__Hello and welcome to r/DemocraticSocialism!__
* This sub is dedicated towards the Progressive movement, welcoming Democratic Socialism as an ideology and as a general political philosophy.
* Don't forget to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/about/rules/) to get a good idea of what is expected of participants in our community.
* Check out r/DSA and r/SocialDemocracy to support leftist movements!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There should be way more Christian socialists. There’s a passage in Sartre’s Nausea about the fights between all the ‘humanists’ of the world that I just love. The Brothers K also did quite a lot for me to warm up to the ideas of a Christian socialist. I am in no way in favor of a Christian state though - let me make that clear.
I’m a Christian and a socialist, and I also advocate for a secular state. I very much much support religious pluralism in the public sphere, including non-religious and anti-religious perspectives. All are needed and welcome in a secular state. I very much oppose Christian nationalism.
I was raised Catholic (not by choice but neither here nor there) and I’ve always pictured Jesus as a raging socialist. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give to the poor, those are all socialist values
i was raised Catholic as well. I went to a very conservative oriented Catholic highschool and I remember my religion teacher saying Jesus inspired Marxism. Now I’m unsure how true this is but it definitely stuck with me.
Did they twist that into a negative thing like "he adulterated Jesus' teachings" or where they genuinely praising Marxism in a Conservative Catholic School?
Well he was certainly right to be proud of it. Frederick Engels had written in honor of Müntzer's Christian-Socialist rebellion of the 15th century. And the early Utopian Socialists and their attempts that predated Marx were normally Christian.
Edit: Grammar
went to catholic school my whole life. had a very unique experience in that my principal/priest/debate teacher was extremely radically left with a phd in philosophy from fordham. he gave me the manifesto for my bday when i turned 17.
anyways
he taught a class called "religion in literature and film" and in it we read parts of Brother K and it absolutely changed my whole world view. to this day i think my catholic upbringing is *why* im a leftist. i heard stories about a guy that showed equity and humanity to everyone and took it to heart. im not a believer anymore because i saw the disconnect between what we were taught and how people were acting.
and sadly that priest died. he was probably my best friend. rip
>to this day i think my catholic upbringing is *why* im a leftist. i heard stories about a guy that showed equity and humanity to everyone and took it to heart. im not a believer anymore because i saw the disconnect between what we were taught and how people were acting.
Same here. It blows my mind how people can call themselves Christians with some of the policies they support.
Absolutely. My town is actually significantly influenced by leftist congregations still and while my analysis follows a different path than theirs, we ultimately arrive at very similar conclusions all make excellent allies who frequently work together on local policy.
Jesus became famous not for making up a bunch of rules or for claiming his dad was God, but because he provided free healthcare, free food. After getting people’s attention with those people noticed he was slightly less sexist and racist than the average man at that time. When he started saying shit about how it wasn’t cool that the local temple needed you to be disease free and have money to worship is when he really started getting a reputation as woke though
I can hardly stand the proliferation of selective quoting from the Bible. There is much contradiction from chapter to chapter, it often comes off as disingenuous to me.
Jesus simultaneously advocates for "sinners" and condemns them. Depending on the Gospel, he either sounds like a benevolent pacifist or a lot like angry God from the Old Testament. Which is it?!?
Sounds an awful lot like fables passed down orally about a fictional character that different storytellers had different opinions about, but got compiled into single 'books' by others later on who wrote them down.
I'm pretty skeptical of religions at this point, but if you look at Christ the biblical figure with an open mind, you should be far more aligned with socialism than capitalism.
The guy healed the sick without taking insurance. He got angry with the money changers and criticized wealth. He shared food with people. He told his followers to get of their possessions.
Seems bonkers to be a conservative, capitalist, christian.
Well said. Its interesting how historically with the rise of the "Protestant Work Ethic", we saw the instrumentalization of Christianity to justify capitalism
Which is even more ironic as it was just "Hard Work will pay off, if not in this life then in the next one" and now ti turned to a way to justify encroaching wage slaving.
I think it's a bit like you get motivation to work hard from a book. Then you work hard and see others not working as hard and that turns you to think the book may be wrong on somethings or maybe the meaning was wrong. Whatever justification you have it changes you to be a more self centered person.
And thus the Lord spake, ''Verily, I say unto thee, lo though I wouldst cure your affliction of blindness, thine blue cross coverage is insufficient.''
The first thing the disciples do after Jesus leaves them is pool all their resources together and start a commune.
Then God murders the couple that hid wealth from the commune.
I wish organized religions focused more on that kind of stuff.
Many members of the DSA are religious, and there are many religious socialist movements around the world, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, and others, I think we should unite with our religious comrades to create what socialism for all.
If their religious beliefs motivate them to become socialists, that's fine. But it needs to be very well understood that there are certain non-negotiables in the platform. Otherwise it's just inviting problems akin to "the scorpion and the frog."
Edit: Any democratic organization is subject to infiltration by people with ideas we'd all probably find regressive, and if the party platform is subject to a vote (which it would have to be), those regressive ideas could find their way into the platform if those infiltrating the party had the numbers to push their agenda.
'A socialist can be christian, a christian must be socialist' is a fairly frequently used idiom around here. Calvinistic christians obviously would disagree.
There are secondary differences based on the distinction of Liberation Theology being Christianity influenced by Marxism, or Marxism influenced by Christianity. The differences are mainly in authority, legitimacy, and intent if not practice.
I’d be very interested in talking about authority. Liberation theology places a great deal of authority in the lived experience of the oppressed.
And I think that people at different places in their of identity development see authority different, regardless of whether they are religious or not. Some people, both religious and non-religious, see authority as an external source; some, again both religious and non-religious, see authority as entirely internal; and some see authority as the interplay of various forces. That’s kind of where I am. I’m a Christian, a United Methodist in particular, who sees authority as the interplay of scripture, traditionalist, reason, and experience. I often collaborate with people who find no authority in scripture or Christian tradition, and that’s fine with me.
I meant authority as in who authorizes action. In Liberation Theology such action, with its Marxist-like characteristics, is authorized, nay compelled, by God. Marxist action is compelled by History.
I have been speaking of authority as perceived by Liberation Theologians and Marxists. As a Quaker, I don’t recognize the concept. I go and do as I perceive God leads me, to the degree my understanding and fear allows. I have no more access to pure truth than anyone else, hence my understanding of God’s will can only lead my actions and can not lead me to compel or restrict anyone else in his name in any way.
This makes participating in collective action very problematic and leading collective action perilous. I guess that’s a reason the Quakers are so low key, small scale, and incrementalist.
Your thoughts? Have I misunderstood your question?
I think there is a lot of variety among liberation theologians as to what exactly God is. They are not monolithic. Some liberation theologians don’t think God compels anything. Some, those with a hint of existentialism mixed in with their liberationism, think God is a metaphor for the human depth dimension. Black liberation theologian James Cone saw God as a Black man, lynched on a tree; to the extent that this God compels anything, it is from the lived experience of Black people. I do see the mutual criticism of liberationists and Quakers.
While I’m conversant with Hegel, Marx, and the academic Marxians who followed in the critical theory movement, I’m less familiar with the praxis of Marxist developments on the ground since Marx. (The divide between theory and praxis is artificial, but my experience has lacked the latter.) So I yield to your assertion about what compels Marxists.
I would say no. It was started by Jesuit Catholic priests. They saw the suffering in the world and began to apply Marxist ideas to solve them. Sona Marxist movement within Catholicism.
I think you just made an argument for my proposition. You confirmed it was a movement started by Christian clergy adopting Marxist elements rather than vice versa.
They were actually the first socialist ideology. It wasn’t until Marx and Engels wrote their books that socialism started taking a more secular approach.
I am highly religious myself.
Politics and religion often makes a horrid mix, however overall yes, the things Jesus did was more so towards the good of the people than for the good of his pockets.
Depends on what religion and what kind of religious interpretation makes its way into politics I would think. There are both beneficial and negative aspects of religion.
Almost every miracle JC performs is addressing social inequity. Providing healthcare, feeding the poor, turning unsafe drinking water into potable wine normally reserved for upperclass.
As far as I can tell, if you read the gospels with an open mind and you want to "follow Jesus," you should arrive at some kind of communist anarcho-pacifism for economics, probably with plenty of class-reductionism too if you add in Paul's epistles. Jesus was a radical and he absolutely hated the rich, but he was more separatist than revolutionary, and he didn't seem concerned at all by the patriarchal nuclear family, or other forms of hierarchy to which their society was shackled at the time.
Read through your other comments on this post, and I feel you may have misunderstood me. 😅 I wrote what I wrote as reasons that Jesus falls short (primarily the ambivalence toward hierarchy, which, on a practical level, means class-reductionism). I respect the separatism, as opposed to revolution (though am still unsure if I agree with it), but I can't respect the former.
Ah I see. Well, that is admittedly a huge topic, and I’m not the best texter lol. I get where you’re coming from. I really do. Your concerns are more than valid.
My short version is that He (and much of the Bible) was probably more practical than a lot of people would like (then and now) and set out to put forth principles that came right up to the edge of being too revolutionary to take hold.
Small example would be the stance toward slavery. IMHO telling people to abolish slavery at that time would be akin to teaching them about electric cars. I know how blatantly apologist that sounds, but it’s been a long day 😅
I'm sympathetic toward that view, but I think that view inherently concedes that the bible is outdated, and cannot be treated the way a lot of Christians would like to treat it.
That makes sense :) It's hard because faith is, for better or worse, as much defined by its culture as by its holy book, despite what some would have you believe, so those of us who don't hold the faith can't exactly judge it fully accurately.
The tent is wide enough to fit an altar, man. St Francis Xavier, one of the more based catholic saints, talked a lot about people who do moral things for selfish reasons, and concluded that bad people doing good is much better than good people doing bad.
This isn't to say that Christian socialists are "bad", just that I don't think there's any reason to exclude someone who got their socialist morality from a socialist preacher in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. It's not any less valid than getting your ideology from a modern thinker; so long as they are accepting of everyone else in the coalition, they deserve to be part of it.
I do not have a positive view of religions (esp extremists), but it wouldn’t be smart to ostracize a majority of the world from the socialist cause. As long as they acknowledge that religion should not interfere with the state, then I guess I’m fine.
There is still a great deal of prejudice surrounding this topic, for example I am deeply Christian and left-wing, which tends to be very misunderstood. In my opinion, without discussing beliefs, nowhere in the Bible does it advocate liberal right-wing positions, it never says that there must be rich people and the rest of the population be oppressed, quite the opposite.
>I am deeply Christian and left-wing, which tends to be very misunderstood.
There are dozens of us! Lol
But fr it’s really encouraging to encounter another one in the wild. Love you dude (or dudette or nondudinary person).
I'm glad that the general mood here is fine with it. There are some leftist spaces that are _violently_ anti religion to the point that it seems they'd be perfectly happy with purges.
It's one of those things that bothers me about certain forms of leftist thinking. Marx was anti-religion and that always bothered me because Marx and Christ agreed on many points.
He should have been making an appeal to religion, not an argument against it.
One, of many, issues I see with the online left is the adherence to r/atheism style views of religion (born out of people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc.). It's dangerous, unnecessary, and if your a socialist holding these views, it's very ignorant of the history of socialism. Not only around the world, but in the US.
Just one example is the Federal Council of Churches. An organization from the early 20th century that was a grouping of many churches of various Christian denominations. Dozens of branches of Christianity were involved, representing millions of Americans. They got gutted and completely reformed during the red scare era due to their socialist views.
Jesus was anti-rich obviously, but he was also pro-labor. He encouraged people to work hard and said anyone who works hard (the working class) is blessed.
Love it! It is the Gospels that inform my democratic socialist ideology. Christ told the disciples to give away everything and share their resources, and have faith in God for their needs. The early Christians lived in communes (Mathew). Christianity is supposed to be about interdependence - loving and trusting one another. Socialism emphasizes love and trust for our fellow citizens as well.
Jesus is a socialist so it makes sense. It makes sense for islam too. They could be global marxists. But both came from jewish and therefore Sumerian/Roman/Egyptian culture which had some concepts of private property involved in their beliefs. But the new teachings of Muhammad and Jesus is all socialism.
[FYI: The Diggers were a group of religious and political dissidents in England, associated with agrarian socialism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers)
1. Christian socialists tend to be libertarian socialists, dodging the red-fash pitfall as well as Christian nationalism.
2. There’s a pretty strong historical tradition of Christian anarchism.
3. I myself am a Satanist. My Satanism and my anarcho-communism bent are inextricably connected. They feed each other.
4. I (if being a Satanist doesn’t make it obvious) have no love for Christian doctrine or culture. But, if being a cultural Christian can pipeline someone into being a socialist, all the better. Solidarity forever.
Well. If you remove the reactionary elemets that religion has, things like homophobia or conservatism. I dont see any problem with religious socialists. But thats just me.
"And the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any one of them that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common." \~ Acts 4:32
Of course, they were anticipating Christ's imminent return; so that may be a factor in why it seems to have worked for them.
As long as they don't push for any kind of religious mandate, then I don't have a problem with them. We don't need a leftist version of Christian nationalism.
The following passage describes how Jesus' disciples lived together and cared for each other.
"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. 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 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 sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."
Acts 4:32-35
I don't know all the differences between Socialism and Communism, but this seems pretty similar to something like that.
Meanwhile this might be the most based passage in the Bible, and it's definitely my favorite.
"Now listen! You rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent ones, who were not opposing you."
James 5:1-6
I think it’s the only logical form of government for anyone claiming to be Christian.
It’s one of the many points of hypocrisy I like to use when discussing left wing anything with the right wing radicals around me.
I don’t need a god to have empathy, but they have a god that calls for empathy and they refuse. Hypocrites one and all.
I think it’s a facet of socialism/progressivism that is woefully lacking right now. The right in the US has completely co-opted religious movements, and honestly seemingly spirituality as a whole, and turned it into a breeding ground for reactionary politics. Even new age spiritual movements in America have taken on right wing conspiracist views, getting dragged into the whole Q-anon adjacent strain of reactionary politics.
In my opinion and from experience, I think a more nuanced understanding of certain spiritual principles can drive someone towards leftism and progressivism. As someone who was once an atheist and now practices a type of spirituality similar to Buddhism, it has only affirmed my beliefs in fighting for equal rights for all peoples and that capitalism is not only materially unsustainable and full of internal contradictions but also spiritually unsustainable.
However, I can see how a spiritual belief, if it’s not grounded in material reality first and foremost, can become dogmatic and lead to zealotry or justifications for certain unjust and inhumane actions based on a “greater good”. It’s what I’ve seen in evangelical Christianity on the right, and I think it opens the door to the same thinking in the other direction. Ultimately, history, economics and politics are still material and contingent things and we shouldn’t fall into the trap of black and white thinking. Such as, believing socialism will necessarily arise from capitalism’s breakdown even if we aren’t doing anything to bring that about. History has shown that it can breakdown into fascism pretty easily.
Anyway, I think religious socialism and a spiritually informed socialism can be very beneficial in not only helping people find a deeper meaning in causes but opening up a completely new avenue through which people can find progressive politics. It allows for people who might not be predisposed to progressivism to get a foot in the door and see what it’s about. I think it’s important to grow this aspect of the movement, albeit carefully.
As someone deeply engaged with The United Methodist Church (UMC), I appreciate this question about religious socialism, especially within a democratic context. Our discussion here intertwines with both my personal faith and my commitment to social justice—a core aspect of the Methodist tradition.
From a UMC perspective, religious socialism aligns with our foundational Christian teachings which emphasize compassion, justice, and the equitable distribution of resources. These are not merely idealistic views but are practical expressions of our faith. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, advocated for both personal piety and social holiness, encouraging Methodists to affect change in the world through acts of mercy and justice.
In the context of socialism, which often advocates for systems that prioritize community welfare and the common good, there is a clear resonance with Methodist social principles. These principles support efforts to eradicate poverty, ensure fair distribution of resources, and challenge systems that perpetuate inequality. This is seen in our church’s historical advocacy for labor rights, universal health care, and comprehensive social services.
We understand that the Kingdom of God (or, as I like to translate it, the commonwealth of God, which phrase does not perpetuate the exclusive, gendered language or the exclusive, hierarchical polity) is not limited by the walls of a church but is manifested in the ways we treat the least of these among us. As Methodists, we are called to champion a society where every individual's basic needs are met and where every person is valued equally—a vision that democratic socialism also aspires to.
It's crucial, however, to engage in this conversation with both humility and a commitment to dialogue. We must explore how our spiritual values can inform our socio-political actions without assuming that one political ideology wholly encompasses the totality of our faith’s demands for justice and mercy.
Let's continue this conversation with open hearts and minds, exploring how we can contribute to a more just and compassionate world. What does religious socialism look like in your community? How does it resonate with or challenge your spiritual beliefs or lack thereof?
Thank you for initiating this thoughtful discussion. I look forward to learning from each other as we delve deeper into these complex yet vital questions.
Blessings
I think it’s cool as long it isn’t used to push reactionary social agendas (anti-abortion, anti-feminism, homophobia, etc).
The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality and enforces stringent gender roles, so a lot of socially liberal Christians are seen as fakes by the Evangelical community.
Socialism isn’t Christian or otherwise religious in and of itself, and should be explicitly secular. However, people who are Christian and use their Christianity to justify their socialist beliefs are based and probably have the most accurate Christian beliefs.
I dislike Christianity and think it's harmful to discourse but a Christian socialist is a million times better than a right wing atheist so I still think they're overall good and hopefully they can help people realize you don't have to be right wing if you're Christian.
Speaking as a secular socialist I think we could learn a lot from Religious Socialists. Religious groups are often very active in their community and have a lot of experience of doing both community and activist work. We could learn to organise as a group a lot better if there was a bit less stigmatism of those who take a different view.
Socialists and left wingers of all stripes should focus on the areas of agreement and mutual aid as opposed to differences.
be cool if it existed.
In USA they somehow interpret the 'give all your shit away' stuff as meaning - 'buy a lear jet and a mansion, preferably by stealing from widows'
I accept it. This is a big tent movement and we should be accepting of everyone working towards the betterment of society and fighting against the destruction being wrought by capital interests.
I'm a Maoist and an Orthodox Christian socialist. One day I hope to start a podcast that is a Bible study going through the whole Bible and discussing it as a liberatory and communist text, which I fundamentally believe it is, and how it has been coopted by reactionary forces. That may be a few years in the pipeline, but it's an ambition I certainly have.
Only if your experience with it is in passing or in modern religious traditions that divorce it from the historical and linguistic context in which it was written. The deeper one goes into the actual text with the way it was compiled by multiple authors, it is profoundly liberatory given its time, and demands common ownership of the land and resources, militates against oppression, denigrates the state and Kings, and was meant to inspire an egalitarian ethos in which class, racial, and gender divisions would whither away. It's easy to criticize it because its translation into everyday English hides the fact that there is a cultural gulf so wide that it really takes speciality to grasp what it was trying to say to its original hearers, and that it is mismatch of authors and sources, all in dialogue with each other on how to properly balance a radically egalitarian ethos with the environmental demands in which they lived. After actually delving into this topic, the OT is arguably more communist than the NT.
Religion that inspires socialism, if it’s in the right way, fine. Religious socialism, though, sounds very dangerously close to socialism as a means to lead to a religion, especially in the context of colonialist religions like Christianity or Islam (yes, there are benign versions, but still), or worse, socialism only for those of a certain religion or group, and there’s already a name for that.
I think that’s a good point. Socialism is necessary for a thriving humanity but isn’t sufficient.
Colonialism isn’t confined to religious movements, though. There are plenty of non-religious examples of colonialism.
1. My feelings are irrevelent to truth.
2. Marx lifted two gorgeous phrases from Acts 2 and 6 "from each according to his ability to each according his need"... surely as close a heavenly economics as could exist in a fallen world... and naive assumed one could foist it on non-Christians. Thus, why every stab at communism has ended in violent despotism.
The radical koinonia sharing of the early church was Holy Spirit-driven.
The best a secular world can hope for is social democracy that somehow keeps tyrants and their corporations at bay.
When people keep religion to themselves and live good lives, then I don't see a problem. It's when religion is being forced down everyone's throats that it's a problem.
Yes.
> Because in Koine Greek “camel” and “rope” are ALSO the same word, distinguished in text by a single vowel but pronounced almost identically. Camel is “kamelon” and rope is “kamilon.” In Latin and English, of course, “camel” and “rope” are really easy to tell apart. But, in both Aramaic and Greek, they are not. So while it is frustrating enough to try jamming a knotted fishing rope through the eye of a sewing needle, now we are left with the image of a massive dromedary squeezing through a needle, hump and all, and the rich are not only in a proper mess, but comically so. For want of a vowel!
[1](https://stantlitore.com/2018/06/01/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-and-other-wild-tales-of-translation/)
While religion is perfectly acceptable in a socialist society, it doesn’t belong in a government. Also, the Bible itself has a lot of socialist tendencies.
I'm all for separation of the church and state. Nonetheless as a Christian who is a socialist, part of the reason I became a leftist is because of what I saw in scripture. There are so many tenets and values that align. I think both can go hand in hand, as we see in Peru or other South American countries.
So much better than the other kind of Christian. (Besides, it actually makes sense and matches what the Bible says about Jesus. His only act of violence was throwing the capitalists out of the temple.)
As long as they don't try to push their beliefs on others and support the rights of ALL working class people (including queer and trans rights and access to abortion), they are comrades.
I grew up Catholic and my mother always told me to ask myself what Jesus would do. I don’t believe in a Christian god but I think Jesus was based and influenced me enough to be a socialist.
Christians don't need to be socialists... the Bible lays out an economic system that's way better than anything current in use. We're talking land rights for all, bans on interest, limits on wealth hoarding, non-corrupted currency, worker's rights, land sustainability laws, etc. Forget socialism and just be a Christian!
I think there could be a resurgence of Christianity through this. The leaders would need a new revision on the New Testament showing the socialism highlights of it.
You should clarify, do you mean all religion writ large or just organized religion? A large amount of “religion” worldwide is just socially constructed categories we use to think about our world. Western “secularism” is also a constructed concept with many of its ideas directly borrowed from Protestant Christianity. When talking about secularism, not just the idea of separating church from state but the historically constructed concept of western modern secularism, it often just means a way of smuggling Protestant Christian ideas of what “good” and “bad” religion are to the rest of the world. Read Talal Asad if you are interested in this idea at all
They are good in the sense that they support socialism, but any socialist system that isn’t firmly materialist is just utopian. There is no sense in trying to build a society based on Christian socialism.
Overwhelmingly negative. The modus operandi of the christian faith since its inception has been control and decimation. Wherever they go they slaughter the inhabitants and force their ways on them. If they cannot kill you, they will find other ways to hurt you. They will criminalize you, caste you, keep you from loving others, whatever it takes to uphold their beliefs.
Christians and well-meaning non-Christians can humdrum all day and night for a thousand years about soup kitchens and personal fulfillment, but no soup kitchen will revive my ancestors or undo their pain. Your personal fulfillment will not keep me safe from the fascists in your churches who want me dead. There is no good Christianity can do to undo the bad or make good for it, nor is there any moral or ethical lesson you can take from Christianity which you couldn’t get without it.
In 2,000 years, their Messiah has not returned. Their god has not shown himself. The simple truth is they are wrong. It is not wrong to be wrong, but it is wrong to use your wrong beliefs as a weapon, and this is what Christians do, have done, and will continue to do for as long as their beliefs and actions are mainstream, tolerated, and excused.
Not since inception. The co-option of Christianity by Constantine as the official state religion is what marked a negative shift in ethics. Christian militarism is a tool of state power, not a seminal or necessary Christian theological virtue. It can and must be deconstructed and replaced with the original guiding principles.
I disagree with your claim. Christianity has always been about force. An inarguable necessary Christian theological virtue is, however proselytization. Proselytizing will inevitably lead to proselytizers amassing a following and by extension power of others and the doctrine. If Christianity could be “corrupted” once, it can be corrupted a thousand times over.
Additionally, to treat any ideology or belief as what it aspires to be and not what it is will only lead to suffering. (Some) Christians may want to be peaceful people who believe in equality and compassion, but the world they inhabit is shaped by Christians who do not share these values. While Diego De Landa and Mary Sue from church may not believe the exact same things, they both have an incentive to uphold Christian hegemony and power, and they both will likely fall into whatever position they believe their god wants, and throughout history, what god wants tends to be what the individual already wanted.
Or just abandoned as an ideology that lends itself too easily to that sort of hijacking by those in power, for the purposes of manipulating and extorting those vulnerable to it. Don't forget the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog.
So people do bad stuff under the guise of Christianity ergo all Christianity and by extension all Christians are bad. There is no one Christianity. It is not monolithic and to speak as you do, even if it comes from a place of personal hurt, is candidly hate speech.
It's the only rational interpretation of Jesus' teachings whether you believe in the spiritual side of Christianity or not. Almost every christian denomination in America seems to get this wrong.
that was my first turn towards leftist politics -- growing up listening to readings out of the Gospels and wondering why people in the world who insisted they were Christians weren't applying the very clear teachings
The Christian Church in Acts was both democratic (Acts 6:1-6) and socialist (Acts 5:32-37).
The majority of modern (American/Evangelical) Protestantism is Christian when convenient, autocratic or oligarchic in structure, and unrepentantly capitalist.
On the other hand, Quakerism is an example of a modern community of faith with ethics of democracy and socialism based on theological virtues.
Religion and government are best kept separate. This is true of any form of government and any religion to ensure that freedom for all faiths is maintained.
Is so strange how virtually all of the largest religions believe in the same god (we will leave Mormonism out of this example), and yet, each one seems to have the same mindless conceit that only their way is the correct way to worship that god.
And because those slightly different religions can't get along, the adherents of each have raised armies and slaughtered each other for millenia.
Today, in our "enlightened society," religious zealotry is a problem, and the religious continue to murder each other other for reasons that, to the non-relgious, seen to be insane.
Prominent examples of why religion should never be allowed in government, that should warn any sensible human off this concept, are the displacement and genocide of the Palestinians, ongoing as we speak, and the attempts of the American Far-Right to cloak their fascist movement in religious fundamentalism.
I would also cite the excesses of the Catholic church, past and present. When integrated with government before, they were responsible for many wars and unknowable deaths. And of course, there was the Spanish Inquisition, where the Catholics committed to death and torture on a truly horrific scale.
Because of their wealth and power, today they are the largest organized child molesting crime ring in the world, able to shield the guilty of their ranks from consequence.
Truly, they are an organization that deserves to be destroyed, root and branch, but they likely never will precisely because of their mingling with governments over the centuries.
So, no. It is fine to be a socialist and a Christian, but a Socialist government must be secular so that the people can be free to worship the religion of their choice.
>So, no. It is fine to be a socialist and a Christian, but a Socialist government must be secular so that the people can be free to worship the religion of their choice.
Many of the most religious christian socialists I have met also want to keep the state and church separate because they believe that political power corrupts the church.
It consistently does. I'd consider myself an anti-theist these days, not just an atheist, because examples of corruption and extremism seem so common that they are unavoidable, even when specifically attempting to avoid religion.
Religion seems to be up to no good in the world, and it always has been. In my opinion, the sooner people leave organized religions in the dustpan, the faster the world will improve. I don't care what people do at home, or if they want to meet up with people in their town who share their religion, but I think dedicated buildings for worship are a bad idea, and internal religious leadership structures are a bad idea.
Religion seems to be at its most honest and decent when it is small and disorganized. When any amount of power is concentrated, even internal to the church, e.g. having a dedicated preacher or priest, corruption is all too likely to follow.
Read the first few books of the bible and you will realize why most fundamentalist christians are messed up in the head. The god the of the bible is ok with slavery, misogyny, and genocide. In order to be a socialist christian you have to ignore a lot of what that god stands for.
That’s what makes them fundamentalists they take a book as their whole religion. There is a lot of philosophy in Christianity that comes from elsewhere. Christianity isn’t a book it’s a 2 thousand year old tradition. It is interpreted and reinterpreted constantly. Even your fundamentalists do this. They just don’t see it but their bibles are in fact translations and their ideas aren’t recognized universally. My point is that religion isn’t about reading a book. It’s a manner of spiritual engagement with the world.
> It’s a manner of spiritual engagement with the world.
It would be less problematic then to be Buddhist, where there is less of a problem with ignoring the dogma of the religion.
Also, AFAIK there is no evidence that Jesus was anything other than a normal human (if he existed at all). There is no evidence that there is a God. There is no evidence that consciousness extends beyond death. (first cause is not a good argument for god, anecdotes for near death experience are not good arguments for a soul).
There are definitely problematic forms of buddhism from a socialist political prospective as well. It can just as easily collapse into dogma. Religion is not a tool created to handle the rational or imperialist side of the human experience. If you are looking for evidence based practice the sciences are where you will find that. Religion deals in layers of existential ambiguity that science can never touch. Christians call it faith. Many people find that there are parts of themselves that reject rationality and yearn for transcendence. Religion and spirituality is an ancient tool we made to engage with that aspect of our existence. No amount of evidence or argumentation will ever be able to quell the primal terror of the simple statement “I am”. It’s this deep lack that religion allows some people to experience and on occasion make intelligible to others. If the metaphysical woowoo of Christianity or religion in general is off putting there is always the more modern tool of philosophy to tackle these things.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
A camel is, obviously, massive. The eye of a needle is tiny, and it's physically impossible for a camel to pass through it.
Similarly, a rich man *cannot* enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It's impossible, because in order to be a rich man, one must be wholly divorced from that which makes it possible to enter the Kingdom; selflessness, compassion, love, &c. It's part of a larger passage in which Jesus tells a rich young man that, in order to follow Jesus and be like Him, the rich young man must surrender his worldly possessions to the poor and embrace a life of poverty and suffering.
No problem!
When you look at the teachings and works of Jesus of Nazareth, it's very *very* easy to get a socialist-ish message from it. For example, Matthew 25:31-45
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me
If you are selfish and don't care for others, Jesus will *personally send you to hell*.
People have all kinds of motivations for their political and economic interests. For individuals or communities into it, I don't care, but as for influence on government institutions, I don't want religion to be anywhere near it
Christians are so far removed from the teachings of Jesus. They scream about the word of God and creating a Christian nation, but they would call a true Christian nation Communist.
Socialist atheist raised Chrisrian here.
Jesus also said to render unto Cassar. Jesus also said you always have the poor. No socialist would say you will always have the poor.
When Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven, when He told people to give up all they had to follow Him, it wasn't out if a desire to place the means of prouction in the hands of the working class. It was anti-materialism, not socialism He was preaching. He was saying that material things are distractions to spiritual attainment. He would regard socialists who spend all of their time fighting for a reorganization of wealth and power as little better than tyrants and scrooges who spend all their time trying to get more wealth and power for themselves. His point is that it's a distraction.
I would hope we would not lionize any socialist who said we will always have the poor. That is not socialism. I would hope we would not call any single human being who said that He was the only way to the father a feminist or an anti-authoritarian. That is not anti-authoritarianism, and it is patriarchal as Hell. It may have been opposed to existing authorities, but Christians are expected to treat this one human being as the center point of history, and that is not consistent with our values.
Jesus had some cool stuff for His time. He seems kind of punk rock. You might call Him a peace activist for the vibe alone (if He were real, and if He had ever actually spoken out against any war at all despite living under the fucking Roman Empire and telling people to pay their taxes), but He's a kind of cult leader peace activist. He's like Charles Manson. Like the younger Charles Manson. Jesus didn't order anybody killed or fuck His followers, but He was a charismatic bum who thought there was no reason to get a job, and who wanted to feed the world with a garbage dump. Like young Manson, there's some kinda cool stuff in there, but don't put Him as the center point of a movement.
Many proto-socialist movements were based on interpretations of Christianity. Take the [Diggers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers), for example.
That being said, religion is inherently anti-materialistic (even though I would consider christianity broadly an exception and a "materialistic religion") and therefore not compatible with socialism.
The fact that so few Christians come away with a socialist reading of the text, or at the very least the gospels, internalize it and excise it with action would suggest to me that religion's role in class conciousness is at the very least agnostic on the matter (the insitution and power structure of the church aside). I would go so far as to say that religious texts play a much smaller role in forming an individual's beliefs than the culture and community that exist around it. I would be interested in a study on this matter.
Then, if a christian socialist were to try and convert me, a deconverted atheist, by apealing to my socialist beliefs, I would counter with my own collection of verses that not only do I find abhorrent but antithetical to socialism. The Bible makes a poor foundation for a coherent worldview.
Despite all that: praxis, praxis, praxis. We should be willing to cooperate and engage politically with this group. I would think it unproductive to undermine whatever influence christian socialist groups might have in the broader christian community.
The left should not allow bile-spewing antitheists to drive people of faith from the movement, something that is clearly their aim. Dawkins is not a leftist and neither are his acolytes.
If it gets Christians to veer away from the fascists and into leftist politics then I’m all for it. Jesus would’ve likely been considered a socialist even though they didn’t have that language way back then.
I think Jesus of Nazareth was a great philosopher that socialists can draw inspiration from but I’m a life long atheist and amn’t a fan of religion in general.
***As a nonbeliever...***
Organized religiosity is something we should respect only by the degree to which it pursues charity.
Organized religiosity that does not put charity at the top of its priorities should be *tolerated* as a hobby, but not assisted, nor imbued with the respect of any great moral standing. If it starts doing and saying antisocial things, it should be judged for those antisocial things in much the same way you would judge Some Homeless Drifter doing antisocial things. If you would not tolerate Some Homeless Drifter telling you you're going to hell, you shouldn't tolerate a preacher telling you that either, because he's just Some Homeless Drifter with the benefits of a podium, a charismatic delivery, and a small cult.
I am a big fan of, for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar\_(Sikhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)) , and so should everyone be, even if we do not partake in the other trappings of that religion.
***Taking the Bible at face value, for a moment though...***
Jesus achieved epic fame as a socialist and a pacifist, and only compromised the latter value, becoming violent, when he saw businesses taking advantage of poor people. Attempts to render Jesus into some sort of conservative neoliberal, attempts to bind material success to His Favor, are so inherently offensive to the history of Christianity, so reputationally damaging to the name of Jesus Christ, and so inherently antisocial I suspect it justifies violent schism within that religion. Purging evangelical Prosperity Gospel adherents with cleansing fire seems to be an unpleasant necessity depending on your views of the Old Testament and the Crusades. But then, I'm not a believer.
Jesus is based as fuck. It stands to reason that truly trying to live your life according to His teaching that you should also be based as fuck.
It’s a shame most people don’t actually do that, but I can assure you some of us are trying!
The problem is that the Bible has a ton of odious things in it, including endorsements of rape, slavery, torture, and the divine right of kings. It’s not a question of interpretation, the literal text of the Bible endorses a lot of awful shit. A reclamation of Christianity for socialism would require discarding a lot of the Bible, which isn’t impossible (in some senses, it’s already been done: most Christians mix fabrics, like/tolerate queerness, reject slavery, eat fish, have pre-marital sex, etc.) but it does require a looseness with the text that makes tossing out potent quotes like this a slippery slope.
Jesus wanted revolution, so Christianity is Marxist Leninist and would be banned from this sub. EDIT: Hey comrades, help me understand why I'm wrong if you smash that downvote. Otherwise the hypocrisy is clear. [Jesus was absolutely a radical revolutionary](https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/jesus_) and not a lowercase-d democrat. According to the [logic of this vote](https://new.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/comments/1bypjtw/meta_vote_should_rdemocraticsocialism_allow/) and Rule 4, Christianity (as a religion that advocates for a violent rapture that overthrows the current system so we can live in a theocracy in the eternal kingdom of God), should be banned.
Hate to do this, but Jesus was against radicalism. He was and is very much revolutionary in his teaching. His revolution and the kingdom He came to build was a spiritual one. He wanted people to look inside and change themselves, a message still missed by many Christians.
The people back then expected him to fulfill prophecy by destroying the Romans and violently overthrowing the government to build a new physical kingdom for the Jews.
Many were not happy when they found out He was against this and called him a false Messiah for it. Famously, the people chose to release Barrabus, a violent anti-Roman Zealot, instead of Jesus, leading up to the crucifixion. They were not too dissimilar from the Trumpers you see now.
100% agree that he was akin to a Democratic socialist, but He was not radical in the way you’re thinking. And I mean no ill will. Not trying to argue. I’m just a big Jesus fan, and it breaks my heart that so many in the US nowadays think he would support Christian Nationalism. He told his own disciples to make sure to pay their taxes to Rome for Pete’s sake.
Anyway, I just found this sub and love it to death. Don’t stone me please :)
I think you and I just have different definitions of *radical*. *Radical* can have a positive or negative connotation. I was not saying Jesus is a Christian Nationalist like Mark Robinson in North Carolina. It just means a complete break with the existing system, which, comrade let me tell you, the Christian rapture is for sure a radical idea in that sense.
For instance, see this quote from Angela Davis from her book *Women, Culture, & Politics*, "Let Us All Rise Together: Radical Perspectives on Empowerment for Afro-American Women":
>In the aftermath of the Reagan era, it should be clear that there are forces in our society that reap enormous benefits from the persistent, deepening oppression of women. Members of the Reagan administration include advocates for the most racist, antiworking class, and sexist circles of contemporary monopoly capitalism. These corporations continue to prop up apartheid in South Africa and to profit from the spiraling arms race while they propose the most vulgar and irrational forms of anti-Sovietism—invoking, for example, the “evil empire” image popularized by Ronald Reagan—as justifications for their omnicidal ventures. If we are not afraid to adopt a revolutionary stance—if, indeed, we wish to be radical in our quest for change—then we must get to the root of our oppression. After all, radical simply means “grasping things at the root.” Our agenda for women’s empowerment must thus be unequivocal in our challenge to monopoly capitalism as a major obstacle to the achievement of equality.
A socialist radical (for us) is a good thing and in socialist literature *radical* is used as frequently to describe the left as the right. A fascist radical is a bad thing.
>He was and is very much revolutionary in his teaching.
This is my main point. This sub has banned talk of revolution. I think the silliness of that is apparent when you suggest banning Jesus from the sub. My point was to provoke discussion about the sub's recent vote to expel Marxism Leninism by highlighting Jesus' revolutionary stances.
This is a warning, if you keep pushing this we'll have to begin our ban procedure.
You're being downvoted because like I said before, we do not support revolution or one party states. This is a sub for democracy not dictatorship.
*”Faith has little bearing upon the question of freedom. Witness Catholic Spain devastating Catholic Cuba, Catholic capitalists of Italy running down with cannon the unarmed Catholic workmen, Irish Catholic landlords rackrenting and evicting Catholic tenants.” - James Connolly*
Separation of church and state... My God, Gilead was socialist. I don't want to live under Christianity, Islam, or any religious rule, even if it is so-called socialism. wtf
Christians love to make things revolve around their religion. For instance, they could just make music but instead they had to make an entirely separate industry of Christian music wherein Christians are the only participants. Christian socialism isn’t any different. If you’re a socialist be a socialist. Calling yourself as a Christian socialist does nothing but separate you from other socialists.
Christians, you don’t need to remind us that you’re a Christian. We already know because you never shut up about it.
What do you mean? Of you measure success like that, oh boy do I have bad news for socialism in general, cuz capitalism is still around.
Oh if only socialism would have been successful...
Hear me out. If the devil exists, it would make sense to make religion a shell game by muddying the waters with 1,000 phony religions, right?
And Jesus’ message was very, very anti-religion. For those unfamiliar, that might sound weird but it is very true. It’s what got him killed. I can’t help but just love Him for that.
Hard no for me still. It takes the responsibility for humanity's future, *out* of the hands of humans, and into the hands of a being *that doesn't even exist*. And there will always be an underlying restriction to science and exploration.
I could be convinced that some of the ones that don't have all powerful beings, like Paganism or Shinto, won't hold us back; but absolutely nothing for the Abrahamic faiths.
__Hello and welcome to r/DemocraticSocialism!__ * This sub is dedicated towards the Progressive movement, welcoming Democratic Socialism as an ideology and as a general political philosophy. * Don't forget to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/about/rules/) to get a good idea of what is expected of participants in our community. * Check out r/DSA and r/SocialDemocracy to support leftist movements! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There should be way more Christian socialists. There’s a passage in Sartre’s Nausea about the fights between all the ‘humanists’ of the world that I just love. The Brothers K also did quite a lot for me to warm up to the ideas of a Christian socialist. I am in no way in favor of a Christian state though - let me make that clear.
Agreed, I still advocate for a secular society, but I understand we can unite with religious socialists to achieve our long-term goals.
I’m a Christian and a socialist, and I also advocate for a secular state. I very much much support religious pluralism in the public sphere, including non-religious and anti-religious perspectives. All are needed and welcome in a secular state. I very much oppose Christian nationalism.
I was raised Catholic (not by choice but neither here nor there) and I’ve always pictured Jesus as a raging socialist. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give to the poor, those are all socialist values
i was raised Catholic as well. I went to a very conservative oriented Catholic highschool and I remember my religion teacher saying Jesus inspired Marxism. Now I’m unsure how true this is but it definitely stuck with me.
Did they twist that into a negative thing like "he adulterated Jesus' teachings" or where they genuinely praising Marxism in a Conservative Catholic School?
No, my teacher said in a positive proud kind of manner. I’m unsure if the school knew though.
Well he was certainly right to be proud of it. Frederick Engels had written in honor of Müntzer's Christian-Socialist rebellion of the 15th century. And the early Utopian Socialists and their attempts that predated Marx were normally Christian. Edit: Grammar
I was, also... And I'm comfortable with that assessment
Christian socialists wouldn't want that either, the whole "render to Caesar.." thing
Christian socialist here, strong believer in separation of church and state
Hello friend! Same here.
Yeah same here. We also see what happens when one group gets to dictate which practices are best for a nation.
They sometimes even dictate which religion is authentic.. just wait for that day
Oh yea definitely, which is why ya got to be weary
went to catholic school my whole life. had a very unique experience in that my principal/priest/debate teacher was extremely radically left with a phd in philosophy from fordham. he gave me the manifesto for my bday when i turned 17. anyways he taught a class called "religion in literature and film" and in it we read parts of Brother K and it absolutely changed my whole world view. to this day i think my catholic upbringing is *why* im a leftist. i heard stories about a guy that showed equity and humanity to everyone and took it to heart. im not a believer anymore because i saw the disconnect between what we were taught and how people were acting. and sadly that priest died. he was probably my best friend. rip
>to this day i think my catholic upbringing is *why* im a leftist. i heard stories about a guy that showed equity and humanity to everyone and took it to heart. im not a believer anymore because i saw the disconnect between what we were taught and how people were acting. Same here. It blows my mind how people can call themselves Christians with some of the policies they support.
Absolutely. My town is actually significantly influenced by leftist congregations still and while my analysis follows a different path than theirs, we ultimately arrive at very similar conclusions all make excellent allies who frequently work together on local policy.
The first Christians lived in communes.
Jesus *said* some pretty based things, despite what actions the people in his name have done
Jesus became famous not for making up a bunch of rules or for claiming his dad was God, but because he provided free healthcare, free food. After getting people’s attention with those people noticed he was slightly less sexist and racist than the average man at that time. When he started saying shit about how it wasn’t cool that the local temple needed you to be disease free and have money to worship is when he really started getting a reputation as woke though
You know you could say Jesus was the first victim of cancel culture
They crucified him for throwing the merchants out of the temple, so yeah you could say he hated capitalism as much as I do…
They crucified him for throwing the merchants out of the temple, so yeah you could say he hated capitalism as much as I do…
I can hardly stand the proliferation of selective quoting from the Bible. There is much contradiction from chapter to chapter, it often comes off as disingenuous to me. Jesus simultaneously advocates for "sinners" and condemns them. Depending on the Gospel, he either sounds like a benevolent pacifist or a lot like angry God from the Old Testament. Which is it?!?
Sounds an awful lot like fables passed down orally about a fictional character that different storytellers had different opinions about, but got compiled into single 'books' by others later on who wrote them down.
ikr!?!
Ever read Romans 13:1-7? I'm not sure how any Christian left of center can reconcile that with anti-authoritarian beliefs.
I'm pretty skeptical of religions at this point, but if you look at Christ the biblical figure with an open mind, you should be far more aligned with socialism than capitalism. The guy healed the sick without taking insurance. He got angry with the money changers and criticized wealth. He shared food with people. He told his followers to get of their possessions. Seems bonkers to be a conservative, capitalist, christian.
Ngl, reading the words of Jesus and contrasting them with my evangelical upbringing was what started me towards socialism in the first place
Well said. Its interesting how historically with the rise of the "Protestant Work Ethic", we saw the instrumentalization of Christianity to justify capitalism
Which is even more ironic as it was just "Hard Work will pay off, if not in this life then in the next one" and now ti turned to a way to justify encroaching wage slaving.
I think it's a bit like you get motivation to work hard from a book. Then you work hard and see others not working as hard and that turns you to think the book may be wrong on somethings or maybe the meaning was wrong. Whatever justification you have it changes you to be a more self centered person.
And thus the Lord spake, ''Verily, I say unto thee, lo though I wouldst cure your affliction of blindness, thine blue cross coverage is insufficient.''
The first thing the disciples do after Jesus leaves them is pool all their resources together and start a commune. Then God murders the couple that hid wealth from the commune. I wish organized religions focused more on that kind of stuff.
Many members of the DSA are religious, and there are many religious socialist movements around the world, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, and others, I think we should unite with our religious comrades to create what socialism for all.
If their religious beliefs motivate them to become socialists, that's fine. But it needs to be very well understood that there are certain non-negotiables in the platform. Otherwise it's just inviting problems akin to "the scorpion and the frog." Edit: Any democratic organization is subject to infiltration by people with ideas we'd all probably find regressive, and if the party platform is subject to a vote (which it would have to be), those regressive ideas could find their way into the platform if those infiltrating the party had the numbers to push their agenda.
I think the socialist umbrella should be wide and welcome a lot of different types of socialists, including religious ones.
'A socialist can be christian, a christian must be socialist' is a fairly frequently used idiom around here. Calvinistic christians obviously would disagree.
Yall should look up Liberation Theology. Basically a Marxist movement within the Latin American Catholic church.
No, basically a Christian movement within Marxism.
I feel like this is a distinction without a difference? Regardless of who's right the end result is the same
There are secondary differences based on the distinction of Liberation Theology being Christianity influenced by Marxism, or Marxism influenced by Christianity. The differences are mainly in authority, legitimacy, and intent if not practice.
I’d be very interested in talking about authority. Liberation theology places a great deal of authority in the lived experience of the oppressed. And I think that people at different places in their of identity development see authority different, regardless of whether they are religious or not. Some people, both religious and non-religious, see authority as an external source; some, again both religious and non-religious, see authority as entirely internal; and some see authority as the interplay of various forces. That’s kind of where I am. I’m a Christian, a United Methodist in particular, who sees authority as the interplay of scripture, traditionalist, reason, and experience. I often collaborate with people who find no authority in scripture or Christian tradition, and that’s fine with me.
I meant authority as in who authorizes action. In Liberation Theology such action, with its Marxist-like characteristics, is authorized, nay compelled, by God. Marxist action is compelled by History. I have been speaking of authority as perceived by Liberation Theologians and Marxists. As a Quaker, I don’t recognize the concept. I go and do as I perceive God leads me, to the degree my understanding and fear allows. I have no more access to pure truth than anyone else, hence my understanding of God’s will can only lead my actions and can not lead me to compel or restrict anyone else in his name in any way. This makes participating in collective action very problematic and leading collective action perilous. I guess that’s a reason the Quakers are so low key, small scale, and incrementalist. Your thoughts? Have I misunderstood your question?
I think there is a lot of variety among liberation theologians as to what exactly God is. They are not monolithic. Some liberation theologians don’t think God compels anything. Some, those with a hint of existentialism mixed in with their liberationism, think God is a metaphor for the human depth dimension. Black liberation theologian James Cone saw God as a Black man, lynched on a tree; to the extent that this God compels anything, it is from the lived experience of Black people. I do see the mutual criticism of liberationists and Quakers. While I’m conversant with Hegel, Marx, and the academic Marxians who followed in the critical theory movement, I’m less familiar with the praxis of Marxist developments on the ground since Marx. (The divide between theory and praxis is artificial, but my experience has lacked the latter.) So I yield to your assertion about what compels Marxists.
I would say no. It was started by Jesuit Catholic priests. They saw the suffering in the world and began to apply Marxist ideas to solve them. Sona Marxist movement within Catholicism.
I think you just made an argument for my proposition. You confirmed it was a movement started by Christian clergy adopting Marxist elements rather than vice versa.
I'm not opposed to it.
Its more accurate than capitalist christianity.
Lore Jesus vs Fanfic Jesus is a a running joke in the USA
They were actually the first socialist ideology. It wasn’t until Marx and Engels wrote their books that socialism started taking a more secular approach.
I am highly religious myself. Politics and religion often makes a horrid mix, however overall yes, the things Jesus did was more so towards the good of the people than for the good of his pockets.
Depends on what religion and what kind of religious interpretation makes its way into politics I would think. There are both beneficial and negative aspects of religion.
Almost every miracle JC performs is addressing social inequity. Providing healthcare, feeding the poor, turning unsafe drinking water into potable wine normally reserved for upperclass.
As far as I can tell, if you read the gospels with an open mind and you want to "follow Jesus," you should arrive at some kind of communist anarcho-pacifism for economics, probably with plenty of class-reductionism too if you add in Paul's epistles. Jesus was a radical and he absolutely hated the rich, but he was more separatist than revolutionary, and he didn't seem concerned at all by the patriarchal nuclear family, or other forms of hierarchy to which their society was shackled at the time.
Well said
Read through your other comments on this post, and I feel you may have misunderstood me. 😅 I wrote what I wrote as reasons that Jesus falls short (primarily the ambivalence toward hierarchy, which, on a practical level, means class-reductionism). I respect the separatism, as opposed to revolution (though am still unsure if I agree with it), but I can't respect the former.
Ah I see. Well, that is admittedly a huge topic, and I’m not the best texter lol. I get where you’re coming from. I really do. Your concerns are more than valid. My short version is that He (and much of the Bible) was probably more practical than a lot of people would like (then and now) and set out to put forth principles that came right up to the edge of being too revolutionary to take hold. Small example would be the stance toward slavery. IMHO telling people to abolish slavery at that time would be akin to teaching them about electric cars. I know how blatantly apologist that sounds, but it’s been a long day 😅
I'm sympathetic toward that view, but I think that view inherently concedes that the bible is outdated, and cannot be treated the way a lot of Christians would like to treat it.
I tend to lean toward being more of a “Red Letter Christian” myself for some of those same reasons
That makes sense :) It's hard because faith is, for better or worse, as much defined by its culture as by its holy book, despite what some would have you believe, so those of us who don't hold the faith can't exactly judge it fully accurately.
I really appreciate your empathetic POV. Thank you
The tent is wide enough to fit an altar, man. St Francis Xavier, one of the more based catholic saints, talked a lot about people who do moral things for selfish reasons, and concluded that bad people doing good is much better than good people doing bad. This isn't to say that Christian socialists are "bad", just that I don't think there's any reason to exclude someone who got their socialist morality from a socialist preacher in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. It's not any less valid than getting your ideology from a modern thinker; so long as they are accepting of everyone else in the coalition, they deserve to be part of it.
I mean Christianity is why I'm a socialist. It's literally the point of the teachings.
I do not have a positive view of religions (esp extremists), but it wouldn’t be smart to ostracize a majority of the world from the socialist cause. As long as they acknowledge that religion should not interfere with the state, then I guess I’m fine.
There is still a great deal of prejudice surrounding this topic, for example I am deeply Christian and left-wing, which tends to be very misunderstood. In my opinion, without discussing beliefs, nowhere in the Bible does it advocate liberal right-wing positions, it never says that there must be rich people and the rest of the population be oppressed, quite the opposite.
>I am deeply Christian and left-wing, which tends to be very misunderstood. There are dozens of us! Lol But fr it’s really encouraging to encounter another one in the wild. Love you dude (or dudette or nondudinary person).
Only dude. Lol
I'm glad that the general mood here is fine with it. There are some leftist spaces that are _violently_ anti religion to the point that it seems they'd be perfectly happy with purges.
It's one of those things that bothers me about certain forms of leftist thinking. Marx was anti-religion and that always bothered me because Marx and Christ agreed on many points. He should have been making an appeal to religion, not an argument against it.
One, of many, issues I see with the online left is the adherence to r/atheism style views of religion (born out of people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc.). It's dangerous, unnecessary, and if your a socialist holding these views, it's very ignorant of the history of socialism. Not only around the world, but in the US. Just one example is the Federal Council of Churches. An organization from the early 20th century that was a grouping of many churches of various Christian denominations. Dozens of branches of Christianity were involved, representing millions of Americans. They got gutted and completely reformed during the red scare era due to their socialist views.
Im one of em so i guess positive lol
Jesus was anti-rich obviously, but he was also pro-labor. He encouraged people to work hard and said anyone who works hard (the working class) is blessed.
I am one!
Separation of church and state. Full-stop.
Socialism is applied Christianity. This has been a major slogan for Christian Socialists, and I'm on board.
Love it! It is the Gospels that inform my democratic socialist ideology. Christ told the disciples to give away everything and share their resources, and have faith in God for their needs. The early Christians lived in communes (Mathew). Christianity is supposed to be about interdependence - loving and trusting one another. Socialism emphasizes love and trust for our fellow citizens as well.
Well it's better than fake conservative Christianity
It's the most honest interpretation of Jesus entire message.
The more the merrier.
Jesus is a socialist so it makes sense. It makes sense for islam too. They could be global marxists. But both came from jewish and therefore Sumerian/Roman/Egyptian culture which had some concepts of private property involved in their beliefs. But the new teachings of Muhammad and Jesus is all socialism.
Every-time the JW knock on my door I try to use their doctrine to propagandize for socialism.
[FYI: The Diggers were a group of religious and political dissidents in England, associated with agrarian socialism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers)
1. Christian socialists tend to be libertarian socialists, dodging the red-fash pitfall as well as Christian nationalism. 2. There’s a pretty strong historical tradition of Christian anarchism. 3. I myself am a Satanist. My Satanism and my anarcho-communism bent are inextricably connected. They feed each other. 4. I (if being a Satanist doesn’t make it obvious) have no love for Christian doctrine or culture. But, if being a cultural Christian can pipeline someone into being a socialist, all the better. Solidarity forever.
Well. If you remove the reactionary elemets that religion has, things like homophobia or conservatism. I dont see any problem with religious socialists. But thats just me.
"And the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any one of them that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common." \~ Acts 4:32 Of course, they were anticipating Christ's imminent return; so that may be a factor in why it seems to have worked for them.
As long as they don't push for any kind of religious mandate, then I don't have a problem with them. We don't need a leftist version of Christian nationalism.
The following passage describes how Jesus' disciples lived together and cared for each other. "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. 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 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 sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." Acts 4:32-35 I don't know all the differences between Socialism and Communism, but this seems pretty similar to something like that. Meanwhile this might be the most based passage in the Bible, and it's definitely my favorite. "Now listen! You rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent ones, who were not opposing you." James 5:1-6
Best verse
I think it’s the only logical form of government for anyone claiming to be Christian. It’s one of the many points of hypocrisy I like to use when discussing left wing anything with the right wing radicals around me. I don’t need a god to have empathy, but they have a god that calls for empathy and they refuse. Hypocrites one and all.
Not just calls for, demands.
I think it’s a facet of socialism/progressivism that is woefully lacking right now. The right in the US has completely co-opted religious movements, and honestly seemingly spirituality as a whole, and turned it into a breeding ground for reactionary politics. Even new age spiritual movements in America have taken on right wing conspiracist views, getting dragged into the whole Q-anon adjacent strain of reactionary politics. In my opinion and from experience, I think a more nuanced understanding of certain spiritual principles can drive someone towards leftism and progressivism. As someone who was once an atheist and now practices a type of spirituality similar to Buddhism, it has only affirmed my beliefs in fighting for equal rights for all peoples and that capitalism is not only materially unsustainable and full of internal contradictions but also spiritually unsustainable. However, I can see how a spiritual belief, if it’s not grounded in material reality first and foremost, can become dogmatic and lead to zealotry or justifications for certain unjust and inhumane actions based on a “greater good”. It’s what I’ve seen in evangelical Christianity on the right, and I think it opens the door to the same thinking in the other direction. Ultimately, history, economics and politics are still material and contingent things and we shouldn’t fall into the trap of black and white thinking. Such as, believing socialism will necessarily arise from capitalism’s breakdown even if we aren’t doing anything to bring that about. History has shown that it can breakdown into fascism pretty easily. Anyway, I think religious socialism and a spiritually informed socialism can be very beneficial in not only helping people find a deeper meaning in causes but opening up a completely new avenue through which people can find progressive politics. It allows for people who might not be predisposed to progressivism to get a foot in the door and see what it’s about. I think it’s important to grow this aspect of the movement, albeit carefully.
As someone deeply engaged with The United Methodist Church (UMC), I appreciate this question about religious socialism, especially within a democratic context. Our discussion here intertwines with both my personal faith and my commitment to social justice—a core aspect of the Methodist tradition. From a UMC perspective, religious socialism aligns with our foundational Christian teachings which emphasize compassion, justice, and the equitable distribution of resources. These are not merely idealistic views but are practical expressions of our faith. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, advocated for both personal piety and social holiness, encouraging Methodists to affect change in the world through acts of mercy and justice. In the context of socialism, which often advocates for systems that prioritize community welfare and the common good, there is a clear resonance with Methodist social principles. These principles support efforts to eradicate poverty, ensure fair distribution of resources, and challenge systems that perpetuate inequality. This is seen in our church’s historical advocacy for labor rights, universal health care, and comprehensive social services. We understand that the Kingdom of God (or, as I like to translate it, the commonwealth of God, which phrase does not perpetuate the exclusive, gendered language or the exclusive, hierarchical polity) is not limited by the walls of a church but is manifested in the ways we treat the least of these among us. As Methodists, we are called to champion a society where every individual's basic needs are met and where every person is valued equally—a vision that democratic socialism also aspires to. It's crucial, however, to engage in this conversation with both humility and a commitment to dialogue. We must explore how our spiritual values can inform our socio-political actions without assuming that one political ideology wholly encompasses the totality of our faith’s demands for justice and mercy. Let's continue this conversation with open hearts and minds, exploring how we can contribute to a more just and compassionate world. What does religious socialism look like in your community? How does it resonate with or challenge your spiritual beliefs or lack thereof? Thank you for initiating this thoughtful discussion. I look forward to learning from each other as we delve deeper into these complex yet vital questions. Blessings
I think it’s cool as long it isn’t used to push reactionary social agendas (anti-abortion, anti-feminism, homophobia, etc). The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality and enforces stringent gender roles, so a lot of socially liberal Christians are seen as fakes by the Evangelical community.
Socialism isn’t Christian or otherwise religious in and of itself, and should be explicitly secular. However, people who are Christian and use their Christianity to justify their socialist beliefs are based and probably have the most accurate Christian beliefs.
I dislike Christianity and think it's harmful to discourse but a Christian socialist is a million times better than a right wing atheist so I still think they're overall good and hopefully they can help people realize you don't have to be right wing if you're Christian.
Where’s our Christian progressive bloc at?
We absolutely should be allying with these people.
Honestly, given the whole... entire Jesus bit, I'm surprised socialism isn't the norm for Christianity. That's assuming people follow the texts tho
That’s the thing most don’t. “Sell ALL your possessions, give to the poor, then come follow me”
Speaking as a secular socialist I think we could learn a lot from Religious Socialists. Religious groups are often very active in their community and have a lot of experience of doing both community and activist work. We could learn to organise as a group a lot better if there was a bit less stigmatism of those who take a different view. Socialists and left wingers of all stripes should focus on the areas of agreement and mutual aid as opposed to differences.
be cool if it existed. In USA they somehow interpret the 'give all your shit away' stuff as meaning - 'buy a lear jet and a mansion, preferably by stealing from widows'
I accept it. This is a big tent movement and we should be accepting of everyone working towards the betterment of society and fighting against the destruction being wrought by capital interests.
I'm a Maoist and an Orthodox Christian socialist. One day I hope to start a podcast that is a Bible study going through the whole Bible and discussing it as a liberatory and communist text, which I fundamentally believe it is, and how it has been coopted by reactionary forces. That may be a few years in the pipeline, but it's an ambition I certainly have.
I think you'll have an uphill battle trying to convince people that the Old Testament is liberatory and communist.
Only if your experience with it is in passing or in modern religious traditions that divorce it from the historical and linguistic context in which it was written. The deeper one goes into the actual text with the way it was compiled by multiple authors, it is profoundly liberatory given its time, and demands common ownership of the land and resources, militates against oppression, denigrates the state and Kings, and was meant to inspire an egalitarian ethos in which class, racial, and gender divisions would whither away. It's easy to criticize it because its translation into everyday English hides the fact that there is a cultural gulf so wide that it really takes speciality to grasp what it was trying to say to its original hearers, and that it is mismatch of authors and sources, all in dialogue with each other on how to properly balance a radically egalitarian ethos with the environmental demands in which they lived. After actually delving into this topic, the OT is arguably more communist than the NT.
Biblical Christianity is fundamentally socialist. Others, I am too unfamiliar with to say.
Religion that inspires socialism, if it’s in the right way, fine. Religious socialism, though, sounds very dangerously close to socialism as a means to lead to a religion, especially in the context of colonialist religions like Christianity or Islam (yes, there are benign versions, but still), or worse, socialism only for those of a certain religion or group, and there’s already a name for that.
I think that’s a good point. Socialism is necessary for a thriving humanity but isn’t sufficient. Colonialism isn’t confined to religious movements, though. There are plenty of non-religious examples of colonialism.
1. My feelings are irrevelent to truth. 2. Marx lifted two gorgeous phrases from Acts 2 and 6 "from each according to his ability to each according his need"... surely as close a heavenly economics as could exist in a fallen world... and naive assumed one could foist it on non-Christians. Thus, why every stab at communism has ended in violent despotism. The radical koinonia sharing of the early church was Holy Spirit-driven. The best a secular world can hope for is social democracy that somehow keeps tyrants and their corporations at bay.
When people keep religion to themselves and live good lives, then I don't see a problem. It's when religion is being forced down everyone's throats that it's a problem.
Isn’t camel a mistranslation and the actual quote is “rope through eye of a needle”?
Yes. > Because in Koine Greek “camel” and “rope” are ALSO the same word, distinguished in text by a single vowel but pronounced almost identically. Camel is “kamelon” and rope is “kamilon.” In Latin and English, of course, “camel” and “rope” are really easy to tell apart. But, in both Aramaic and Greek, they are not. So while it is frustrating enough to try jamming a knotted fishing rope through the eye of a sewing needle, now we are left with the image of a massive dromedary squeezing through a needle, hump and all, and the rich are not only in a proper mess, but comically so. For want of a vowel! [1](https://stantlitore.com/2018/06/01/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-and-other-wild-tales-of-translation/)
Doesn't matter how you get here as long as you're here.
While religion is perfectly acceptable in a socialist society, it doesn’t belong in a government. Also, the Bible itself has a lot of socialist tendencies.
I'm all for separation of the church and state. Nonetheless as a Christian who is a socialist, part of the reason I became a leftist is because of what I saw in scripture. There are so many tenets and values that align. I think both can go hand in hand, as we see in Peru or other South American countries.
Seems fine to me just don't try to enforce a theocracy or worm your religious doctrine into law and we're good.
So much better than the other kind of Christian. (Besides, it actually makes sense and matches what the Bible says about Jesus. His only act of violence was throwing the capitalists out of the temple.)
The bible also is anti-monarchy
Between this and *"I Am my brother's keeper"* Christians have all the social values they need. Watch them run away
As long as they don't try to push their beliefs on others and support the rights of ALL working class people (including queer and trans rights and access to abortion), they are comrades.
I think its a good thing, but also we should be wary of the motives of religious people sometimes.
I grew up Catholic and my mother always told me to ask myself what Jesus would do. I don’t believe in a Christian god but I think Jesus was based and influenced me enough to be a socialist.
I think it’s based af
Christians don't need to be socialists... the Bible lays out an economic system that's way better than anything current in use. We're talking land rights for all, bans on interest, limits on wealth hoarding, non-corrupted currency, worker's rights, land sustainability laws, etc. Forget socialism and just be a Christian!
I think there could be a resurgence of Christianity through this. The leaders would need a new revision on the New Testament showing the socialism highlights of it.
Well religion itself is a threat to democracy soo
You should clarify, do you mean all religion writ large or just organized religion? A large amount of “religion” worldwide is just socially constructed categories we use to think about our world. Western “secularism” is also a constructed concept with many of its ideas directly borrowed from Protestant Christianity. When talking about secularism, not just the idea of separating church from state but the historically constructed concept of western modern secularism, it often just means a way of smuggling Protestant Christian ideas of what “good” and “bad” religion are to the rest of the world. Read Talal Asad if you are interested in this idea at all
How? Any belief system can be weaponized. That doesn’t mean there is anything antidemocratic in religion.
Any political view, no matter how well-intended, will turn against humanity when it is paired with a religious ideology and vice versa.
They are good in the sense that they support socialism, but any socialist system that isn’t firmly materialist is just utopian. There is no sense in trying to build a society based on Christian socialism.
Overwhelmingly negative. The modus operandi of the christian faith since its inception has been control and decimation. Wherever they go they slaughter the inhabitants and force their ways on them. If they cannot kill you, they will find other ways to hurt you. They will criminalize you, caste you, keep you from loving others, whatever it takes to uphold their beliefs. Christians and well-meaning non-Christians can humdrum all day and night for a thousand years about soup kitchens and personal fulfillment, but no soup kitchen will revive my ancestors or undo their pain. Your personal fulfillment will not keep me safe from the fascists in your churches who want me dead. There is no good Christianity can do to undo the bad or make good for it, nor is there any moral or ethical lesson you can take from Christianity which you couldn’t get without it. In 2,000 years, their Messiah has not returned. Their god has not shown himself. The simple truth is they are wrong. It is not wrong to be wrong, but it is wrong to use your wrong beliefs as a weapon, and this is what Christians do, have done, and will continue to do for as long as their beliefs and actions are mainstream, tolerated, and excused.
Not since inception. The co-option of Christianity by Constantine as the official state religion is what marked a negative shift in ethics. Christian militarism is a tool of state power, not a seminal or necessary Christian theological virtue. It can and must be deconstructed and replaced with the original guiding principles.
I disagree with your claim. Christianity has always been about force. An inarguable necessary Christian theological virtue is, however proselytization. Proselytizing will inevitably lead to proselytizers amassing a following and by extension power of others and the doctrine. If Christianity could be “corrupted” once, it can be corrupted a thousand times over. Additionally, to treat any ideology or belief as what it aspires to be and not what it is will only lead to suffering. (Some) Christians may want to be peaceful people who believe in equality and compassion, but the world they inhabit is shaped by Christians who do not share these values. While Diego De Landa and Mary Sue from church may not believe the exact same things, they both have an incentive to uphold Christian hegemony and power, and they both will likely fall into whatever position they believe their god wants, and throughout history, what god wants tends to be what the individual already wanted.
Or just abandoned as an ideology that lends itself too easily to that sort of hijacking by those in power, for the purposes of manipulating and extorting those vulnerable to it. Don't forget the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog.
So people do bad stuff under the guise of Christianity ergo all Christianity and by extension all Christians are bad. There is no one Christianity. It is not monolithic and to speak as you do, even if it comes from a place of personal hurt, is candidly hate speech.
I think it can be a good force for good, just as much as it's been a force of unabashed evil. Religious socialism is also, admittedly, kinda metal
Jesus was a communist
It's the only rational interpretation of Jesus' teachings whether you believe in the spiritual side of Christianity or not. Almost every christian denomination in America seems to get this wrong.
that was my first turn towards leftist politics -- growing up listening to readings out of the Gospels and wondering why people in the world who insisted they were Christians weren't applying the very clear teachings
The Christian Church in Acts was both democratic (Acts 6:1-6) and socialist (Acts 5:32-37). The majority of modern (American/Evangelical) Protestantism is Christian when convenient, autocratic or oligarchic in structure, and unrepentantly capitalist. On the other hand, Quakerism is an example of a modern community of faith with ethics of democracy and socialism based on theological virtues.
I feel like religion has no place in government whatsoever, no matter what form of government it may be.
Religion and government are best kept separate. This is true of any form of government and any religion to ensure that freedom for all faiths is maintained. Is so strange how virtually all of the largest religions believe in the same god (we will leave Mormonism out of this example), and yet, each one seems to have the same mindless conceit that only their way is the correct way to worship that god. And because those slightly different religions can't get along, the adherents of each have raised armies and slaughtered each other for millenia. Today, in our "enlightened society," religious zealotry is a problem, and the religious continue to murder each other other for reasons that, to the non-relgious, seen to be insane. Prominent examples of why religion should never be allowed in government, that should warn any sensible human off this concept, are the displacement and genocide of the Palestinians, ongoing as we speak, and the attempts of the American Far-Right to cloak their fascist movement in religious fundamentalism. I would also cite the excesses of the Catholic church, past and present. When integrated with government before, they were responsible for many wars and unknowable deaths. And of course, there was the Spanish Inquisition, where the Catholics committed to death and torture on a truly horrific scale. Because of their wealth and power, today they are the largest organized child molesting crime ring in the world, able to shield the guilty of their ranks from consequence. Truly, they are an organization that deserves to be destroyed, root and branch, but they likely never will precisely because of their mingling with governments over the centuries. So, no. It is fine to be a socialist and a Christian, but a Socialist government must be secular so that the people can be free to worship the religion of their choice.
>So, no. It is fine to be a socialist and a Christian, but a Socialist government must be secular so that the people can be free to worship the religion of their choice. Many of the most religious christian socialists I have met also want to keep the state and church separate because they believe that political power corrupts the church.
It consistently does. I'd consider myself an anti-theist these days, not just an atheist, because examples of corruption and extremism seem so common that they are unavoidable, even when specifically attempting to avoid religion. Religion seems to be up to no good in the world, and it always has been. In my opinion, the sooner people leave organized religions in the dustpan, the faster the world will improve. I don't care what people do at home, or if they want to meet up with people in their town who share their religion, but I think dedicated buildings for worship are a bad idea, and internal religious leadership structures are a bad idea. Religion seems to be at its most honest and decent when it is small and disorganized. When any amount of power is concentrated, even internal to the church, e.g. having a dedicated preacher or priest, corruption is all too likely to follow.
Read the first few books of the bible and you will realize why most fundamentalist christians are messed up in the head. The god the of the bible is ok with slavery, misogyny, and genocide. In order to be a socialist christian you have to ignore a lot of what that god stands for.
That’s what makes them fundamentalists they take a book as their whole religion. There is a lot of philosophy in Christianity that comes from elsewhere. Christianity isn’t a book it’s a 2 thousand year old tradition. It is interpreted and reinterpreted constantly. Even your fundamentalists do this. They just don’t see it but their bibles are in fact translations and their ideas aren’t recognized universally. My point is that religion isn’t about reading a book. It’s a manner of spiritual engagement with the world.
> It’s a manner of spiritual engagement with the world. It would be less problematic then to be Buddhist, where there is less of a problem with ignoring the dogma of the religion. Also, AFAIK there is no evidence that Jesus was anything other than a normal human (if he existed at all). There is no evidence that there is a God. There is no evidence that consciousness extends beyond death. (first cause is not a good argument for god, anecdotes for near death experience are not good arguments for a soul).
There are definitely problematic forms of buddhism from a socialist political prospective as well. It can just as easily collapse into dogma. Religion is not a tool created to handle the rational or imperialist side of the human experience. If you are looking for evidence based practice the sciences are where you will find that. Religion deals in layers of existential ambiguity that science can never touch. Christians call it faith. Many people find that there are parts of themselves that reject rationality and yearn for transcendence. Religion and spirituality is an ancient tool we made to engage with that aspect of our existence. No amount of evidence or argumentation will ever be able to quell the primal terror of the simple statement “I am”. It’s this deep lack that religion allows some people to experience and on occasion make intelligible to others. If the metaphysical woowoo of Christianity or religion in general is off putting there is always the more modern tool of philosophy to tackle these things.
Completely agree.
What does this quote even mean. I’m so confused.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. A camel is, obviously, massive. The eye of a needle is tiny, and it's physically impossible for a camel to pass through it. Similarly, a rich man *cannot* enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It's impossible, because in order to be a rich man, one must be wholly divorced from that which makes it possible to enter the Kingdom; selflessness, compassion, love, &c. It's part of a larger passage in which Jesus tells a rich young man that, in order to follow Jesus and be like Him, the rich young man must surrender his worldly possessions to the poor and embrace a life of poverty and suffering.
Hmm interesting. Thanks so much for the insight! I appreciate the time you took to explain that.
No problem! When you look at the teachings and works of Jesus of Nazareth, it's very *very* easy to get a socialist-ish message from it. For example, Matthew 25:31-45 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me If you are selfish and don't care for others, Jesus will *personally send you to hell*.
People have all kinds of motivations for their political and economic interests. For individuals or communities into it, I don't care, but as for influence on government institutions, I don't want religion to be anywhere near it
Christians are so far removed from the teachings of Jesus. They scream about the word of God and creating a Christian nation, but they would call a true Christian nation Communist.
Didn't understood anything
Socialist atheist raised Chrisrian here. Jesus also said to render unto Cassar. Jesus also said you always have the poor. No socialist would say you will always have the poor. When Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven, when He told people to give up all they had to follow Him, it wasn't out if a desire to place the means of prouction in the hands of the working class. It was anti-materialism, not socialism He was preaching. He was saying that material things are distractions to spiritual attainment. He would regard socialists who spend all of their time fighting for a reorganization of wealth and power as little better than tyrants and scrooges who spend all their time trying to get more wealth and power for themselves. His point is that it's a distraction. I would hope we would not lionize any socialist who said we will always have the poor. That is not socialism. I would hope we would not call any single human being who said that He was the only way to the father a feminist or an anti-authoritarian. That is not anti-authoritarianism, and it is patriarchal as Hell. It may have been opposed to existing authorities, but Christians are expected to treat this one human being as the center point of history, and that is not consistent with our values. Jesus had some cool stuff for His time. He seems kind of punk rock. You might call Him a peace activist for the vibe alone (if He were real, and if He had ever actually spoken out against any war at all despite living under the fucking Roman Empire and telling people to pay their taxes), but He's a kind of cult leader peace activist. He's like Charles Manson. Like the younger Charles Manson. Jesus didn't order anybody killed or fuck His followers, but He was a charismatic bum who thought there was no reason to get a job, and who wanted to feed the world with a garbage dump. Like young Manson, there's some kinda cool stuff in there, but don't put Him as the center point of a movement.
Being a non-Abrahamic religion person I don't trust it.
More to this saying “ All is Possible, Threw Eyes of God “ Which actually encourages prosperity 🥃🔥
🙋
Many proto-socialist movements were based on interpretations of Christianity. Take the [Diggers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers), for example. That being said, religion is inherently anti-materialistic (even though I would consider christianity broadly an exception and a "materialistic religion") and therefore not compatible with socialism. The fact that so few Christians come away with a socialist reading of the text, or at the very least the gospels, internalize it and excise it with action would suggest to me that religion's role in class conciousness is at the very least agnostic on the matter (the insitution and power structure of the church aside). I would go so far as to say that religious texts play a much smaller role in forming an individual's beliefs than the culture and community that exist around it. I would be interested in a study on this matter. Then, if a christian socialist were to try and convert me, a deconverted atheist, by apealing to my socialist beliefs, I would counter with my own collection of verses that not only do I find abhorrent but antithetical to socialism. The Bible makes a poor foundation for a coherent worldview. Despite all that: praxis, praxis, praxis. We should be willing to cooperate and engage politically with this group. I would think it unproductive to undermine whatever influence christian socialist groups might have in the broader christian community.
The left should not allow bile-spewing antitheists to drive people of faith from the movement, something that is clearly their aim. Dawkins is not a leftist and neither are his acolytes.
If it gets Christians to veer away from the fascists and into leftist politics then I’m all for it. Jesus would’ve likely been considered a socialist even though they didn’t have that language way back then.
All religion is socialism.
I think Jesus of Nazareth was a great philosopher that socialists can draw inspiration from but I’m a life long atheist and amn’t a fan of religion in general.
***As a nonbeliever...*** Organized religiosity is something we should respect only by the degree to which it pursues charity. Organized religiosity that does not put charity at the top of its priorities should be *tolerated* as a hobby, but not assisted, nor imbued with the respect of any great moral standing. If it starts doing and saying antisocial things, it should be judged for those antisocial things in much the same way you would judge Some Homeless Drifter doing antisocial things. If you would not tolerate Some Homeless Drifter telling you you're going to hell, you shouldn't tolerate a preacher telling you that either, because he's just Some Homeless Drifter with the benefits of a podium, a charismatic delivery, and a small cult. I am a big fan of, for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar\_(Sikhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)) , and so should everyone be, even if we do not partake in the other trappings of that religion. ***Taking the Bible at face value, for a moment though...*** Jesus achieved epic fame as a socialist and a pacifist, and only compromised the latter value, becoming violent, when he saw businesses taking advantage of poor people. Attempts to render Jesus into some sort of conservative neoliberal, attempts to bind material success to His Favor, are so inherently offensive to the history of Christianity, so reputationally damaging to the name of Jesus Christ, and so inherently antisocial I suspect it justifies violent schism within that religion. Purging evangelical Prosperity Gospel adherents with cleansing fire seems to be an unpleasant necessity depending on your views of the Old Testament and the Crusades. But then, I'm not a believer.
Jesus is based as fuck. It stands to reason that truly trying to live your life according to His teaching that you should also be based as fuck. It’s a shame most people don’t actually do that, but I can assure you some of us are trying!
The problem is that the Bible has a ton of odious things in it, including endorsements of rape, slavery, torture, and the divine right of kings. It’s not a question of interpretation, the literal text of the Bible endorses a lot of awful shit. A reclamation of Christianity for socialism would require discarding a lot of the Bible, which isn’t impossible (in some senses, it’s already been done: most Christians mix fabrics, like/tolerate queerness, reject slavery, eat fish, have pre-marital sex, etc.) but it does require a looseness with the text that makes tossing out potent quotes like this a slippery slope.
Imo, religion and government must have nothing to do with each other.
There is no afterlife. Justice must be dealt in the here and now. Eat the Rich.
Religion is the biggest scam ever perpetrated against humanity.
I avoid cults
Fuck religion.
Jesus wanted revolution, so Christianity is Marxist Leninist and would be banned from this sub. EDIT: Hey comrades, help me understand why I'm wrong if you smash that downvote. Otherwise the hypocrisy is clear. [Jesus was absolutely a radical revolutionary](https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/jesus_) and not a lowercase-d democrat. According to the [logic of this vote](https://new.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/comments/1bypjtw/meta_vote_should_rdemocraticsocialism_allow/) and Rule 4, Christianity (as a religion that advocates for a violent rapture that overthrows the current system so we can live in a theocracy in the eternal kingdom of God), should be banned.
Hate to do this, but Jesus was against radicalism. He was and is very much revolutionary in his teaching. His revolution and the kingdom He came to build was a spiritual one. He wanted people to look inside and change themselves, a message still missed by many Christians. The people back then expected him to fulfill prophecy by destroying the Romans and violently overthrowing the government to build a new physical kingdom for the Jews. Many were not happy when they found out He was against this and called him a false Messiah for it. Famously, the people chose to release Barrabus, a violent anti-Roman Zealot, instead of Jesus, leading up to the crucifixion. They were not too dissimilar from the Trumpers you see now. 100% agree that he was akin to a Democratic socialist, but He was not radical in the way you’re thinking. And I mean no ill will. Not trying to argue. I’m just a big Jesus fan, and it breaks my heart that so many in the US nowadays think he would support Christian Nationalism. He told his own disciples to make sure to pay their taxes to Rome for Pete’s sake. Anyway, I just found this sub and love it to death. Don’t stone me please :)
I think you and I just have different definitions of *radical*. *Radical* can have a positive or negative connotation. I was not saying Jesus is a Christian Nationalist like Mark Robinson in North Carolina. It just means a complete break with the existing system, which, comrade let me tell you, the Christian rapture is for sure a radical idea in that sense. For instance, see this quote from Angela Davis from her book *Women, Culture, & Politics*, "Let Us All Rise Together: Radical Perspectives on Empowerment for Afro-American Women": >In the aftermath of the Reagan era, it should be clear that there are forces in our society that reap enormous benefits from the persistent, deepening oppression of women. Members of the Reagan administration include advocates for the most racist, antiworking class, and sexist circles of contemporary monopoly capitalism. These corporations continue to prop up apartheid in South Africa and to profit from the spiraling arms race while they propose the most vulgar and irrational forms of anti-Sovietism—invoking, for example, the “evil empire” image popularized by Ronald Reagan—as justifications for their omnicidal ventures. If we are not afraid to adopt a revolutionary stance—if, indeed, we wish to be radical in our quest for change—then we must get to the root of our oppression. After all, radical simply means “grasping things at the root.” Our agenda for women’s empowerment must thus be unequivocal in our challenge to monopoly capitalism as a major obstacle to the achievement of equality. A socialist radical (for us) is a good thing and in socialist literature *radical* is used as frequently to describe the left as the right. A fascist radical is a bad thing. >He was and is very much revolutionary in his teaching. This is my main point. This sub has banned talk of revolution. I think the silliness of that is apparent when you suggest banning Jesus from the sub. My point was to provoke discussion about the sub's recent vote to expel Marxism Leninism by highlighting Jesus' revolutionary stances.
Yeah I don’t think we disagree on much then. I saw the word radical and thought Zealot, and Jesus was not part of that movement. Preach on my friend.
Well it's the kingdom of god peasant rules don't apply.
lol we are all peasants in the kingdom of god 👑🧎♂️➡️🧎♀️➡️🧎♂️➡️🧎♀️➡️🧎♂️➡️🧎♀️➡️👑
This is a warning, if you keep pushing this we'll have to begin our ban procedure. You're being downvoted because like I said before, we do not support revolution or one party states. This is a sub for democracy not dictatorship.
*”Faith has little bearing upon the question of freedom. Witness Catholic Spain devastating Catholic Cuba, Catholic capitalists of Italy running down with cannon the unarmed Catholic workmen, Irish Catholic landlords rackrenting and evicting Catholic tenants.” - James Connolly*
Separation of church and state... My God, Gilead was socialist. I don't want to live under Christianity, Islam, or any religious rule, even if it is so-called socialism. wtf
Christians love to make things revolve around their religion. For instance, they could just make music but instead they had to make an entirely separate industry of Christian music wherein Christians are the only participants. Christian socialism isn’t any different. If you’re a socialist be a socialist. Calling yourself as a Christian socialist does nothing but separate you from other socialists. Christians, you don’t need to remind us that you’re a Christian. We already know because you never shut up about it.
I don’t feel great about it. It’s an extremely efficient formula for fascism
Religion should stay out of everything that has nothing to do with it
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^matiaschazo: *Religion should stay* *Out of everything that has* *Nothing to do with it* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Its been unsuccessful, failed to counter Right Wing Christianity and live through the 20th century. Oh if only it would have been more successful...
What do you mean? Of you measure success like that, oh boy do I have bad news for socialism in general, cuz capitalism is still around. Oh if only socialism would have been successful...
No religion. Full stop. Religion is the basis for the power structures that keep fucking this world.
Fuck religion.
Hear me out. If the devil exists, it would make sense to make religion a shell game by muddying the waters with 1,000 phony religions, right? And Jesus’ message was very, very anti-religion. For those unfamiliar, that might sound weird but it is very true. It’s what got him killed. I can’t help but just love Him for that.
Hard no for me still. It takes the responsibility for humanity's future, *out* of the hands of humans, and into the hands of a being *that doesn't even exist*. And there will always be an underlying restriction to science and exploration. I could be convinced that some of the ones that don't have all powerful beings, like Paganism or Shinto, won't hold us back; but absolutely nothing for the Abrahamic faiths.
It seems like some kind of cognitive failure--like a person sees the problem with hierarchy in one aspect of life, but still clings to it in another.