I wasn't raised in religion (inb4 fedora) but there's always been a bible around at home and I'm interested in understanding one of the most influential movements in human history.
I don't understand how people can claim to be Christians and conservative at the same time. Wasn't Jesus's message to be wary of tradition and to question man's law or separate it from God's law? Didn't he encourage people to give away their riches, and to try and be as peaceful, sharing, and understanding as possible?
How is it coherent, then, to say you're Christian while being nationalistic, or against wealth repartition, or saying that upholding tradition matters more than progress, or that religion has a place in politics?
Bonus question: Is this all Saint Paul's fault, because of his belief in the necessity of established dogma? Why are his writings so important when they're rarely taken from the word of Christ like the Gospels are?
I'm sincerely asking, keep the memeing minimal please
first of all you must understand what is "conservatism"?
conservatism is more like "i love the way we are now, pls don't change it so much, or if you can don't change it at all"
so basically your christianity can be considered not conservatism if it's not fit with the christianity of your national identity or your regional identity
Kayden Peterson
>if you can don't change it at all Yeah but Jesus incited his followers to get rid of a lot of Old Testament rules, that's actually almost the only thing that separated Jews and Christians when the concept of Christianity first developped. That and preaching tolerance and understanding sound pretty progressive to me. Isn't the process of getting rid of old rules more important and relevant than the new rules that were established after?
> your christianity can be considered not conservatism if it's not fit with the christianity of your national identity wat
Julian Kelly
>Wasn't Jesus's message to be wary of tradition and to question man's law or separate it from God's law? No. Actually Jesus taught that which "has existed from the foundation of the Universe." If you understand the perennial tradition you understand he means God's law to get into heaven (which always manifested itself to some way to mankind).
Jackson Collins
Welp looks like what are you talking about is christianity conservatism in "source of idea" sphere.
I can't answer it since i am not christian
Brandon Morgan
Ok, but he did want to get rid of some traditions that he deemed unnecessary, food restrictions and shabbat and circumcision for example. Doesn't your quote imply that God's law is natural and that man's law is necessarily flawed and therefore that dogma is working against God's law? What about "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" [Matthew 22:21] doesn't that invite to a separation of civic and religious life?
Jackson Jones
Those weren't traditions though. They were pharisaism.
Connor Rivera
Not gonna read any of your post, OP.
Christianity believes in the right to private property and prefers charity over state-supplied welfare, two things that are plague in the eyes of leftists.
Christianity also views all forms of racism as a mortal sin, while leftists believe that racism against white people is justified to reverse the status-quo.
Christianity also sees abortion as murder, while leftists see any restrictions against it as misogyny.
The only people who think an alliance between Christianity and the left can take place are idiotic SJWs who've studied nothing of Christianity, and think Jesus was nothing more than a proto-communist revolutionary, whose followers later lied about him doing what they consider to be "magic tricks".
Zachary Edwards
PAUL VS TRUE DISCIPLES
Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a DIFFERENT GOSPEL
It says different Gospel, so obviously the disciples were teaching them a different doctrine and it was not just minor issues.
Ryder Kelly
He's probably referring to Gnostics,
Thomas Edwards
Gnostics didn't show up till second century.
He was referring to the delegates sent by James who were telling the Christians that they must have faith in Jesus, and observe Jewish law, in order to be saved.
Paul was arguing that since the "Torah of Christ" fulfilled the regular Torah, observance of Jewish law was now irrelevant. All that mattered was faith in Jesus.
Christian Kelly
>prefers charity over state-supplied welfare State-supplied welfare wasn't even a thing before the middle of the 20th century, and isn't it a form of charity? I don't know enough about economy to approve or dismiss welfare altogether but I think it can be a decent thing if used with caution.
As for the rest of your post, it's making pretty wild assumptions (and isn't very "love thy neighbor" esque) I do consider that I lean to the left and I despise SJWs with a passion, you're assuming that everyone who isn't following your American version of right-wing politics is an SJW, and that what was true 2000 years ago is relevant to modern-day political issues. I'm talking about attitude (progressivism vs conservatism) not regulation and policy. I do agree with you that a huge part the modern left is toxic and racist and works against the values to which they appointed themselves the upholders. SJWs are cancer. But Jesus is more easily comparable with a "proto-communist" (the endless talk about sharing riches and rich people having a thinner chance at going to heaven) than to a modern-day liberal capitalist
I fail to see the difference
Andrew Foster
pharisaism = newish dogma based on one interpretation of the Hebrew faith Christianity = another interpretation.
One isn't more conservative than the other.
Christopher Watson
>I wasn't raised in religion (inb4 fedora) but there's always been a bible around at home and I'm interested in understanding one of the most influential movements in human history. In that case, you might become interested in Bruce Gore's analysis on Christianity and history: youtube.com/user/GoreBruce/videos or James White youtube.com/user/AominOrg/videos
As for conservatism, I'm only to make a brief statement. Yes, a christian can become nationalistic, and live within his own culture, as long as God's decree elevates above all human traditions. Of course, Christians are the ones expected to follow God's decree, not non-believers.
>Or that religion has a place in politics? I think the question recluses around the topic about separation between church and state. If you're looking from an american or Frenchmen perspective and you're wondering how a Christian can maintain devotion, while branding themselves within secular society; remember the postreformation era, it was about the people trying to the state out of the church(because of Rome), not this reversal of 'state against the church' like we experience today.
Connor Turner
>Jacques Ellul, a French philosopher and Christian anarchist, notes that the final verse of the Book of Judges (Judges 21:25) states that there was no king in Israel and that "everyone did as they saw fit".[8][9][10] Subsequently, as recorded in the first Book of Samuel (1 Samuel 8) the people of Israel wanted a king "so as to be like other nations".[11][12] God declared that the people had rejected him as their king. He warned that a human king would lead to militarism, conscription and taxation, and that their pleas for mercy from the king's demands would go unanswered. Samuel passed on God's warning to the Israelites but they still demanded a king, and Saul became their ruler.[13][14] Much of the subsequent Old Testament chronicles the Israelites trying to live with this decision.[15]
Brayden Kelly
Why follow a rando's hot opinions - no matter how educated and articulated they are- instead of the word of the son of God? I don't understand why Paul is so relevant to so many Christian scholars when he just tried to make up rules of his own conception. (e.g. priests' celibacy)
Eli Nguyen
PAUL OPPOSES PETER
Galatians 2:11-
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because HE(PETER) WAS CLEARLY IN THE WRONG.
12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
( why did people such as the Apostle James still believe that the law regarding food should still be applied? If Jesus came to replace the law, then why are they still following the law?)
13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy EVEN BARNABAS LEAD TO ASTRAY.
(so, Peter, James and Barnabas are wrong?)
Imagine, the leader of the Disciples are astray? According to the self-appointed Disciples?
Thanks user, you're the MVP.
Angel James
Jesus had two dads too. I don't see why conservatives don't like the idea of gay couples adopting.
Hunter Hernandez
It's conservative in the sense that it claims a tradition of Judaic prophecy going back to Moses. The contemporary view of Christianity was that it was a religion for the strange, anti-social and rebellious, as Christians worshiped in private and rejected Roman pantheism and the divinity of the emperor. None of those things would have fallen in a contemporaneous view of conservative of the time; ie. upholding the Emperor, Roman institutions, governance and law.
If we look at Christianity and its tenets through a modern lens, it becomes a bit more complicated. We would first have to decide what constitutes conservative values and then, how closely do they adhere to those values. But, for the sake of keeping this post within the limits I will make generalizations based on my experience with left and right as an American.
I would say part of Christianity's inherent success is its flexibility, expressed in the variety of its messages, illustrated in the Gospels by different writers. For example, we have Christ, champion of the poor and downtrodden - something that no doubt appeals to more liberal persons who have long upheld the same ideas. But we also have Christ driving the money-changers from the temple, preserving the sanctity of a holy space and reinforcing ancient norms and customs - something conservative-minded individuals would find appealing.
Angel Watson
PAUL VS ALL THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS
2 Corinthians 11:4-5
4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a JESUS OTHER THAN the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a DIFFERENT SPIRIT from the one you received, or a DIFFERENT GOSPEL from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
5 But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."
"""""This is all doctrine and again he is criticizing the disciples.""""""
Aiden Hughes
PEOPLE DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED?
Galatians 3:1-3
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish?
""""Obviously we have people that are disagreeing with him. If Jesus taught that the law is over clearly, then people would not be arguing over this.""""
Ryan Robinson
>I don't understand why Paul is so relevant to so many Christian scholars when he just tried to make up rules of his own conception. (e.g. priests' celibacy) New Living Translation Don't we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other apostles and the Lord's brothers do, and as Peter does? >In the earliest years of the church, the clergy were largely married men. C K Barrett points to 1 Cor 9:5 as clearly indicating that "apostles, like other Christians, have a right to be (and many of them are) married", and the right for their wife to be "maintained by the communities in which they [the apostles] are working".[3] However, Paul himself was celibate,[4][5] and there is no consensus that inclusion among the requirements for candidacy to the office of "overseer" of being "the husband of one wife"[6] meant that celibate Christians were excluded.[7]
Ryan Adams
Very interesting!
Thanks for the links I'll look them up for sure A Christian can definitely be patriotic but nationalism implies a certain racism in my opinion. The separation of church and state should be just that, just non-interference between the two, but yeah on the individual level I guess it's just a matter of which you judge is more important ("religion-shaped conscience" vs thinking all opinions matter in public life?)
from my perspective those two Jesuses aren't incompatible, just stating that God is sacred and intouchable and that his children have to care for one another
Jaxon Collins
That's all the short one that I got about Paul. There's a lengthy one, but I don't think it is necessary. Since my posts clearly shows that the False Disciples oppose the TRUE DISCIPLES of Jesus.
And this False Disciples is the author of more than half of the NT.
David Reed
Not really, you're just cherrypicking the arguments that fit your criteria while also implying that leftist = sjws.
The same could be done the other way as christ himself was against usury and asked people to get rid of their material riches, things that are way against conservatives.
In fact there're plenty of leftists christians and there have been even revolutionary christians along history, like latinamericans in the 60-80s.
Hudson Roberts
>Jesus wasn't conservative therefore conservatives can't be Christians
Luis Reed
Damn, sorry OP, I misunderstood the question.
Regarding Paul, it's mostly because of the abandonment of the Mosaic Law and some Jewish tradition, in particular circumcision. In the age before anaesthetic, no one want to join a religion that requires the cutting of the meat.
Paul, abandoning this tradition, began preaching and gained enormous support from Gentiles. While the Disciples, who still following Jesus's commandments, doesn't.
Since Paul's supporters overwhelmed greatly the Disciples supporters, Paul's Gospel was Canonized by the majority, while the Disciples' supporters, were mostly executed and cast away.
Since they canonized Paul's Gospel, they upheld the said Gospel unto these days.
Owen Ward
>the opinions and attitude of the founder of my set of beliefs have nothing to do with my own set of beliefs ok
Brody Ramirez
>The negative view of Jesus' family may be related to the conflict between Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christians. A. N. Wilson suggests that the negative relationship between Jesus and his family was placed in the Gospels (especially in the Gospel of Mark) to dissuade early Christians from following the Jesus cult that was administered by Jesus’ family: "…it would not be surprising if other parts of the church, particularly the Gentiles, liked telling stories about Jesus as a man who had no sympathy or support from his family."[4] Jeffrey Bütz[5] is more succinct: "…by the time Mark was writing in the late 60s, the Gentile churches outside of Israel were beginning to resent the authority wielded by Jerusalem where James and the apostles were leaders, thus providing the motive for Mark’s antifamily stance… (p. 44)." Other prominent scholars agree (e.g., Crosson, 1973;[6] Mack, 1988;[7] Painter. 1999).[8]
Hudson Baker
Oh thanks user
Angel Wright
user, do you remember to brush your teeth after eating shit? This is no place for faggotery.
Ryan Moore
If I remember correctly, Mark was actually a boy at the time of Jesus, while Matthew was Jesus's Disciples.
But somehow Mark wrote his book earlier than Matthew wrote his book?
Evan Butler
>It portrays Jesus as an heroic man of action, an exorcist, a healer, and a miracle worker. Jesus is also the Son of God, but he keeps his identity secret, concealing it in parables so that even the disciples fail to understand. All this is in keeping with prophecy, which foretold the fate of the messiah as Suffering Servant.[1]
David Jones
Mental gymnastics: the thread
Oliver Wright
Conservatism in the US means conserving the Constitution. Small government, limited government, government instituted to protect the rights that God gave us.
Easton Howard
If Christianity were in the hands of Jesus' half-brothers, there would be no Christians. More Jews, but no Christians.
Joseph Bell
The books are in the order they were written. That has been known for 1800 years.
Only "modern liberal scholars" dispute it.
Dylan Sullivan
Bullshit. Paul circumcised Timothy himself, and maybe even Titus.
Adam Brooks
Paul is the greatest of all the apostles, as he is the apostle to the Gentiles, which is 99.78% of the world.
Aaron Anderson
More rubbish. God was their king. They had judges to handle the normal day to day stuff.
When they desired a king to entreat with their neighbors, it was the wrong thing to ask for and had disastrous consequences.
Exactly what God laid out through Samuel.
Cameron Cook
Yes, because Peter was just one of the disciples, and he was being a hypocrite and pretending to keep kosher when the Temple Judaizers came into town.
Gnostics were written of in John as people who had nothing to do with Jesus. They are evil people.
Just like you.
Adam Taylor
John wrote of the gnostics in 1 John.
They were the people who departed, indicating that they were never with the disciples.
1st century.
You think evil rests?
James Nguyen
The things of God cannot be understood by the demons in your head.
Sorry.
Just the way things work.
Caleb Mitchell
Greater than Peter, the Leader of All Disciples, which personally hand-picked by no one but Jesus himself?
While Paul only have a vision? Self-appointed?
Sebastian Reed
First off, Paul said that to marry is good, and not to marry is good. So no, he did not preach celibacy.
Nor did he practice it, as he could not have obtained his position in the Sanhedrin as a bachelor. His wife presumably left him when he became a Christian, and he lived out the rest of his life alone.
Paul met with Jesus for years, and Jesus taught Paul the New Covenant that the disciples just could not grasp. They were too busy trying to be Jews, but believing in Jesus and trying to keep the Law. Judaizers, the lot of them.
Henry Moore
You dare to mock Peter? The Leader of All Disciples?
Did copypaste from biblehud and bible gateway is unacceptable?
Matthew Turner
Yes, Jesus hand picked both Peter and Paul, and Paul is the greatest. Peter was apostle to the Jews, 0.22% of the world, and Paul the apostle to the Gentiles, 99.78% of the world.
Paul did not have a vision, he had an encounter with the risen Christ Jesus. He then spent years with Jesus in Arabia before starting his successful missions. The missions that did not involve him being smuggled out of the city in a basket.
Andrew Gray
He is not that, and yes, I will have some fun with Peter in heaven. I'll tell him how many people went to hell in the Church of Peter, and we'll consider how useless the Church of Peter really was.
You can copy and paste anything you like.
You cannot understand the things of God any more than a dalmatian can.
Jaxon Barnes
Did Paul ever touch Jesus? At that time? Because real can only be differentiated from vision by touching. People can hallucinationate.
Ian Murphy
If Peter is the leader, how come nobody called him the leader?
If Peter is the leader, how come the others sent him on errands?
If Peter is the leader, why did he claim to just be one of the boys?
If Peter is the leader, and Paul dressed him down in public, why did Peter not impose his authority over Paul?
No, your knowledge of these things comes from demons, and while they are hyper-intelligent, they too cannot understand the things of God.
Alexander Wilson
Yes, I imagine they touched each other over the period of three years of interactions face-to-face, what with Jesus being bodily resurrected and all.
When we say Jesus rose from the dead, we're not kidding.
Thomas Martinez
Peter is the Rock
Austin Stewart
He ascend after that
Connor Cook
If Jesus is the leader, why did he wash others feet?
Tyler Diaz
Matthew tells us who they were. “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; """"""""""""The FIRST""""""""""""""", Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother …” (Matthew 10:2)
Amazingly, Paul was nowhere to be found.
Andrew Long
God is the Rock.
Are you implying he cannot come and go as he wills?
To show that the Kingdom of God is not based on authority given from the top down, like men's kingdoms, but given to whomever serves the most.
He who serves the most (Jesus) is the head of the Kingdom of God.
Eli Bell
Are you arguing for the legitimacy of Judas as an apostle?
Acts 22 ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that same hour I looked up at him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. 15 For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’
Galatians 1 Paul, an apostle — sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead — and all the brothers with me, To the churches of Galatia:…
Ian Williams
>Rock Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
You know Peter isnt his real name, right? It was Simon. "Peter" literally means "rock".
>cannot come and go Are you implying he can?
Then the Second Coming shouldn't be called the Second Coming, instead Xth Coming.
>Galatian Someone wrote it, not the Disciples
>Acts 22 These are not the words of the Disciples
John Flores
Paul even called the Disciples, hand-picked by Jesus, astray! Paul is Self-Appointed, never met Jesus. Not the True Disciples, the elite of the elite.
Yet somehow, Peter, WHOM JESUS TRUSTED TO BUILD HIS CHURCH, is called astray?
Ian Phillips
*not for the True
Wyatt Mitchell
Petros is not the petra.
Gabriel Stewart
Yes, because they were Judaizing people.
David Diaz
>WHOM JESUS TRUSTED TO BUILD HIS CHURCH
this is so obviously wrong.....
Ethan Moore
Demons in your head screeching again? Your ability to control them getting weaker and weaker by the day?
Is there any of (you) left?
Cameron Johnson
New Living Translation Peter told them, "You know it is against our laws for a Jewish man to enter a Gentile home like this or to associate with you. But God has shown me that I should no longer think of anyone as impure or unclean.
New Living Translation Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."
New Living Translation Yes, there are great benefits! First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the whole revelation of God.
Charles Myers
House of Cornelius proved to Peter that Gentiles were saved and full of the Holy Spirit. The "apostles" thought that salvation was only for Jews, and was making people Jews before they could be "Christians".
There's too much back story on this one. Once Jesus and the woman came to the understanding that it was a personal favor to her from him, he healed her daughter that instant.
The Jews were not only given the Law through Moses, to see how this world worked, but they were also given the prophets to see how things were going to be.
The New Living Translation is best if you're 12 years old and reading is not your strong point.
Aiden Myers
*Jesus serves others >he's the leader and showing who serves more leads more *St. Peter serves others >if he's the leader why did he serve others? Wew.
Jace Young
New Living Translation But some of these branches from Abraham's tree--some of the people of Israel--have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, have been grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in the rich nourishment from the root of God's special olive tree.
Tyler Morris
Here's a tip thay will make your life easier, OP: right-wingers are not intellectually consistent. Their beliefs are a mismatch of human psyche. When it comes to religion, they simply pick and choose (or outright fabricate) the parts that fit their psychological profile.
Ah yes, the good old "You're a Satan" quote. Apparently it's the most common quote during all my posting. Delicious. I never want a valid argument anyway.
Thomas Sanders
Not serve others. Get sent out as an errand boy.
He who sends is greater than he who is sent.
That goes all the way up to the Trinity.
Justin Thomas
Aye, think of how much easier and better it is to graft back in the original branches.
Ethan Sanders
I know.
You want the demons in your head to leave, but you love them so much you let them stay.
It will not get better for you.
Aiden Garcia
You can belong to the Church of Peter, and go to hell, if you choose.
I doubt you're even that far away from hell, right now.
>Disregard bible, cite wiki
kek
Jeremiah Bailey
>Not serve others. Get sent out as an errand boy. It's the same logic. Serving others is no different from doing errands for them.
Lincoln Nelson
It's nowhere near the same.
Peter volunteering to go is Peter serving.
Peter being sent is proof positive Peter was not the "leader".
Brandon Butler
Are you denying the fact that Jesus entrusted Peter with his Church? THAT CHURCH WILL NEVER BE OVERCOME BY THE GATES OF HELL.
See
Carter Long
Yes, of course.
Anyone acquainted with the Holy Spirit and the scriptures knows for certain what the foundation of the real church is.
Ephesians 2 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the
foundation
of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
Luke Walker
I can play that game too. See
Joseph Harris
JESUS ENTRUST PETER WITH SHEEP
John 21: 15 ...Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 ....Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 ....Jesus said, “Feed my sheep."
THREE TIMES Jesus entrust Peter with his sheeps.
What sheep? Us! We are that sheep. Jesus entrust us to Peter. Listen to Peter, for Jesus choose him to take care of his sheeps.
Jayden Walker
As I said, these aren't even the disciples talking .
Keep in mind that Jesus HIMSELF entrust his Church to Peter.
Jeremiah Martinez
Do you agape me, Peter (who betrayed me thrice)? You know I phileo you, Jesus.
Do you agape me, Peter? You know I phileo you, Jesus.
Do you phileo me, Peter? You know I do, Jesus.
Thrice denied. Thrice re-instituted.
Petros is still not the petra.
The Church of Peter does not stand on the Rock that is Christ Jesus.
Jaxson Kelly
He didn't, actually. He left it to the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.
The One you know nothing about.
Hudson Hernandez
Before I leave, I want to ask one question.
Do you denied Peter? Yes or No?
Simple question, simple answer.
Yes or No?
Luke Cruz
Wasn't Jesus a shepherd? Aren't Christians supposed to be like Jesus? WWJD
Christian Stewart
Nice examples you got there.
Jaxson Kelly
Nowhere does "john" say they were gnostics
Blake Powell
You have to actually read the Bible before commenting on it.
Until you do you're essentially the same as a gentile or Samaritan to me.
