They don’t. You might get references to it during marriage counseling, but the people who claim to follow a totally literal reading of the Bible don’t tend to be very comfortable with it. There’s a lot of overlap with the really repressed crowd there.
Literalism tends to go with conservatism because a literal reading of the Bible is less flexible, and therefore harder to align with changing mores in the larger society. A committment to a metaphorical reading of the Bible can more easily be interpreted in light of whatever cultural changes come along. In fact, it's not hard to use a metaphorical interpretation to advocate for further cultural and social progress, as long as it's seen as being in keeping with the spirit of the written word (i.e., concern for the poor, nonjudgemental forgiveness, an emphasis on self-development, etc.).
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The issue comes at agreeing which is the limit point at which one must start interpreting literally or metaphorically what is written in the bible and providing the historical context for each part of the Old and New Testament, the eye of the needle being one example of such since some say that it refered to a small gate in Jerusalem through which one camel could pass if it had nothing on its back and was stoomped, the meaning being that a rich man could enter to heaven if it left behind its material attachments.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.I mean, it's pretty much impossible to take every single part of the Bible as literal* considering what we now know from science. I'm referring to the age of the Earth, of course. Unless all those scientists are lying (and that'd be one heck of a conspiracy), it's a lot older than the young earth creationists say it is.
- Note that not taking the Bible literally 100% of the time doesn't mean one doesn't accept the Bible as 100% true.
Anyway, yeah, left-leaning Christian here. I feel that Jesus's most important commandment ("Love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself") is sadly ignored by a lot of modern day Christians. Instead of being inviting towards nonbelievers, they push people away by judging them, or shutting them out if they don't fit a very specific mold. And that's not even getting into some of our leaders who claim to be Christians but display contradictory attitudes: Gleefully taking away health care and welfare, oppressing people that are different from them, and displaying hypocrisy by acting blameless but then are caught in scandals.
I think that a little language/political terminology lesson is in order. Because some people here are treating liberal as the opposite of conservative and it's not. The opposite of liberal is authoritarian, the opposite of conservative is progressive (Well, technically the opposite of a progressive is a reactionary and the opposite of a conservative is a reformist, but in practical terms...).
Liberals value personal freedom and self determination in the face of outside influence (whether that's from a monarch, hierarchy or simply society). Authoritarians value clear rules on power and who has how much of it (again, whether that's a single person, a select group or even everyone, equally).
Progressives value social equality and egalitarianism, while conservatives value the status quo (in modern times, in practice, that ranges from thinking the current level of social equality is fine to thinking the current level of progress towards greater social equality is fine).
The left is progressive, not necessarily liberal (Leninism, for instance it very left wing and very authoritarian) and the right is conservative, not necessarily authoritarian (in fact, in most European nations, the main reason for current conservatives' defence of the status quo is that they feel greater social equality would come at the cost of their personal freedom).
The confusion is understandable, because the original Left and Right sides of the Estates General during the French revolution were Liberal and Authoritarian respectively. But one still shouldn't conflate them.
Now... How is this relevant to the topic?
Well... Because the feelings of every individual 'leftist' (ugh, I hate that phrasing) when it comes to religion hinge on how much they feel religion, both specific faiths and in general, has worked towards or hindered social equality.
The Abrahamic religions are, on the whole, not very compatible with progressivism even if you ignore any of the specific commandments and proscriptions in the Tanakh and its derivatives, for the simple reason that the foundational principle of the Abrahamic faiths, the idea of a 'Chosen People' elevated by birth and/or faith through a covenant with their god and rewarded while all others are punished, is pretty antithetical to the notion of social equality. But it's fully compatible with liberalism, in the sense that from an Abrahamic liberal's point of view it's up to every individual whether they wish to accept or reject salvation.
So while a liberal can pretty easily be a Christian who, for instance, simply rejects the more organised sects of the faith, a progressive has to work a lot harder to justify a deity who punishes those who don't or can't get with the program within their framework of equality for all.
(Note: Yes, I'm aware that traditionally, liberalism is supposed to champion equality too. But the fact of the matter is that the modern right wing in most western countries is made up of conservative liberals. To the point that at this juncture we can safely say that the pursuit of equality and the pursuit of individual freedom have become somewhat divorced and while people can pursue both, they can also not.)
Angry gets shit done.I'm not sure I'd say the right is conservative or the left progressive. Which is actually why I'm not overly fond of those terms: they're mostly dependent upon context.
While it often seems like the right is holding onto old ideas, a lot of the left's beliefs are Older Than They Think and in fact, even older than many rightist ideals. Communism is less a radical new idea and more a desire to return to pre-agricultural civilization.
Leviticus 19:34I believe that's called Anarcho Primitivism now.
Anyway, while what one might call Socialism predates Marx and Engels, they made it "scientific." Marx had a theory that has basically shaped all of Left-leaning thought since him. So for example I asked some Leftists I know if any of them have absolutely no indebtedness to Marx and they all answered in the negative and they didn't know anybody else who had no connection to Marxist theory either. I suppose this i anecdotal but my point is that while socialism might predate Marx, Marx's Socialism is really the one most people think of and pursue to this day, even if they aren't Marxists. Even if thy are Bakunites or Kropotkin....Kropotkinians?
Aren't many Mutualists out there I'm afraid.
My point is that this is why I thought Marx's unceasing influence is why Leftist thought tends to be anti-religious. Marx was famous after all, not justfor his comparing religion to drugs, but for his materialism in opposition to Hegel's idealism. There is no place for God in Marx or his theory of social development. At least as far as I know from lectures and essays. (of course plenty of religious folks still combine the two but they seem to be the minority, especially nowadays)
edited 11th Dec '17 11:08:48 PM by Nikkolas
Well, to be fair (and this is coming from a very staunch capitalist) Marx wasn't nearly as anti-religious as his followers would imply.
Leviticus 19:34That's a pretty questionable claim. There's nothing liberal about the Republican Party in the United States. Or about Marine Le Pen. Or Stephen Harper style Conservatives. Or even Theresa May. They're all authoritarian as hell.
The entire system you've tried to describe there doesn't work. You claim that "conservative liberals" oppose social progress because it interferes with personal freedom but this is a bad joke—by limiting social progress they also limit the personal freedom of minorities. And that is authoritarianism at its finest.
Essentially, Marx considered religion to be a form of escapism. The point he was trying to make wasn't so much "religion is evil" as it was "we should create a new society where religion is not needed."
![]()
That definition of "conservative liberal" seems like someone who thinks civil rights and freedom is a Zero Sum Game: for someone to have more rights, someone else has to lose freedom.
And that's, frankly, bullshit. That's not how civil rights work.
edited 12th Dec '17 12:31:03 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe initial vacuum of power wouldn’t be authoritarian, but that vacuum would be filled by non-government authoritarian structures.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
The means are what's important to a libertarian, not the ends. By the point you've already surrendered your agency or liberty to somebody else, you've lost completely because, sure you agree with Kennedy, but now you got Trump and tomorrow you could get Hitler or Stalin or somebody somehow even worse. It should be dramatically apparent to anyone that reads my posts I am as Statist as they come but there is nothing wrong with this argument in my mind in terms of philosophy. It's just impractical because we need government to maximize the good. Yet, as I say again, this is my privileged life saying this. If I lived a short while ago, I might think totally differently. We're just lucky the US government mostly kills and destroys abroad instead of fucking things up here like they used to when a racist asshole ran the fuckin' FBI.
Probably, why I'm not any sort of anarchist. I have no faith in human nature I'm afraid. So Ambar I'll concede that point. My bad.
I've just been reading Hayek lately, I guess. Of course most Libertarians or Classical Liberals now disown him for their lord and savior Rothbard. Yuck. Hayek was too smart for them, I guess.
edited 12th Dec '17 4:17:29 AM by Nikkolas
![]()
![]()
Not if: a) you're a deist; b) you believe that, more than a deity punishing people for their wrongs, said deity b.1) rehabilitates/forgives people more than he punishes (in much the same way that, say, an average European country's prison and legal system works) or b.2) people cross the line and doom themselves due to their own free will and actions they themselves decided to take, or c) if you're a theist who has a carefully balanced and philosophically justifiable interpretation of the holy book(s) of most major religions. Including the Old Testament, because there are certain small rules concerning everyday living that don't apply to Christians anymore.
(There are other arguments and positions, but I can't recall all of them right now)
Religious anarchists that practise a Abrahamic religion get a lot of stick from other anarchists (which is unfair, imo), as well as progressives of various stripes, even though the problem of it all is not God, but a repressive/authoritarian human state that doesn't allow them to practice their religion the way they want to (for better or worse), or oppress the non-privileged folks (e.g. the poor and homeless).
edited 12th Dec '17 7:22:10 AM by Quag15
In the end the reason why the left and religion are at odds is simple: religious institutions block social equality and freedom at every turn. For every bit of gender equality and every bit of sexual freedom, the religious institutions have to be beaten into submission first.
And economically it isn't much better. They often (but not always) lended their support to the economically powerful in exchange for power of their own. Be it Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, the RCC's support of Franco, Televangelists, the Russian Orthodox church being chummy with Putin or Luther throwing the revolting peasants under the bus.
The ones who don't sell themselves out, subsequently don't get power of their own. Thus the most powerful religious institutions will almost always be the sell outs and shape the perception of the religion as well as influence the beliefs. Regardless of how progressive or liberal the actual religion actually was.
![]()
![]()
I'll like to point out that, for most of it, Jesus was pretty central in a lot of things since he didn't challenged the current power directly (except the market at the temple, which in context was done because it was turning what should have been a respectful ceremony for pennance to a mere commerce) but did challenged the excess of the law when it lost its spirit.
It's rather interesting to read the Gospel of John with this in mind, because while Jesus has to deal with the Pharisees, he is also betrayed by a man who was eventually equated to the Zealots.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.
