set in stone, but that it wields the power is.

Wrong.

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[Albion]

Socialism doesn't have to be controlled by a government. You, and the others who say that, are making that up. Socialism means there is a collective ownership of one or more goods or services which are then distributed by the ownership.

Nope. That is not Socialism. Socialism requires that the State control the economy, the means of production, and the distribution (in order to apportion the good to the people who are the most in need or most deserving--in the view of the government).

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Nope. That is not Socialism. Socialism requires that the State control the economy, the means of production, and the distribution (in order to apportion the good to the people who are the most in need or most deserving--in the view of the government).

You're wrong and I've proven it with the definition of Socialism:

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

You don't get to add to the definition to make it fit your narrative.

 

[rjs330]

I find it interesting that the majority of posts here are attacking Christians who are liberal. The right does exactly what they get pegged for by others. The derision and attacks from the right are much stronger and more frequent and more mean than anything from the left.

I think you need to read what's been posted a little closer. The left is attacking the right and the right is defending itself. Those of us on the right are being vehemently attacked for being unchristian, uncaring etc etc. We inturn defend ourselves from those attacks. The left is pretty good at that.

 

[Albion]

Wrong.

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

That definition is indeed wrong, but that is because it uses a verbal slight of hand, calling the redistribution of wealth by government the doing of "the community as a whole." Well, what IS the so-called "community as a whole"? Oh, that means the representatives of the community, i.e. the State. Now you know.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

That definition is indeed wrong, but that is because it uses a verbal slight of hand, calling the redistribution of wealth by government the doing of "the community as a whole." Well, what IS the so-called "community as a whole"? Oh, that means the representatives of the community, i.e. the State. Now you know.

You don't understand the difference between "community" and "government"? Do you really want me to give you an English language lesson? I charge people for that kind of tutoring.

And if that definition is "indeed wrong" then feel free to provide the right one from a source other than what you think in your mind (i.e. your subjective idea).

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I think you need to read what's been posted a little closer. The left is attacking the right and the right is defending itself. Those of us on the right are being vehemently attacked for being unchristian, uncaring etc etc. We inturn defend ourselves from those attacks. The left is pretty good at that.

I think you're imagining things and are being over-defensive. Perhaps it's a guilt you're feeling.

The Bible is sharper than any two-edged sword. If you're being attacked as a Christian and can defend yourself then use the sword. If you can't use the sword then that may be a message to you.

An example of using the sword is this: Acts 4 teaches us that the early Church used socialism for the Church community, where the Apostles were the central ownership and redistributed the wealth they gathered from everyone such that no person had need for anything. This is socialism in practice by the early Church.

 

[rjs330]

So let's practice what scripture gives us it in the church instead of slapping a boogeyman name on it and running away.



Which means that contribution was mandatory, because there were no hospitals or insurance polices back then.

The giving of ones goods was NOT mandatory. But if you wanted to RECIEVE, goods it was mandatory that you something to earn it. You had to work for it. It wasn't just a handout. So no, contribution of ones goods, money whatever was not mandatory. But if you wanted a piece of that pie you had to work for it.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

The giving of ones goods was NOT mandatory. But if you wanted to RECIEVE, goods it was mandatory that you something to earn it. You had to work for it. It wasn't just a handout. So no, contribution of ones goods, money whatever was not mandatory. But if you wanted a piece of that pie you had to work for it.

You yourself admitted it was mandatory to participate. So yes, it was mandatory within the community.

Not seeing what point you're trying to make here.

 

[rjs330]

I don’t think that (oh, say) kidney transplants are taught anywhere in the Scriptures...should Christians refrain from having anything to do with them?

Of course not. But should I be forced to give a kidney or should I be able to have a choice?

Giving is a command in scripture. Jesus taught it as such and uses it as an example of what a Christian looks like. We are commanded to give. BUT we are NOT told how much we have to give nor are we told that the government should come and force us to give.

 

[rjs330]

I, for one, won’t be holding my breath for this.

As pointed out conservatives give more than liberals already. So until the liberals start giving more then you may scold the conservative.

 

[rjs330]

You yourself admitted it was mandatory to participate. So yes, it was mandatory within the community.

Not seeing what point you're trying to make here.

I think you do see the point. You don't want to admit it. Please share the scriptures where the church was told to go to the government and demand that they make people give in order to supply everyone's needs. Also please share the scripture that commanded that the apostles, elders or whatever in the church go and take other believers stuff and give it to others. That's what socialism does. By your own definition. The community decides that stuff HAS to be given. And if the community decides such someone has to be the enforcers to ensure that people are giving. In the case of what you desire that would be the government.

Again the church did it on their own, Paul himself says it's a good thing, but he says it is NOT a command. And this was for the Church only and not for society. Jesus never commanded believers to tell the government they had to take from the wealthy and give to others who were less so.

So until you can provide scriptures that command governments to take from people to give to others or command that believers to storm their government halls to demand such a thing our conversation is at an end. Until you can provide scripture that shows the apostles or Jesus forcing people to give and taking the belongings of others to give to someone else then this conversation is over. I have no desire to continue a conversation where someone wants to use scripture that teaches VOLUNTARY GIVING in the church is ACTUALLY FORCED GIVING by the government.

 

[Pommer]

Of course not. But should I be forced to give a kidney or should I be able to have a choice?

Yes, you should be forced to give up a kidney if a woman is forced to carry (under government compulsion), a fetus to term.

Yes, it’s “off topic” but you blundered into the mine field on your own.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I think you do see the point. You don't want to admit it.

I see the point, but I don't see your point. You're speaking in circles and contradicting yourself.

Please share the scriptures where the church was told to go to the government and demand that they make people give in order to supply everyone's needs. Also please share the scripture that commanded that the apostles, elders or whatever in the church go and take other believers stuff and give it to others.

Why would I provide scriptures that don't exist to back a claim I never made? Here is where you are conjuring up ideas and wrongly attributing them to me. You're trying to put words in my mouth so that you can argue against those words. I think the problem you're having is that you're not listening to what I actually say but rather just making up a narrative to have your own argument with your own thoughts.

That's what socialism does. By your own definition. The community decides that stuff HAS to be given. And if the community decides such someone has to be the enforcers to ensure that people are giving. In the case of what you desire that would be the government.

Right. Our communities as private groups or as towns or cities or states or even as a nation can make those decisions as communities. Let me give you some examples where various communities make a decision that everyone will pay into a central authority who will then redistribute the value as money, product, or service: garbage hauling, roads, social security, medicare, regulation of water quality, law enforcement, public schools, public libraries.... I could go on but hopefully you are starting to understand.

Again the church did it on their own, Paul himself says it's a good thing, but he says it is NOT a command. And this was for the Church only and not for society. Jesus never commanded believers to tell the government they had to take from the wealthy and give to others who were less so.

And the type of government we have means that we as a community can do these things on our own as well. What part of democracy don't you understand?

And I never said it is a "command". You're putting that word in my mouth. It was not a command. However, it was something that is "a good thing" as you say. If it's a good thing at the church community level then it can follow that it is a good thing at a societal level above the church community. For example, it's a good thing if a Church has a food pantry to help the less fortunate in the community. It's not a command, it's not a must-do, but it's a good thing. It's a good thing because it follows the commands we are given to love one another and serve others and help those in need who are vulnerable. And it's a good thing for the Church but ALSO a good thing for any non-Church community who chooses to do it as well, which is why you see non-church organizations and governments doing the same thing.

Same thing regarding "socialism". It's not a command, but it's a good thing and has a Biblical precedent in the example set by the early Church community. It's a good thing because it supports the following of actual commands to serve one another and help those in need who are vulnerable. And it's a good thing for the Church but ALSO a good thing for any non-Church community who chooses to do it as well, which is why you see non-church organizations and governments doing the same thing.

I don't know why you're so against having a society on any level that helps those in need since that is our Christian duty.

So until you can provide scriptures that command governments to take from people to give to others or command that believers to storm their government halls to demand such a thing our conversation is at an end. Until you can provide scripture that shows the apostles or Jesus forcing people to give and taking the belongings of others to give to someone else then this conversation is over. I have no desire to continue a conversation where someone wants to use scripture that teaches VOLUNTARY GIVING in the church is ACTUALLY FORCED GIVING by the government.

It's not voluntary giving for those who participate. It's mandatory for those who participate. They are actually forced by choosing to remain in that community.

The government also has authority from God to tax people and to use that tax money how they see fit to govern. So on top of our government being a democracy where "we the people" have a say, our government has a God-given authority to collect our taxes and redistribute the wealth however they see fit to govern, and this is also Biblical.

I can't understand how so many who profess to be Christians are so against helping people in need and at the same time against governmental authority when the Word of God commands us to both help those in need AND to obey earthly governmental authority.

Feel free to provide scripture that justifies avoiding to help the needy and attempting to remove governmental authority which is from God Himself.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I never understood this because what the right stands for is not even biblical. Two of the things that are absolutely biblical and correct from the right/conservatism are : 1. Anti-LGBT and 2. Pro-Life. And I agree with this, along with general traditional family values and biblical morality. But everything else in the right wing you can argue is completely against Christianity and what Jesus taught. Everything in the right seems to be based on political identity and culture, not Jesus Christ. So I don't understand why right wing politics caters to Christian evangelicals so much.

I don't see how or why a Christian worldview would affect someone's entire political philosophy. For one thing, a lot of people only have a handful of political issues they even care about. They're otherwise non-political.

But to the extent that they are, they tend to vote for the party whose policy positions they most closely agree with. An ardent pro-lifer has a far more comfortable home in the GOP (in theory, at least) than the alternative(s). For a lot of Christians especially, that may be one of only two or three political policies they even care about.

Frankly, I haven't been comfortable identifying as a Republican for a long time now precisely because of a lot of their "Greed Is Good" Reaganist platforms. There are limits to how much I give a hang about the free market. Nobody has yet explained to me why somebody deserves to have his home foreclosed upon simply because he lost his job after the 2008 depression and couldn't find work. I don't care if some paleo-con thinks that makes me a "socialist". People are always more important than profit.

But I digress. The point is that I've cobbled together a loose platform of ideas that I believe which draws a bit from what the Democrat Party has stood for over the last 30 years and a bit from the Republicans over that same period. But that's not how most people do it. They've only got the time, willingness, brains or whatever to develop an opinion on three, maybe four policy items. They'll vote for the candidates and/or parties who embrace those policy items.

The reality is that a lot of Christians have increasingly come to believe that they don't have a political home in the Democrat Party. Whether they're right or wrong doesn't matter. That's how they see it and so they vote accordingly. The fact that the rest of the GOP platform is, by some reckonings, antithetical to a traditional Christian worldview isn't something they've stopped to consider, most likely.

But even if they have, they still believe that the GOP is closer to what they believe in than the Democrats are.

Finally, all politics in America is based in identity now. It's not a new thing but I do believe it's only recently that it's become practically universal. Whether or not that's good or bad, I have no idea...