Can you truly be a right wing christian

Post Reply New Topic

Look I 'll get straight to the point I am fairly bigoted against christians. If they behaved like their supposed to ie caring, non judgemental, turn the other cheek etc kind of people, basically christ like in their behaviour, the world might be a good place. The trouble is in my observations most christians are not (christian that is)

They have a great deal of influence on this world and they seem to me to be a bunch of bigotted, hatefull, selfrighteous, nasty people. In fact I think that many of them would crucify the boss a second time cos he was far too socialist

Yes I know that I am making sweeping generalisations here, but I think it is fair to say that many people who attend church and spruik the bible fit the above profile

so can you really be right wing (hardcore republican) and be christian

It all depends on ones interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately many people like to use the bible to pass judgement, even though the "golden rule" of the bible if you will is not to judge, leave that up to the big man. (btw I'm not Christian, though I respect everyone's religion, as long as they don't use it to spread hate)

Last edited by Fidget on 31 Jul 2008, 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

trouble is fidget supposedly jesus did away with the old testament and therefore to use the nasty bits in it to justify ones belfiefs cannot be termed christian.

Well, you're asking the question in an unfair way. Yes, the views of the current hard core right in the US are not really consistent with at least my understanding of Christianity. But it's also not consistent with my understanding of true conservatism either, and so I feel only referring to them in your question is a bit of a strawman. If you look at the actual values of conservatism, they're just as compatible as liberalism. It's just a different interpretation.

I am not up to speed on the definition of a conservative, although from my experiance they do tend to hit the needy harder than the more left of centre values.
Also conservatives all around the world have moved further and further to the right as has the left wing of politics. So has the definition of a conservative changed. Htis debate went on before the recent election in Australia with the ruling Liberal party (conservatives) aguing what it was to be a liberal.

I am constantly hearing Christians spout really reactionary views which go against the teachings of christ. So I wonder if they can honestly call themselves christian, or should they instead form a new religion based on the old testament. To quote Thomas Jefferson describing the god of the old testament as .a being of terrific character - cruel vindictive, capricious and unjust.

really a bit like modern christians

(Sorry cant use quotation marks keyboard has gone weird)

Ok, why can't someone be conservative and Christian?

Jesus did not proclaim *any* form of government to be best, so therefore, the claims about him being a "socialist" really do not tend to hold, as the closest I think he could be described as being, is perhaps a left-wing anarchist. And even then, it is not as if he is incredibly explicit with certain economic views given that the sermon on the mount is an individual doctrine, not a governmental one. So, one can be a Christian capitalist and have no problems, the only reason why one might think otherwise is a different interpretation of capitalism or a different interpretation of Christianity.

The social rules of the right really do not explicitly go against any of Christ's teachings, only a certain interpretation of them. Most of the rules there really do not have much to do with harming other people, only refusing to accept certain views. We can argue that a number of conservatives are terrible Christians, but not that a good Christian cannot be a conservative.

The foreign policy rules.... well, it is hard to say because there are 2 conservative camps. Neo-cons however, can fit into Christianity so long as you do not say that Jesus was a pacifist, and so long as you do justify violence to end evil. Neo-cons are really idealists who want to use force to make the world a better place, and Christians often are as well, sometimes supporting various military actions to promote a better world. Realists would have a harder time with the faith as they hold to an amoral policy. Isolationists would be fine because there is no prescribed governmental policy, and they aren't hurting anyone. Torturers though would have a harder time being Christian, however, often time torturers have the mindset that such actions are effective, which is why they hold to them.

To be honest though, a lot of Christian people I have known, many of them deeply interested in their faith, have been conservative. I do not think that they contradict themselves more so than most other people do.

Well, we could say that Jesus was proclaiming a philosophy of way of living according to we have learn from what we have been told or from the Bible, the way of living going according to the kingdom of heaven, awaiting for it, which it would be a better government (socialism it seems, dictatorship, although benevolent I suppose) than any other human government, but, I'm not so sure what Jesus really wanted to accomplish, there seem to be different theories, a movement against roman opression is one, which it would mean some kind of social and political change, in that case. Anarchism, not sure, from a christian point of view, doesn't seem so, you could think of a possibility from a secular point of view, however, in the Bible, Jesus said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.", when asked about paying taxes by phariseans (who were very conservatives and outraged by Jesus' words)


if the doctrine was specifically about living for the afterlife, then it wasn't necessary a governmental ideal, at least on earth, however, in that case, it was about helping the poor, changing your love for money for your love for God and your neighbor, his teaching or philosophy would have certainly be against greed, the Bible quotes Jesus saying: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24


The problem would be the level of Capitalism or how the system is used, a nation that wants power over the others and wanting to mantain a superior level in the world, we could say that that would contradict Jesus' ideal on how humanity should be.


That's the thing, it goes against a certain interpretation, as there are many, one interpretation that suits to anyone's agenda is clearly better and a good convenience, we can't never know what would be the correct interpretation of Jesus teaching, for one, we know the abolishment of certain aspects of jew laws in the OT, a good question is, would Jesus be in favor or against death penalty?

I think Jesus himself would have been liberal. I think whether a Christian is liberal or conservative will depend on which issues stated in the Bible they feel are the most important.

Many Christians who vote Republican, for example, are strongly anti-abortion and anti-same-sex-marriage.

Many Christians who vote Democratic, on the other hand, are probably interested in the humanitarian nature of the Democrats' approach on social welfare.

This is a very good point. The problem with a lot of religious conservatives is that they'll base their vote on one or two isolated stances - often abortion or gay marriage.

this is ours my point can you call you call yourself a christian if you cherrypick issues and use the bible to be nasty and judgemental

You can call yourself anything you want, that doesn't mean you are.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

But neither are we to decide who to condemn for such reasons. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "

I think Jesus would have lost patience with both sides rather quickly, and been quite vocal about it.

The Bible puts out good general principles, not a political ideology. That means that Christians are free to use their own minds to do the best they can -- which is not unlike what everyone else does.

Well in this election, with both candidates against gay marriage that won't be an issue. Abortion, on the other hand, is and always will be an issue. But that's an evil unjustifiable institution, so I can't see why it would be a problem to consider it important -- or even vital.

That's my point. See, I support abortion and I can see how it's justified, but I'm not so petty as to hinge my vote on one issue, especially as a sexually inactive male.

The issue is that early Christianity did not have aims to gain governmental control, and some Christians would argue that governments are inherently controlled by the devil(Luke 4:5-7 is an example of this kind of thinking), so really, with a viewpoint like that, Christians can easily not think very well of the government at all. Well, the issue is that I am not arguing that Jesus supported an overthrow of the government, but rather simply a rejection of the government at a philosophical level. The notion being that Christians submit to it, but their overall state of affairs is internally guided, and thus anarchistic.


Actually, the doctrine was specifically about how to live virtuously, which is why so many individual commands were given. Going against greed is going against an individual's moral inclinations, not saying how or how not a governmental authority should work.


Well, the problem would really be how capitalism is conceptualized, and how it is implemented. A nation that wants power is not necessarily evil, the issue is the purpose of that power and the methods of acquisition. Christian idealists can justify that power as being the power to do good and combat evil, Christian isolationists can justify power as protection against evil and a legitimate role of government, and Christian realists do not make sense.


Well, right, I know, and if there are multiple interpretations then all interpretations can be taken as valid so long as they are hermeneutically consistent. Some would argue Jesus would still allow for the death penalty as he does not eliminate all of the old Jewish law, others otherwise. A christian can support either interpretation.

So you are judging them for being judgmental? F**king hypocrite.