Why do Christianity and conservatism go hand-in-hand?

[Telconi]

I guess some of it goes hand in hand in terms of preserving tradition, which explains social conservatism. As for economic conservatism, I'm not quite sure tbh.

On the other hand though, I know many left-leaning Christians so who knows.

Doesn't like Islam?

Pope John Paul II would've begged to differ.

Catholicism only recently said to Islam "ight, we straight," and we're talking about Christianity and conservatism in america, where many Christian conservatives are evangelicals, and not so coincidentally, also islamaphobes.

Islamophobia in America really has a ton more to do with geopolitics than with any religious belief.

[Salus Maior]

Well, ofc. Christianity is about the worship of suffering; so the existence of mistreated poor is something to cherish.

I get the feeling you've never actually read the Bible yourself comprehensively.

Even the Old Testament, which is full of controversial events and legal requirements, states clearly the responsibility of the faithful to care for the poor and neglected (and foreign migrants as well). And the New Testament doubles down on that requirement.

[Rojava Free State]

Catholicism only recently said to Islam "ight, we straight," and we're talking about Christianity and conservatism in america, where many Christian conservatives are evangelicals, and not so coincidentally, also islamaphobes.

Islamophobia in America really has a ton more to do with geopolitics than with any religious belief.

Islamaphobia doesn't have one cause. some people hate Muslims for not being white (I guess, idk, depends upon your definition of this word), some hate Muslims for not being christian. Keep in mind I'm not talking about disliking the religion of islam, but instead I'm talking about the people who feel like getting violent when they see someone wearing a hijab

[Telconi]

Islamophobia in America really has a ton more to do with geopolitics than with any religious belief.

Islamaphobia doesn't have one cause. some people hate Muslims for not being white (I guess, idk, depends upon your definition of this word), some hate Muslims for not being christian. Keep in mind I'm not talking about disliking the religion of islam, but instead I'm talking about the people who feel like getting violent when they see someone wearing a hijab

I didn't say it had one cause. And I was fully aware before who it was you were talking about.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Progressive values don't really gel that well with Biblical teachings from a lot of viewpoints. Homosexuality, women's equality, fornication outside of marriage, abortion and so on are all rather difficult to marry with more literal readings of Christianity.

Good thing you're not supposed to read scripture literally.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

The last roughly 1,400 years would have begged to differ with Pope John Paul II.

Good point...

Then again Christianity have changed their mind on a lot of things - e.g. they use to take the Creation story as fact, whereas now they don't, they use to believe in geocentrism whereas now they don't etc.

Christians never believed in geocentrism. People in the Middle East haven't believed in geocentrism since well before Jesus was born. The places in the Bible that people claim point to geocentrism are all in the prophetical and/or poetical places of the Bible, they are creative imagery, not meant to be taken literally.

I still believe in the creation story...

[Cetacea]

They don’t gel with Pauline doctrine as espoused by the Catholic Church, but Jesus was an anti-capitalist, anti-establishment progressive who hung out with prostitutes.

Unfortunately the establishment church is a pillar of the establishment’ whose values conservatives embrace.

Because prostitutes were neglected peoples that He was extending a hand to, in order to reform them. He never asserted that what they were doing was right. Christ was not anti-establishment, and in fact He said that the Temple was a valid authority, but the personal holiness of the Pharisees was lacking because of their hypocrisy and failure to fulfill the Law in its entirety. And, of course, Christ also established the Church by instructing the Apostles to build the Church, and named Peter the head of said Church. Not to mention, that Christ was not a "progressive" in the sense that you're trying to shoe-horn onto Him, as He taught that divorce was immoral, the nature of marriage was heterosexual, and even looking at someone lustfully was a wrongdoing equal to adultery.

It's almost as if shoving the modern perception of politics on a first century religious teacher is bound to fail.

And somehow I don't get the impression that you know much about "Pauline doctrine" beyond its use as a political buzzword. What Paul writes in his Epistles are not in conflict with what Christ teaches in the Gospels.

The point though is that Jesus didnt condemn prostitutes or homosexuals, instead he went and lived amongst them doing Good Works. The early Church as established by Jesus was the group of beleivers meeting in each others homes, it was not the ‘establishment church’ as seen today in Catholcism or its Protestant successors.

As to Pauline Doctrine - there are a huge number of examples that show how Pauls Epistles were not the teachings of Jesus at all, and many were in fact antiethical to the teachings of Jesus. Notably Galatians 2:11-13 shows that Peter the Rock, and James the brother of Jesus did not agree with Pauls views. Thats especially relevant because Peter and James were actual Disciples appointed by Jesus himself whereas Paul never actually heard Jesus speak and was only inspired by a ‘dream’.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

From a Christian standpoint, they would want to conserve their traditions because the newer things that arrive are seen in suspicion. Especially if they go against the teachings they already have. Gay marriage is the prime example of that, you have Christians that support it and those who don't. And those who don't are often the conservatives, why? Because like in all religions, the Holy Books are seen as the Word of God - therefore true. Whatever challenges the Lord's word is therefore sinful and should be avoided. \

In my opinion, Conservatives are often people who believe in a proper basis of reality, that order on its own exists and should be preserved. Christianity's Bible is the basis of their beliefs and that beliefs create an order that they believe they need to preserve and expand upon.

Christianity existed for 400 years before the Bible was even compiled. It is most certainly not the basis for our beliefs, nor is it the "Word of God". It is a collection of wisdom and teachings that are divinely inspired... as well as forgeries, fabrications, and political agenda-pushing. Simply put, it's just a book. It has a great deal of information in it that can help Christians live better lives or bring the Good News to non-believers but in the end it's still a book, written four-hundred years after the fact, compiled by corruptible, fallible, imperfect men who may very well have brought their own personal beliefs and agendas to the table when compiling it.

It should not be revered. When one reads the Bible, they should do so in a academic manner - with an even dose of skepticism and open-mindedness; not like a detective investigating a crime scene looking for the truth. The Christian Church, unfortunately, has a long history of corruption, hypocrisy, and outright heresy. Some things simply need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Judaism existed 400 years before the Bible, but not Christianity. The Disciples started writing as soon as 30 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven. Not only this, but you cannot prove that there were such forgeries or mistakes. We have more ancient copies of the Bible then we do of any other ancient author, and yet people still claim that things got goofed up. What about the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Also, if it was written by men who intended on political agenda-pushing, then why did they write things that were against the social norms, such as making women a reliable witness or going and eating at the houses of gentiles? Both of those things were considered crazy back then, why did they include it?

[Salus Maior]

Because prostitutes were neglected peoples that He was extending a hand to, in order to reform them. He never asserted that what they were doing was right. Christ was not anti-establishment, and in fact He said that the Temple was a valid authority, but the personal holiness of the Pharisees was lacking because of their hypocrisy and failure to fulfill the Law in its entirety. And, of course, Christ also established the Church by instructing the Apostles to build the Church, and named Peter the head of said Church. Not to mention, that Christ was not a "progressive" in the sense that you're trying to shoe-horn onto Him, as He taught that divorce was immoral, the nature of marriage was heterosexual, and even looking at someone lustfully was a wrongdoing equal to adultery.

It's almost as if shoving the modern perception of politics on a first century religious teacher is bound to fail.

And somehow I don't get the impression that you know much about "Pauline doctrine" beyond its use as a political buzzword. What Paul writes in his Epistles are not in conflict with what Christ teaches in the Gospels.

The point though is that Jesus didnt condemn prostitutes or homosexuals, instead he went and lived amongst them doing Good Works. The early Church as established by Jesus was the group of beleivers meeting in each others homes, it was not the ‘establishment church’ as seen today in Catholcism or its Protestant successors.

As to Pauline Doctrine - there are a huge number of examples that show how Pauls Epistles were not the teachings of Jesus at all, and many were in fact antiethical to the teachings of Jesus. Notably Galatians 2:11-13 shows that Peter the Rock, and James the brother of Jesus did not agree with Pauls views. Thats especially relevant because Peter and James were actual Disciples appointed by Jesus himself whereas Paul never actually heard Jesus speak and was only inspired by a ‘dream’.

He didn't condemn the sinful, but He did tell them to not continue in their sin. And no, the Early Church was not Pastor Jim's Pentecostal Home Church, it still had a hierarchy that was topped by the Apostles (chosen by Jesus for that role) who then established elders, deacons, etc. to regulate and raise Christian communities. The only real difference between the ancient church and the modern church is scale and social position. This is recorded in the Gospels and in Acts, as well as very early non-Biblical texts such as the Didache.

Peter and James were chosen by Jesus, but were not infallible (the fact that Peter has many screwups recorded in the Gospels should show that much). And it should also be notable that despite Paul not being the original Twelve, he was still accepted as an equal among them by the Twelve, which is why Paul was there among them and able to confront Peter in the first place and take part in their counsels.

It should also be noted why Paul was criticizing Peter in the passage you posted. Peter was acting hypocritically, behaving differently when interacting with Jewish Christians than with Gentile Christians, treating the Gentile believers as lesser than the Jewish believers by separating himself from them when the Jewish believers were present. Paul's point is that the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians are equal as brothers in the same faith, and that it was wrong for Peter to treat them as if they weren't.

Is that not a criticism in line with what Jesus taught, and what you supposedly believe as a progressive?

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Because prostitutes were neglected peoples that He was extending a hand to, in order to reform them. He never asserted that what they were doing was right. Christ was not anti-establishment, and in fact He said that the Temple was a valid authority, but the personal holiness of the Pharisees was lacking because of their hypocrisy and failure to fulfill the Law in its entirety. And, of course, Christ also established the Church by instructing the Apostles to build the Church, and named Peter the head of said Church. Not to mention, that Christ was not a "progressive" in the sense that you're trying to shoe-horn onto Him, as He taught that divorce was immoral, the nature of marriage was heterosexual, and even looking at someone lustfully was a wrongdoing equal to adultery.

It's almost as if shoving the modern perception of politics on a first century religious teacher is bound to fail.

And somehow I don't get the impression that you know much about "Pauline doctrine" beyond its use as a political buzzword. What Paul writes in his Epistles are not in conflict with what Christ teaches in the Gospels.

The point though is that Jesus didnt condemn prostitutes or homosexuals, instead he went and lived amongst them doing Good Works. The early Church as established by Jesus was the group of beleivers meeting in each others homes, it was not the ‘establishment church’ as seen today in Catholcism or its Protestant successors.

As to Pauline Doctrine - there are a huge number of examples that show how Pauls Epistles were not the teachings of Jesus at all, and many were in fact antiethical to the teachings of Jesus. Notably Galatians 2:11-13 shows that Peter the Rock, and James the brother of Jesus did not agree with Pauls views. Thats especially relevant because Peter and James were actual Disciples appointed by Jesus himself whereas Paul never actually heard Jesus speak and was only inspired by a ‘dream’.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" 2 Timothy 3:16 (Yes, I know it was written by Paul).
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20
Galations 2 is talking about how Paul was angry at Peter because he thought Peter was being hypocritical and not teaching well. Also, Paul got blinded by God. That's no dream. He was blinded and spoken to by God.

[Imperial Joseon]

Because prostitutes were neglected peoples that He was extending a hand to, in order to reform them. He never asserted that what they were doing was right. Christ was not anti-establishment, and in fact He said that the Temple was a valid authority, but the personal holiness of the Pharisees was lacking because of their hypocrisy and failure to fulfill the Law in its entirety. And, of course, Christ also established the Church by instructing the Apostles to build the Church, and named Peter the head of said Church. Not to mention, that Christ was not a "progressive" in the sense that you're trying to shoe-horn onto Him, as He taught that divorce was immoral, the nature of marriage was heterosexual, and even looking at someone lustfully was a wrongdoing equal to adultery.

It's almost as if shoving the modern perception of politics on a first century religious teacher is bound to fail.

And somehow I don't get the impression that you know much about "Pauline doctrine" beyond its use as a political buzzword. What Paul writes in his Epistles are not in conflict with what Christ teaches in the Gospels.

The point though is that Jesus didnt condemn prostitutes or homosexuals, instead he went and lived amongst them doing Good Works. The early Church as established by Jesus was the group of beleivers meeting in each others homes, it was not the ‘establishment church’ as seen today in Catholcism or its Protestant successors.

As to Pauline Doctrine - there are a huge number of examples that show how Pauls Epistles were not the teachings of Jesus at all, and many were in fact antiethical to the teachings of Jesus. Notably Galatians 2:11-13 shows that Peter the Rock, and James the brother of Jesus did not agree with Pauls views. Thats especially relevant because Peter and James were actual Disciples appointed by Jesus himself whereas Paul never actually heard Jesus speak and was only inspired by a ‘dream’.

Sodom and Gomorrah? Also, have you read the Proverbs?

[Nuroblav]

Good point...

Then again Christianity have changed their mind on a lot of things - e.g. they use to take the Creation story as fact, whereas now they don't, they use to believe in geocentrism whereas now they don't etc.

Christians never believed in geocentrism. People in the Middle East haven't believed in geocentrism since well before Jesus was born. The places in the Bible that people claim point to geocentrism are all in the prophetical and/or poetical places of the Bible, they are creative imagery, not meant to be taken literally.

I still believe in the creation story...

Yeah I think I might be focusing mainly on Catholicism at that point. Why were Galileo's ideas so controversial at the time? My knowledge of that time period is a little hazy.

As for the Creation story, I know that the Catholic Church, though still views God as creator, believes that the story is a myth and that those who wrote it at the time had limited knowledge of science, so the story was their way of explaining what they believed. I can't speak for the other denominations though.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Christians never believed in geocentrism. People in the Middle East haven't believed in geocentrism since well before Jesus was born. The places in the Bible that people claim point to geocentrism are all in the prophetical and/or poetical places of the Bible, they are creative imagery, not meant to be taken literally.

I still believe in the creation story...

Yeah I think I might be focusing mainly on Catholicism at that point. Why were Galileo's ideas so controversial at the time? My knowledge of that time period is a little hazy.

As for the Creation story, I know that the Catholic Church, though still views God as creator, believes that the story is a myth and that those who wrote it at the time had limited knowledge of science, so the story was their way of explaining what they believed. I can't speak for the other denominations though.

Ok. I'm not sure what about Galileo's ideas might have been so controversial, but I too don't remember much of that time period.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Christians never believed in geocentrism. People in the Middle East haven't believed in geocentrism since well before Jesus was born. The places in the Bible that people claim point to geocentrism are all in the prophetical and/or poetical places of the Bible, they are creative imagery, not meant to be taken literally.

I still believe in the creation story...

Yeah I think I might be focusing mainly on Catholicism at that point. Why were Galileo's ideas so controversial at the time? My knowledge of that time period is a little hazy.

As for the Creation story, I know that the Catholic Church, though still views God as creator, believes that the story is a myth and that those who wrote it at the time had limited knowledge of science, so the story was their way of explaining what they believed. I can't speak for the other denominations though.

Wasn’t it because of Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism?

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to geocentric models such as the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

[Senkaku]

Christianity and Islam are about the worship of vengeful and all around ghasty gods who demand subjection and enslavement of man.

You know it's bad when a religion's name when translated from Arabic literally is "submission."

It's like if you go to prison and your cellmate's nickname is "El Diablo."

...I'm not fluent in Spanish, but I'm pretty sure that isn't an accurate analogy?

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Yeah I think I might be focusing mainly on Catholicism at that point. Why were Galileo's ideas so controversial at the time? My knowledge of that time period is a little hazy.

As for the Creation story, I know that the Catholic Church, though still views God as creator, believes that the story is a myth and that those who wrote it at the time had limited knowledge of science, so the story was their way of explaining what they believed. I can't speak for the other denominations though.

Wasn’t it because of Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism?

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to geocentric models such as the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

lol wikipedia
Wasn't this after the Middle Ages? Yeah, that's when all of that good classical knowledge was lost. I don't know what version of scripture they were reading to come to that conclusion...

[Ethel mermania]

Progressive values don't really gel that well with Biblical teachings from a lot of viewpoints. Homosexuality, women's equality, fornication outside of marriage, abortion and so on are all rather difficult to marry with more literal readings of Christianity.

Except you know, the bible views on immigration, care for your neighbors, sharing the wealth, etc.

During the 1970's. Within the Latin american catholic church, there was a movement called liberation theology. It was a left wing moment lead by the low level priesthood in those counties. Speared by the teachings of jesus.

[Albrenia]

Progressive values don't really gel that well with Biblical teachings from a lot of viewpoints. Homosexuality, women's equality, fornication outside of marriage, abortion and so on are all rather difficult to marry with more literal readings of Christianity.

Except you know, the bible views on immigration, care for your neighbors, sharing the wealth, etc.

During the 1970's. Within the Latin american catholic church, there was a movement called liberation theology. It was a left wing moment lead by the low level priesthood in those counties. Speared by the teachings of jesus.

Those are some of the nicer parts of said theology, although I'm unsure if they support the things I mentioned in my earlier post.

I've nothing but support for Christians who are all about giving equality to everyone, supporting gay marriage, giving people choice over their own bodies and so on but I don't think it really gels with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

[Iridencia]

Because conservatism is mostly about clinging onto the old ways of doing things, and society-wide hard religiosity is a notable feature of history.

[Salus Maior]

Progressive values don't really gel that well with Biblical teachings from a lot of viewpoints. Homosexuality, women's equality, fornication outside of marriage, abortion and so on are all rather difficult to marry with more literal readings of Christianity.

Except you know, the bible views on immigration, care for your neighbors, sharing the wealth, etc.

During the 1970's. Within the Latin american catholic church, there was a movement called liberation theology. It was a left wing moment lead by the low level priesthood in those counties. Speared by the teachings of jesus.

Liberation theology is kind of problematic for a few reasons, even if it was well intentioned.

For one, as I understand it, it was revolutionary ideology which also doesn't really fit with the teachings of Jesus and the Church. Jesus, after all, was not an insurrectionist.

That being said, however, I understand why it appeared. Latin America wasn't a very kind place, and the U.S really screwed them over by supporting dictatorships.

[Hanafuridake]

Christianity is the historically dominant religion in the West and produced a lot of the philosophy and culture which Western society follows. Hence why.

[Imperial Joseon]

Christianity is the historically dominant religion in the West and produced a lot of the philosophy and culture which Western society follows. Hence why.

Also in the Middle East, such as in Jerusalem.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Progressive values don't really gel that well with Biblical teachings from a lot of viewpoints. Homosexuality, women's equality, fornication outside of marriage, abortion and so on are all rather difficult to marry with more literal readings of Christianity.

Except you know, the bible views on immigration, care for your neighbors, sharing the wealth, etc.

During the 1970's. Within the Latin american catholic church, there was a movement called liberation theology. It was a left wing moment lead by the low level priesthood in those counties. Speared by the teachings of jesus.

Not familiar with Christianity's effects in Latin America. But regardless of the effects there, there's a stark contrast with the effects on the USA.

For instance, every time some progressive Christian tries to invoke the Bible on behalf of wealth distribution, the usual "but they meant with your own money not everyone else's" platitude outweighs it, and the religious states vote for Trump and the representatives who support him.

[Salus Maior]

Except you know, the bible views on immigration, care for your neighbors, sharing the wealth, etc.

During the 1970's. Within the Latin american catholic church, there was a movement called liberation theology. It was a left wing moment lead by the low level priesthood in those counties. Speared by the teachings of jesus.

Not familiar with Christianity's effects in Latin America. But regardless of the effects there, there's a stark contrast with the effects on the USA.

For instance, every time some progressive Christian tries to invoke the Bible on behalf of wealth distribution, the usual "but they meant with your own money not everyone else's" platitude outweighs it, and the religious states vote for Trump and the representatives who support him.

Republicans do that, sure.

[Imperial Joseon]

Not familiar with Christianity's effects in Latin America. But regardless of the effects there, there's a stark contrast with the effects on the USA.

For instance, every time some progressive Christian tries to invoke the Bible on behalf of wealth distribution, the usual "but they meant with your own money not everyone else's" platitude outweighs it, and the religious states vote for Trump and the representatives who support him.

Republicans do that, sure.

Not sure if any of them are truly Christians. They seem to support the use of guns.