[Travesty]

I guess it is debatable whether Jesus was a social conservative for that time but to suggest that he was not a social conservative by today's standards would be pretty ridiculous. I think it is clear that I am trying to take this into a modern context for you.

Jesus lived 2000 years ago Rainbow Crow. Thats is pretty conservative for today.

I have nothing against helping coal miners, nor do most conservatives I think. You are moving the goal posts regarding the kind of people we are talking about. My position is that Jesus was not a modern socialist and would not expect the rich to give away their wealth unconditionally in support of people who don't live socially conservative lifestyles.

I know the Kind of people you are talking about and a lot of poor are not the Kind of people you are talking about.

I'm not saying Jesus was a socialist. Socialists themselves would be quick to distance themselves from Christianity and their theories, assumptions and materialism have nothing to do with Christianity.

[anna]

To answer the question for anyone who is wondering, Jesus also said (paraphrase) "give a man a fish and he has one fish; teach him how to fish and he has fish for life."

Actually, Jesus didn't say that. It's usually identified as a Chinese proverb, although the author is unknown.

[Lightman]

To answer the question for anyone who is wondering, Jesus also said (paraphrase) "give a man a fish and he has one fish; teach him how to fish and he has fish for life."

This is not a Biblical quote. This is a Chinese proverb. The reference in the Bible is to Jesus commanding his disciples to be "fishers of men" - it has nothing to do with the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality.

[Rei Murasame]

What actually happened instead:

• Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive in the alleged land of liberty, and he'll figure out how to catch lots of fish which you will then skim the surplus off of tomorrow while he languishes in a subsistence-level existence with a maxed-out credit card and stagnant wages.
  
  
• Give a man a man, and you introduce the concept of divinely-endorsed serfdom. Teach a man how to fish for men, and you've just made him an unwitting accomplice in a massive system of oppression propped up by a hegemonic ideology that you propagated for your own narrow class interests.

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I couldn't resist.

[Americanroyalty]

In essence, critics of Christianity think that they can win arguments about things that they refuse to seriously study or consider :?: To truly understand this you need to understand Caesar, the Pharisees, social values of the time, etc. It seems that you do not intend to take this seriously so I will be ending this here. If you get anything out of this exchange then I hope it is a realization that it is not as simple as you have asserted.

Yes because the majority of christians today actually study social values/historical context of the time. [insert sarcasm]
I thing old Billy Graham once gave an excellent sermon on the devaluation of the Roman denarii during Jesus's time.

[Rich]

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.

In the only biblical account of the post Easter Christian community it states clearly and plainly that they lived as Communists. The Church understood this, hence the elevation of the Communist monastic ideal for 1500 years.

[uggabugga]

Yep. They're Darwinist alright but they'll never figure that one out because a hallmark of being conservative is eschewing anything that smacks of critical thinking. They just don't do it.

As for the Christian part of the profile. Who can say? Let's feel guilty about sin then have a bar-b-que on the lawn.

[Hirdmann]

First, there seems to be some glaring contradictions between Conservatism and Christianity.

None at all. At least not worse than between any other ideology and Christianity. Conservatism isn't as much an ideology, as it's a principle: "Let's take it slowly, and don't try to fix what isn't broken". Conservatism isn't against change per se, it is against too rapid and radical change, because history has taught humanity that rarely, if ever, does any good come from too rapid and radical change.

Conservatism is generally a Darwinist philosophy where everyone works to the best of their abilities and either sinks or swims. People make as much money as they can, resulting in a series of classes going from the super rich to the poor.

No, that's anarcho-liberalism, and very, very few support this when push comes to shove. Conservatives do not believe in the abolishment of the state, or in letting those die who are genuinely unable to help themselves. Not outside the probably fatally poisoned mind of leftists, anyway.

Christianity, on the other hand, is more Communist.

No.
Christianity does not teach that we should organize a revolution of workers and peasants in over to assume ownership of the means of production, and first impose a socialist state on everyone, which will eventually pave the way for the true classless society of communism.
No such thing ANYWHERE in the Bible or th First Church. You never see the Apostles or their successors trying to organize a revolt against the Emperor, in order to overthrow his government and establish socialism. Never. Not once. Nor do you see Jesus advocating any such action. Indeed, He submits Himself to execution by a corrupt and power-hungry Roman governor, when it would have been the easiest thing in the world for Him to actually organize and lead a revolt such as the one we are talking of. He would have won, too.

Jesus said to give all your wealth to the poor.

Yes, but He didn't say that as a universal principle. We see this clearly in the Scriptures too, in Acts where Ananias' and Safira's crimes weren't that they kept some of their property (Peter actually call it that), but that they lied to appear more "charitable" than they were.
Jesus said to ONE man that he should sell everything, give it to the poor, and then follow Him. Because for THAT particular man, his wealth was weighing him down, and it had become his God. That's why he had to let it go. You cannot at all deduce a general principle from this one case. That's just bending and twisting to suit your own purpose.

It's believe that it's harder for a rich person to get into heaven.

If you want to bring this into the argument, every. single. person. in the Western world is in trouble. Also those who call themselves, and are called "Poor". We do not see the kind of poverty Jesus spoke of, in the West. It just doesn't exist.
And again: The problem isn't simply the fact that they have more, but that WHEN you are rich, you are very much at risk of attaching too much importance to your wealth, so that you forget the more important things. THAT's the point.

If one man has two tunics, he should give one to a man with no tunics, and such.

Yes. But nowhere does Jesus say: "And I tell you: You must go to Caesar, and demand that he implement this principle as policy. And should he refuse, you must energize the workers and peasants to revolt and install a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to redistribute the wealth and so that everyone in the Empire has common ownership of the means of production."

I read once that Conservatives believe in equal opportunities, while Liberals believe in equal outcomes. Meaning the Liberals would be the Christians.

No. "Liberals" (in the wrong, American sense of that word) believe that the State should force equality through via its laws. Christianity, on the other hand, preaches charity and the fact that we have an obligation towards those less fortunate than us. That is not "liberalism". Liberalism is basically outsourcing the responsibility you have to the poor, to the state, so you don't have to deal with it.
"No, I don't give to homeless shelters. I pay my taxes, don't I?".
But Jesus never gave us that opportunity.

So with all that being said, how does one reconcile being both Conservative and Christian?

Very easily, as what you have said has been 99% bullshit and 1% misunderstanding.

Another question I have is, why do Christian Conservatives think America is founded on Christian values? Out of all ten commandments, only two are enforced in every state, one is enforced in some states, and the rest have always been ignored. And it's not like killing and stealing are only crimes in the Bible. They've been considered crimes in all Pagan societies too. Then there's the fact that America has never "turned the other cheek" after being attacked. Take all of that, plus our Capitalism, and how can one say we've ever been a Christian nation?

1: I am not American.
2: Society turning the other cheek is a demonic principle, not a Christian one. It is abandoning the very reason for the existence of the State in the first place: To impose order and security for its citizens, from enemies internal and external. The state that does not do this, has lost its legitimacy, and the State "turning the other cheek" when attacked, or faced with crime, is by no means a Christian response.
"Turn the other cheek" does, however, deal with how we as individuals, and the Church, are supposed to act towards those who wish us harm, or indeed does harm us. That is why, even through the most horrible of the persecutions, the Christians still prayed for the Roman Emperor. Because he was also a tool of God for justice in the world, even if he himself was monstrously unjust.
Or, to put it another way: Yes, many (not all, though) of the Roman Emperors persecuted Christians terribly. But they also gave laws that punished actual evildoers: Traitors, murderers, thieves, etc. This was good.
3: Capitalism isn't anti-Christian. Nor is it Christian in and of itself.
4: If you want to talk about ideologies that are anti-Christian, communism is a good place to start.

No but Jesus would not have favored tax cuts for the rich or trickle down economics.

Jesus wouldn't have given a rats ass about any of those topics. He would have insisted, as He did, on charity, and our INDIVIDUAL responsibility. What Caesar planned to do with what was Caesar's, was no concern of His. His mission was different, and not political.

Jesus was not a social conservative, he broke with Rabbinic traditions and the Jewish establishment. And the Jews really had it out for him.

1: IF we are to apply any of our labels to Jesus (which I don't think we should), then "social conservative" in the real sense, comes closest. He rejected the progressiveness of Rabbi Shamai's group of pharisees, because He saw that it was invention without basis in the Torah, and basically a means of tooting one's own horn. Very much like liberals today.

2: No, the Jewish leadership had it out for Him. Please don't perpetuate the anti-semitic "The Jews killed Jesus!"-libel.

In the only biblical account of the post Easter Christian community it states clearly and plainly that they lived as Communists.

No, because they didn't run around trying to incite revolts against the Emperor, in order to redistribute the wealth by the force of the state, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat in which "the party" were to govern the empire towards the communist utopia.

The Church understood this, hence the elevation of the Communist monastic ideal for 1500 years.

Newsflash: You can't just label anything you want "communism" and then pretend that it is so. Thinking that everything that has to do with communal living is communism in and of itself, is so far beyond stupid that it's not even visible from "retarded".

[keso]

To answer the question for anyone who is wondering, Jesus also said (paraphrase) "give a man a fish and he has one fish; teach him how to fish and he has fish for life."

This reminds me of another forum. There is a famous story involving Jesus, Fish, and some mount of some sort...But, other than that, you're pretty far off.

Your quote...Is attributed to ancient China, not Christianity. Your quote, and the inspiration behind it, are about as erroneous as can be.

If you would do us, and yourself, more importantly, the favor of actually doing a bit of fact checking, that would be nice.

[Reason10]

First, there seems to be some glaring contradictions between Conservatism and Christianity. Conservatism is generally a Darwinist philosophy where everyone works to the best of their abilities and either sinks or swims. People make as much money as they can, resulting in a series of classes going from the super rich to the poor.
Christianity, on the other hand, is more Communist. Jesus said to give all your wealth to the poor. It's believe that it's harder for a rich person to get into heaven. If one man has two tunics, he should give one to a man with no tunics, and such.
I read once that Conservatives believe in equal opportunities, while Liberals believe in equal outcomes. Meaning the Liberals would be the Christians.
So with all that being said, how does one reconcile being both Conservative and Christian?

Your premises are wrong, first of all. You assume that conservatism has always been the same and that is not the case. Secondly, you are using the Bible as a source, which is not necessarily the most reliable source when it comes to conservatism today. (Remember, the Bible was written by 60 authors, most in a language that isn't even spoken today. And you have to remember that it was written to a totally different culture compared to what exists today.There are more interpretations of the Bible than any other source in the world. Chances of any of those interpretations being relevant is remote, to say the least.
I call myself Christian because I place faith in the Bible, but I do not attend any organized religion church and I don't use the word "Christian" to give me a license to be an asshole. I don't attempt to equate "Christian" with winning a political argument. And I'm not sure if Conservative and Christian are always joined at the hips.

Another question I have is, why do Christian Conservatives think America is founded on Christian values? Out of all ten commandments, only two are enforced in every state, one is enforced in some states, and the rest have always been ignored. And it's not like killing and stealing are only crimes in the Bible. They've been considered crimes in all Pagan societies too. Then there's the fact that America has never "turned the other cheek" after being attacked. Take all of that, plus our Capitalism, and how can one say we've ever been a Christian nation?

Not sure if you totally understand the Bible. The Ten Commandments were created CENTURIES before Christ was born, so I'm not sure they would be a 100 percent "Christian" value. And the Bible has a lot more rules and regs for humanity to obey that go way beyond the Ten Commandments. Remember, Christ was the New Testament. Also, the reason Conservatives believe America was founded on Christian values is because 90 percent of the Founding Fathers were Christian.

Truthfully, I'm not very comfortable with a lot of Christians, especially those who try to use the Bible to advance political agendas. Frankly, I don't believe American conservatism needs a Biblical affirmation.