# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Communism Very Similar to Christianity, Putin Claims

## Swordsmyth

The communist ideology responsible for the slaughter of more than 100  million people and the enslavement of billions over the last century is  very similar to Christianity, claimed Russian strongman Vladimir  Putin. The bizarre remarks, first reported by Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT,  also suggested that the ideology of communism could be found throughout  the Bible  an idea ridiculed by mainstream Christian theologians who  view the murderous ideology as practically the antithesis of biblical  morality. Finally, Putin likened mass-murdering dictator Vladimir  Lenin's dead body lying in Moscow's Red Square to the veneration of  Christian saints.
 Communist ideology is very similar to Christianity, in fact:  freedom, equality, brotherhood, justice  everything is laid out in the  Holy Scripture, its all there, Putin claimed in an interview for the  Russian documentary _Valaam_, parts of which were broadcast on  Kremlin-owned television station Russia 1. And the code of the builder  of communism? This is sublimation, its just such a primitive excerpt  from the Bible, nothing new was invented. While acknowledging that  during those years of militant atheism, priests were eradicated and  churches destroyed, Putin claimed a new religion was being created.

  Acknowledging that some people might dislike his remarks, the  former KGB chief said faith has always accompanied us, becoming  stronger every time our country, our people, have been through hard  times. The new religion Putin referred to being created during those  times was presumably whatever perverted form of Christianity and  communism the Russian leader claims to believe resemble each other.  There is some truth to his remarks, though  at least in Russia. After  attempting to eradicate Christianity and the Russian Orthodox Church  with barbarism, murder, and torture  and failing  the mass-murdering  Soviet KGB that Putin served decided, instead, to try to hijack and  neutralize the church.   
 That hijacking extends all the way to the Russian Orthodox Church's present-day leadership.  In 2009, Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyaev, known today as Metropolitan  Kirill, was chosen to serve as the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia,  the highest position of authority in the Russian Orthodox Church.  Metropolitan Kirill took over after the death of Patriarch Alexy II, who  led the ROC from 1990. Prior to his post at the head of the ROC, he was  a longtime KGB agent code-named Drozdov, or Blackbird. All three of  the candidates to replace Alexy II were also reliably identified as  agents of the KGB/FSB, including Metropolitan Kirill, who ultimately got  the job.
 According to material from the Soviet archives, Kirill was a KGB  agent (as was Alexei), explained Russia expert David Satter, a former  Moscow correspondent for the_ Financial Times_ and the _Wall Street Journal_, in a 2009 article for _Forbes_.  This means he was more than just an informer, of whom there were  millions in the Soviet Union. He was an active officer of the  organization. Neither Kirill nor Alexei ever acknowledged or apologized  for their ties with the security agencies. With Putin and Kirill both  tracing their careers back to the murderous KGB, their public affinity  for each other should hardly be considered surprising.     
 While the ROC is officially celebrated in Putin's Russia today, other Christian denominations have not fared so well.  Under the guise of targeting extremism, the Kremlin has been cracking  down on protestants, evangelicals, and more. In 2016, Moscow even  adopted a law purporting to ban Christian evangelism anywhere outside of  church buildings registered with the state. The law also purports to  ban house churches and requires that missionaries seek and obtain  government permits. A wide range of other draconian restrictions have  also been imposed. And they have been widely condemned by Christians  across Russia and around the world.
 In an open letter, Russias Baptist Council of Churches, for example,  wrote that the new religion regime would create conditions for the  repression of all Christians. Any person who mentions their religious  view or reflections out loud or puts them in writing, without the  relevant documents, could be accused of illegal missionary activity,  the Baptist Council warned. In an open letter to Putin, Sergei  Ryakhovsky, head of the Protestant Churches of Russia, warned of even  more terrifying implications. Soviet history shows us how many people  of different faiths have been persecuted for spreading the Word of God,  he said. This law brings us back to that shameful past.
 If a communist-inspired, counterfeit Christianity is what the Kremlin  wants, it even comes complete with its own saint. And in his  comments, Putin literally equated putting the dead body of savage mass  murderer Lenin on display in the heart of Moscow with certain Christian  churches venerating their saints and martyrs. Look, Lenin was put in a  mausoleum. How is this different from the relics of saints for Orthodox  Christians and just for Christians? Putin asked, neglecting to mention  that Christian saints served God and their fellow men while the  bloodthirsty tyrant slaughtered his victims by the millions. When they  say that there's no such tradition in Christianity, well, go to Athos  and take a look, there are relics of the saints there, and we have holy  relics here.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...y-putin-claims

----------


## jkr

EXCEPT for that *murdering*  hundreds of MILLIONS of people to get your way part...

----------


## William Tell

WTH? Always said Putin was still a KGB guy.

----------


## oyarde

> WTH? Always said Putin was still a KGB guy.


Once an evil , murdering ,thieving KGB Commie  , always an evil , murdering , thieving KGB Commie .

----------


## Anti Federalist

Plenty of leftists here who say the same thing.

And are they wrong?

Clearly, wealth and comfort are frowned upon by Christ, which is what free market capitalism brings to more people, more effectively than top down big brotherism.


*Michael Moore: Christianity and socialism are the ‘same thing’*

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/1...the-same-thing

Oct 27, 2016 5:19 pm

Filmmaker Michael Moore says being a Christian is the “same thing” as being a socialist.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews on Wednesday, the liberal activist, who says he voted for self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) for president in the Democratic primary, defended his decision to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. (Relevant portion begins around the 2:45 mark):

“You don’t understand what’s going to happen after 2016. These young people, these 18- to 35-year-olds — remember there’s 3 million more 18-year-old voters every single year — so by the next election that’s 12 million more of them,” Moore said. “They favor socialism over capitalism.”

Matthews interrupted, pointing out that “Hillary’s not a socialist.”

Moore responded: “Well, she’s a Christian, so it’s the same thing.”

“It’s all about making sure everyone has a seat at the table and the pie is divided so that everybody gets a slice,” Moore added. “Isn’t that what Christianity is? That’s what she’s about.”

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Compare and contrast. Most religions do share something in common with socialism and communism. They are belief systems. They often fill the role of "government" in creating law and punishment (despite claims of separation of church and state). They all want global dominion. Those are some comparisons.

----------


## pcosmar

Legalized Christianity.

Government approved Religion.

The error of Nimrod,, and in my opinion, an error that began in Rome (or at that time) and has continued.

----------


## Todd

> The New Testament, without going into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like . . .a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist . . .If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression.  We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced,’ but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned  -  C S Lewis   Mere Christianity


I on the other hand have always thought that was probable, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be one where people voluntarily decided to commune together in collective economy.  His definition and the Coercive Socialism are quite different I like to believe.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

New American.  C'mon. This is about the worst right wing source you could cite. Putin is playing to what the old (likely voters) Russians want to hear. "A recent poll by the Levada Centre showed the country is split down the middle in terms of support for Lenin’s burial. The poll showed 41 per cent favoured a formal burial, 41 per cent opposed and 18 per cent could not make up their minds."  Souce
I'm NOT a Putin fan, but at least get get the facts without bull$#@!.

----------


## sparebulb

Stories like this make me wonder whether the JBS is controlled opposition.

I like guys like Joel Skousen, who are big JBSers, but they can't break the cold war model that all communism comes from Russia and that they are bent on attacking us.

They should focus on the communists here and in western Europe.

----------


## seapilot

I must have missed the part in the bible where Jesus threatened peoples lives with force if they did not give tribute to the state for the good of the people.

----------


## Raginfridus

Ideologically they're similar, that's fair, and one reason I'll have nothing to do with it. Jon Hus and other heretics are forerunners of progressives; socialism is just Christianity w/o a God. A great book on the development of progressivism, socialism, and Utopias for the inquiring is Igor Shafarevich's The Socialist Phenomenon.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Putin is right.   The communist ideology and thoroughgoing statism has infected the Orthodox church.   It's now the state church.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Plenty of leftists here who say the same thing.
> 
> And are they wrong?
> 
> Clearly, wealth and comfort are frowned upon by Christ, which is what free market capitalism brings to more people, more effectively than top down big brotherism.
> 
> 
> *Michael Moore: Christianity and socialism are the ‘same thing’*
> 
> ...


Christ ASKS his followers to VOLUNTARILY care for the POOR, communism FORCES you to hand over EVERYTHING to the STATE.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ideologically they're similar, that's fair, and one reason I'll have nothing to do with it. Jon Hus and other heretics are forerunners of progressives; *socialism is just Christianity w/o a God*. A great book on the development of progressivism, socialism, and Utopias for the inquiring is Igor Shafarevich's The Socialist Phenomenon.


That's not true.   Socialism has its god, it's man in the state.   Man is the final authority.   Atheism is the source of the evils of statism.

----------


## lilymc

> The error of Nimrod,, and in my opinion, an error that began in Rome (or at that time) and has continued.


I'm more inclined to think it was by design. But yes, it has continued to this day....as we can see. :-/





> Christ ASKS his followers to VOLUNTARILY care for the POOR, communism FORCES you to hand over EVERYTHING to the STATE.


Exactly what I was going to say.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> New American.  C'mon. This is about the worst right wing source you could cite. Putin is playing to what the old (likely voters) Russians want to hear. "A recent poll by the Levada Centre showed the country is split down the middle in terms of support for Lenins burial. The poll showed 41 per cent favoured a formal burial, 41 per cent opposed and 18 per cent could not make up their minds."  Souce
> I'm NOT a Putin fan, but at least get get the facts without bull$#@!.


Nothing in the article you cited absolves Putin of promoting communism.

Wednesday, 05 July 2017		 		 	  	   	  *Russia to Host Major Internat'l Communist Youth Festival  on Putins Instructions*https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/26405-russia-to-host-major-international-communist-youth-festival-on-putin-s-personal-instructions

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Stories like this make me wonder whether the JBS is controlled opposition.
> 
> I like guys like Joel Skousen, who are big JBSers, but they can't break the cold war model that all communism comes from Russia and that they are bent on attacking us.
> 
> *They should focus on the communists here and in western Europe.*


They do.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Putin is right.   The communist ideology and thoroughgoing statism has infected the Orthodox church.   It's now the state church.


LOL

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nothing in the article you cited absolves Putin of promoting communism.
> 
> Wednesday, 05 July 2017                                     *Russia to Host Major Internat'l Communist Youth Festival — on Putin’s Instructions*
> 
> https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...l-instructions


So you just cite the New American AGAIN? PUH-LEEZE! LOLOL  (doubling down doesn't make it more credible, fyi. I still don't particularly like Putin, but I like credible sources if/when I go after him.)

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So you just cite the New American AGAIN? PUH-LEEZE! LOLOL  (doubling down doesn't make it more credible, fyi)


And you fail to debate the merits of the story again.

----------


## Raginfridus

> That's not true.   *Socialism has its god*, it's man in the state.   Man is the final authority.   Atheism is the source of the evils of statism.


Don't confuse terms.

----------


## RJB

> Putin is right.   The communist ideology and thoroughgoing statism has infected the Orthodox church.   It's now the state church.


Ronin Truth must have accidentally logged on this account.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And you fail to debate the merits of the story again.


I don't know that the story actually has merit, considering the source.  Rather like how I won't seriously engage an article from one of those tabloids that run stories about aliens and bigfoot.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I don't know that the story actually has merit, considering the source.  Rather like how I won't seriously engage an article from one of those tabloids that run stories about aliens and bigfoot.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ronin Truth must have accidentally logged on this account.


LOL

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


I think you don't know what that means.  Demanding a *credible source* for information isn't the same thing as denying said information is true.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I think you don't know what that means.  Demanding a *credible source* for information isn't the same thing as denying said information is true.


Pretending a source isn't credible because you don't like what it has to say is willing ignorance.

----------


## pcosmar

> Pretending a source isn't credible because you don't like what it has to say is willing ignorance.


No, But I can reject the premise on the basis of History.

The Russian Church and Russian State predated communism.
Christianity Predated Communism

Any alleged similarity comes from borrowing from Christianity.. 

I would not expect Mr. Putin to say anything so dumb, so I suspect a great deal of spin.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Pretending a source isn't credible because you don't like what it has to say is willing ignorance.


Except that's not why it's not credible. There are lots of sources I don't agree with that are credible. New American is known for playing fast and loose with facts and its strong bias.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, But I can reject the premise on the basis of History.
> 
> The Russian Church and Russian State predated communism.
> Christianity Predated Communism
> 
> Any alleged similarity comes from borrowing from Christianity.. 
> 
> I would not expect Mr. Putin to say anything so dumb, so I suspect a great deal of spin.


How about RT?

*Putin: Communist ideology similar to Christianity, Lenin’s body like saintly relics*https://www.rt.com/news/415883-putin...-christianity/



HB's article confirms the OP

*'Communism like Christianity and Lenin is a SAINT' claims Putin in shocking interview*https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/904717/Putin-communism-christianity-Russia-Lenin-saint-bolshevik-revolution-Stalin-atheism-news

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Except that's not why it's not credible. There are lots of sources I don't agree with that are credible. New American is known for playing fast and loose with facts and its strong bias.


LOL

----------


## pcosmar

@Swordsmyth

I reject the premise.. for the valid reasons stated.

That Putin is playing politics with the people (religious and otherwise) that is his business.

Communism sometimes sounds like Christianity,, because it borrowed from it.
(not the other way round)
And the Church and State were mixed from the first recorded government,,

and i believe an old error of the modern church.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ronin Truth must have accidentally logged on this account.


Facts are facts.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> @Swordsmyth
> 
> I reject the premise.. for the valid reasons stated.
> 
> That Putin is playing politics with the people (religious and otherwise) that is his business.
> 
> Communism sometimes sounds like Christianity,, because it borrowed from it.
> (not the other way round)
> And the Church and State were mixed from the first recorded government,,
> ...


I understand your position, YOU have a valid point of view whether I agree or not.

I say there is no such thing as an *EX*-KGB agent any more than there is an *EX*-CIA agent.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Don't confuse terms.


What's the confusion?   Socialism has as its final authority man in the state.   Nietzsche said the State is god on earth.

----------


## RJB

> Facts are facts.


The facts are that Bolshevism's war on Christianity killed 50 million people.  To equate the Orthodox Church to that is simply trolling for attention.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL


You can laugh all you want.  Facts are facts.

----------


## pcosmar

> I understand your position, YOU have a valid point of view whether I agree or not.
> 
> I say there is no such thing as an *EX*-KGB agent any more than there is an *EX*-CIA agent.


Ok,, Possible and likely. and irrelevant.

The US is every bit as socialist as Russia. only a somewhat different organization.
Russia's attempt with communism failed as did China's. and both are as socialist and as capitalist as the US.

Putin playing politics with both religious and patriotic people in his own country is not even relevant on a news scale.

----------


## Sola_Fide

*Communist Party Unites With Orthodox Church*

https://www.google.com/amp/www.aljaz...075756966.html

----------


## Raginfridus

> What's the confusion?   Socialism has as its final authority man in the state.   Nietzsche said the State is god on earth.


Then if socialism and Christianity are so similar, what's your argument exactly? Nobody said they're the same thing (in most cases).

----------


## Superfluous Man

Putin doesn't know the first thing about Christianity.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Ideologically they're similar, that's fair, and one reason I'll have nothing to do with it. Jon Hus and other heretics are forerunners of progressives; socialism is just Christianity w/o a God. A great book on the development of progressivism, socialism, and Utopias for the inquiring is Igor Shafarevich's The Socialist Phenomenon.


Ideologically, they are not similar.

In what way was John Hus a forerunner of the progressives? He lived 500 years before them, and was hardly one of their influences.

----------


## nikcers

> I understand your position, YOU have a valid point of view whether I agree or not.
> 
> I say there is no such thing as an *EX*-KGB agent any more than there is an *EX*-CIA agent.


I keep saying that there is no such thing as an ex wife but now she has a restraining order out on me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then if socialism and Christianity are so similar, what's your argument exactly? Nobody said they're the same thing (in most cases).


They aren't similar at all.   They have different gods.

----------


## sparebulb

> Putin doesn't know the first thing about Christianity.


I'm sure he knows more than you think.

Regardless of Putin's professed faith, it is a fact that the Soviet education system extensively taught divinity with the goal of discrediting it.

I think it is likely that most Russians know more about Christianity than most 'murikans.

----------


## tod evans

> I think it is likely that most Russians know more about Christianity than most 'murikans.


From what I know they certainly act as if they do...

I've never heard an Orthodox or a Russian tell Christians they were going to hell for not following their 'traditions...

Nor have I ever heard an Orthodox or a Russian tell another Christian that they weren't a Christian.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I'm sure he knows more than you think.


Being propagandized about a topic isn't the same as knowing it.

----------


## RJB

> Putin doesn't know the first thing about Christianity.


Oh wow!  How did you acquire this insight into the hearts of men?  Are you his wife?

----------


## Raginfridus

Wycliffe and his successor Hus were pure Statists. The King (the state) to Wycliffe was answerable only to God, an idea that developed into state sovereignty w/o the accoutrements of religion, until eventually it was OK to talk about states w/o God or Church, where every-man's a King. Show me a socialist prog, and I'll show you a Christian w/o a God.

----------


## sparebulb

> Being propagandized about a topic isn't the same as knowing it.


I'm just going to assume that Putin is way more knowledgeable about everything than you.

Sorry, but it is just a fact.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Wycliffe and his successor Hus were pure Statists. The King (the state) to Wycliffe was answerable only to God


As opposed to what alternative? The king being answerable to the pope, and the pope to God?

If every individual is answerable only to God, then it stands to reason that this is true of kings as well as commoners. That's not statism. And what does it have to do with progressivism anyway?

----------


## goldenequity

Russian Market  @russian_market
Vladimir Putin took a dip in the icy waters of Russia's Lake Seliger during the celebration of Epiphany. 
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT4hOoiWAAE2ZOh.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT4hOosX4AA6nip.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT4hOomW0AApjPN.jpg:large

U.S. consul general in Vladivostok joins in Epiphany bathing.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Wycliffe and his successor Hus were pure Statists.


Could you cite the writings of theirs where they advocate statism, so I can see for myself if that's an accurate reflection of what they said?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Putin's always been part of the relatively pro-market, anti-communist faction in Russian politics, so this is disappointing...

...on the other hand, it's probably just politicking, as @heavenlyboy34 said, and doesn't really mean much. 




> Nietzsche said the State is god on earth.


Hegel, not Nietzsche




> In what way was John Hus a forerunner of the progressives?


There  is a strong historical and ideological connection between low-church  Christianity and leftism. Ecclesiastical, political, and economic  egalitarianism are natural bedfellows: no bishop, no king, no  capitalist. The Taborites (unleashed by Hus) and the Progressives  (outgrowth of American low-church Protestantism) are examples. Of course  this doesn't mean that being a low-church Christian _requires_ being a leftist, nor vice versa; it's only a _tendency_.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> There  is a strong historical and ideological connection between low-church  Christianity and leftism.


That's not what I asked.

John Hus lived in the 1400's. I don't see how you can connect the Taborites with 20th century progressives.

ETA: Also, note how you and Raginfridus are both trying to connect Hus with modern leftism by opposite claims. He says Hus, following Wycliffe, taught statism by way of increasing the belief in the king's divine right to rule. You mention "no king" as an element of his contribution to leftism.

I don't know which of you is right, because I don't recall ever reading anything he taught about kings, and I don't believe that a doctrine about the state was a central part of his teaching. But whatever the case, I highly doubt any connection between him (however he fit into the politics of his day) and modern leftism as we understand it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Putin's always been part of the relatively pro-market, anti-communist faction in Russian politics, so this is disappointing...
> 
> ...on the other hand, it's probably just politicking, as @heavenlyboy34 said, and doesn't really mean much. 
> 
> 
> 
> Hegel, not Nietzsche
> 
> 
> ...


Yes,  you're right.  It was Nietzsche that said there is nothing in this world except the will to power.   

You are right as well that there is a connection between low church Protestantism and statism, but there is a connection between every religion,  including atheism,  and statism.   Statism, in one form or another,  is the reality of our history and world.  

But in the reformation, you can't deny that ecclesiastical decentralization fed into a greater decentralization in all the rest of life.   The seeds of federalism came out of that ecclesiastical decentralization.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> there is a connection between low church  Protestantism and statism, but there is a connection between every  religion


There is a _unique_ connection between  low-church religion and leftism. As I said, ecclesiastical leveling  often becomes political leveling (democracy) and economic leveling  (socialism). You see this with the revolutionary groups of medieval  Europe (Taborites, coercive Anabaptists); the radicals of the English  Revolution (Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men: even the mainstream  Parliamentarians); the republican-leaning Huguenots in early-modern  France; the French philosophes that generated the revolutionary ideology  of the 18th century (e.g. Rousseau); and the 19th century American  Republicans (soon to become Progressives). There's nothing comparable  for high church Christianity, whether Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or even  relatively high-church Protestantism (e.g. Anglicanism). I should note  that this high-church/low-church distinction isn't unique to  Christianity (it really has nothing to do with Christian theology). The  same trends are evident in Mazdakism, a low-church version of Zorostrianism that generated a communist movement in ancient Persia. 




> But  in the reformation, you can't deny that ecclesiastical decentralization  fed into a greater decentralization in all the rest of life


If by decentralization you mean egalitarian tendencies, then yes, that's precisely my point.




> The seeds of federalism came out of that ecclesiastical decentralization.


How so?




> John Hus lived in the 1400's. I don't see how you can connect the Taborites with 20th century progressives.


Martin Luther was separated from Christ by fifteen centuries; does this mean there's no relation?

Once again, teachings such as those of Hus (i.e. low church teachings) tend to generate political and economic egalitarianism. 

Hus (church leveling) --> Taborites (political/economic leveling)

Yankee Pietism (church levelling) --> Progressives (political/economic leveling)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There is a _unique_ connection between  low-church religion and leftism. As I said, ecclesiastical leveling  often becomes political leveling (democracy) and economic leveling  (socialism). You see this with the revolutionary groups of medieval  Europe (Taborites, coercive Anabaptists); the radicals of the English  Revolution (Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men: even the mainstream  Parliamentarians); the republican-leaning Huguenots in early-modern  France; the French philosophes that generated the revolutionary ideology  of the 18th century (e.g. Rousseau); and the 19th century American  Republicans (soon to become Progressives). There's nothing comparable  for high church Christianity, whether Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or even  relatively high-church Protestantism (e.g. Anglicanism). I should note  that this high-church/low-church distinction isn't unique to  Christianity (it really has nothing to do with Christian theology). The  same trends are evident in Mazdakism, a low-church version of Zorostrianism that generated a communist movement in ancient Persia. 
> 
> 
> 
> If by decentralization you mean egalitarian tendencies, then yes, that's precisely my point.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> ...


No.   Egalitarianism came out of enlightenment thinking, pantheism and atheism.   The violent French Revolution was atheistic egalitarianism.  Then when you go to the low church Calvinistic Baptists in early America, you see an insistence on liberty (but not egalitarianism).  Read the Danbury Baptist letter to Thomas Jefferson.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There is a _unique_ connection between  low-church religion and leftism. As I said, ecclesiastical leveling  often becomes political leveling (democracy) and economic leveling  (socialism). You see this with the revolutionary groups of medieval  Europe (Taborites, coercive Anabaptists); the radicals of the English  Revolution (Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men: even the mainstream  Parliamentarians); the republican-leaning Huguenots in early-modern  France; the French philosophes that generated the revolutionary ideology  of the 18th century (e.g. Rousseau); and the 19th century American  Republicans (soon to become Progressives). There's nothing comparable  for high church Christianity, whether Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or even  relatively high-church Protestantism (e.g. Anglicanism). I should note  that this high-church/low-church distinction isn't unique to  Christianity (it really has nothing to do with Christian theology). The  same trends are evident in Mazdakism, a low-church version of Zorostrianism that generated a communist movement in ancient Persia. 
> 
> 
> 
> If by decentralization you mean egalitarian tendencies, then yes, that's precisely my point.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> ...


How did the seeds of federalism come out of the Reformations ecclesiastical decentralization?   Read any of the several Presbyterian or Baptist Constitutions from the time period or shortly after.   You can see the model for our own Constitution very clearly.   This has been cited by several people.

And I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, I'm a voluntarist, I don't think written Constitutions mean anything in the grand scheme of things.   But it is the history.

----------


## devil21

Communism would be a great thing if not for the fact that it would be comprised of humans.  But since it is, it is always doomed for failure.  Jesus preached to take care of each other.  A great thought and one I support.  Unfortunately things are way too far gone for that to be a viable solution now.  Maybe try again after the giant meteor?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No.   Egalitarianism came out of enlightenment  thinking, pantheism and atheism.   The violent French Revolution was  atheistic egalitarianism.


The Enlightenment originated in  Protestant and low-church Catholic thought, following the Reformation,  esp. during the French Wars of Religion and English Revolution (see the  groups I cited above). By the time of the French Revolution, there was  definitely an atheist element in play, but this is really just a  continuation of the aforementioned. Atheism is, in a sense, the logical  conclusion of low-church thinking (a good example being the  transformation of 19th century Yankee pietism into 20th century atheist  Progressivism).  




> Then when you go to the low church  Calvinistic Baptists in early America, you see an insistence on liberty  (but not egalitarianism).


In the 19th century, low-church  groups voted overwhelming Republican (the leftist party of the day),  while high-church groups voted overwhelmingly Democrat (the liberal  party of the day). This is an historical fact. Around the turn of the  20th century, the pietists started calling themselves Progressives. Over  time they became atheists (as did their low-church cousins in Europe)  This is the origin of American Progressivism.




> How did the seeds of federalism come out of the Reformations ecclesiastical decentralization?   Read any of the several Presbyterian or Baptist Constitutions from the time period or shortly after.   You can see the model for our own Constitution very clearly.   This has been cited by several people.
> 
> And I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, I'm a voluntarist, I don't think written Constitutions mean anything in the grand scheme of things.   But it is the history.


Ecclesiastical leveling certainly sowed the seeds for _democracy_ (that is not a good thing), but I'm not so sure about federalism. Even though federalism it fits within the general framework of leveling, and it's easy to see how low church thinking_ could_ promote federalism, I don't see how it actually _did_. First, unlike democracy, federalism was not a new and radical idea; in fact, it was the old idea (centralization was the new idea in early modern Europe). Second, despite the US (and the Netherlands, we might add) there was no big movement toward federalism.

P.S. One explanation for this might be that there's a tension between federalism and democracy (and also nationalism, which democracy unleashed). True believers in democracy have always tended to want the people to speak with a single Collective Voice (or whatever is the asinine slogan), and so the idea of dividing the people into different groups is problematic (we see this today with the controversy over the electoral college, which is "undemocratic"). As for nationalism, you might think it would encourage federalism, and in some circumstances it could, but more often the opposite. In an ethically homogeneous state, federalism means dividing the nation into groups (the very opposite of what nationalists want: see pan-German or pan-Italian movements in the 19th century). In an ethnically diverse state, federalism might seem like a perfect solution, but more often the nationalists in each group would rather have outright independence (see the Habsburg Empire in the 19th century). So, the point is, if low church thinking tended to encourage federalism, that was largely quashed by the democracy (and through that nationalism) which it also encouraged.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Enlightenment originated in  Protestant and low-church Catholic thought, following the Reformation,  esp. during the French Wars of Religion and English Revolution (see the  groups I cited above). By the time of the French Revolution, there was  definitely an atheist element in play, but this is really just a  continuation of the aforementioned. Atheism is, in a sense, the logical  conclusion of low-church thinking (a good example being the  transformation of 19th century Yankee pietism into 20th century atheist  Progressivism).  
> 
> 
> 
> In the 19th century, low-church  groups voted overwhelming Republican (the leftist party of the day),  while high-church groups voted overwhelmingly Democrat (the liberal  party of the day). This is an historical fact. Around the turn of the  20th century, the pietists started calling themselves Progressives. Over  time they became atheists (as did their low-church cousins in Europe)  This is the origin of American Progressivism.
> 
> 
> 
> Ecclesiastical leveling certainly sowed the seeds for _democracy_ (that is not a good thing), but I'm not so sure about federalism. Even though federalism it fits within the general framework of leveling, and it's easy to see how low church thinking_ could_ promote federalism, I don't see how it actually _did_. First, unlike democracy, federalism was not a new and radical idea; in fact, it was the old idea (centralization was the new idea in early modern Europe). Second, despite the US (and the Netherlands, we might add) there was no big movement toward federalism.
> ...


The enlightenment came out of Protestant thought??  I'm sorry,  that's obviously not the case.  The Reformation stood squarely opposed to the Enlightenment.   I don't know how you could say that.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So you just cite the New American AGAIN? PUH-LEEZE! LOLOL  (doubling down doesn't make it more credible, fyi. I still don't particularly like Putin, but I like credible sources if/when I go after him.)


I *liked* the The New American, when the late, great Will Grigg was at the helm.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The enlightenment came out of Protestant thought??  I'm sorry,  that's obviously not the case.


As  I've explained, with examples, both democracy and anti-capitalism had  their origins in Protestant (or otherwise low-church) movements.

I've  cited the Taborites, coercive Anabaptists, Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men,  Roundheads, Huguenots, Jansenists, and Yankees/Progressives.

Do you have a specific rebuttal? Are you claiming that those groups weren't low-church..?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Martin Luther was separated from Christ by fifteen centuries; does this mean there's no relation?


No. But in this case we can identify the connection clearly and specifically by showing Luther's heavy dependance on the the teachings of Jesus and the writings of the earliest followers of Jesus, as well as the continuous tradition of passing on those teachings within the Church over those 15 centuries. Luther's own stated goal was to bring the Church back to focus on those teachings of 15 centuries prior. If you doubt this, it can be easily proven by Luther's writings.

If you or raginfridus believe that we can show a similar dependence on John Hus by 20th century Progressives, I would like to see the actual evidence, not bare assertions.

Notice also that you seem to be conflating different things by the way you use egalitarianism (in all it's various forms) interchangeably with leftism. In your paradigm, classical liberalism was leftist, just as its polar opposite Progressivism was. Statism and anarchism are both leftist for you. Everything that's not monarchism is. You've given yourself an unfalsifiable position.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If you or raginfridus believe that we can show a similar dependence on John Hus by 20th century Progressives, I would like to see the actual evidence, not bare assertions.


For the low church origins of Progressivism, see _World War I as Fulfillment: Powers and the Intellectuals_

https://mises.org/library/world-war-...-intellectuals




> Notice also that you seem to be conflating different things by the way you use egalitarianism (in all it's various forms) interchangeably with leftism. In your paradigm, classical liberalism was leftist, just as its polar opposite Progressivism was. Statism and anarchism are both leftist for you. Everything that's not monarchism is. You've given yourself an unfalsifiable position.


Nowhere have I stated or implied that classical liberalism was leftist. 

What I'm calling leftism is, as I thought I made pretty damn clear, political leveling (democracy) and economic leveling (socialism).

----------


## Ender

> I *liked* the The New American, when the late, great Will Grigg was at the helm.


Same. Miss Grigg, tons.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> For the low church origins of Progressivism, see _World War I as Fulfillment: Powers and the Intellectuals_


Again, not what I asked, and not related to the claim raginfridus made that I replied to in the first place.

I did a search for the string "hus" at that link, and not once occurrence was a mention of John Hus.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I did a search for the string "hus" at that link, and not once occurrence was a mention of John Hus.


You can't fathom the connection between Hus and low-church Christianity?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You can't fathom the connection between Hus and low-church Christianity?


Sure I can. When you don't specify in what respect, there are all kinds of ways to draw connections between Hus and low-church Christianity.

But when you specify that you're talking specifically about connections between Hus and 20th century Progressivism, saying that Progressivism had some roots in low-church Christianity in some respects, and low-church Christianity had some connections to Hus in some respects, doesn't accomplish that.

Your inability to find any specific evidence connecting Progressivism to Hus is conspicuous. It's almost as if you don't actually know of any and can't find any when you look.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Sure I can. When you don't specify in what respect, there are all kinds of ways to draw connections between Hus and low-church Christianity.
> 
> But when you specify that you're talking specifically about connections between Hus and 20th century Progressivism, saying that Progressivism had some roots in low-church Christianity in some respects, and low-church Christianity had some connections to Hus in some respects, doesn't accomplish that.
> 
> Your inability to find any specific evidence connecting Progressivism to Hus is conspicuous. It's almost as if you don't actually know of any and can't find any when you look.




I'm going to call it a day.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I'm going to call it a day.


Maybe @Raginfridus can come up with something. They've been pretty quiet since making the original outlandish claim about Progressivism being influenced by Hus.

----------


## lilymc

*Sigh*

----------


## Raginfridus

> Maybe @Raginfridus can come up with something. They've been pretty quiet since making the original outlandish claim about Progressivism being influenced by Hus.


Men don't live long enough to corner the ideas market and stop others from adapting their bad ideas further. The 19th century's Progressives began in the low-church Protestant religions of America and England. It is what it is, sorry.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Men don't live long enough to corner the ideas market and stop others from adapting their bad ideas further. The 19th century's Progressives began in the low-church Protestant religions of America and England. It is what it is, sorry.


John Hus did go to England in the 1300's. But I doubt that many 19th century progressives knew or cared anything about that.

The claim you made, and the question I asked, was about John Hus.

Some citations of specific evidence that led you to that conclusion would be nice. Do you know of any?

----------


## Ender

> I on the other hand have always thought that was probable, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be one where people voluntarily decided to commune together in collective economy.  His definition and the Coercive Socialism are quite different I like to believe.


I think that a true Christian society would be completely voluntary, so from the outside it might look a bit like socialism/communism. But as a voluntary society, people would help each other and provide needs for each other because they wanted to- not because they were forced.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Men don't live long enough to corner the ideas market and stop others from adapting their bad ideas further. The 19th century's Progressives began in the low-church Protestant religions of America and England. It is what it is, sorry.


No that's not what it is.  If you want to stretch it,  you could say that the social gospel of the early 1900s played in to the progressive movement, but that was not simply "low church". It was basically "no church", because it rejected the Bible.  Also, the Roman Catholic Church was just as much a progenitor. That is "high church".

And your assertion completely ignores the social Darwinism of the time period, which I argue is the true forerunner to progressivism.  Also,  you completely ignore the fact that the social gospel is in derogation of the Bible.   It rejects God's moral law, whose foundation is property.

----------


## Raginfridus

Surely you don't mean we must be familiar with somebody to be influenced by them... Do you want me to detail in so many posts how Progressivism's conceits came to be over the centuries? Are you going to read and consider everything I post if I do? (Can I charge you for the service?) Because I'm not up to it, least of all for a man like Putin's sake.

If you're up to it I cited a work which tackles the long development of Socialism, particularly it's midwife Christian heresy.

----------


## Raginfridus

> And your assertion completely ignores the social Darwinism of the time period, which I argue is the true forerunner to progressivism. Also, you completely ignore the fact that the social gospel is in derogation of the Bible. It rejects God's moral law, whose foundation is property.


 Social. Gospel. ...? Sounds like a name somebody invented out of frustration, because they couldn't honestly admit their religion was flawed somewhere. The Social Gospel might be heresy, but its still a Christian one. For what its worth, I have no idea what Putin means by "very similar" - I take it "Christianity" to him is only EO/RO - which is why I never used "very".

Also, if 19th cent. Papists were struggling internally with Progressivism and Socialism, that's interesting and didn't know that. I can see it in the 20th for sure.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Social. Gospel. ...? Sounds like a name somebody invented out of frustration, because they couldn't honestly admit their religion was flawed somewhere. The Social Gospel might be heresy, but its still a Christian one. For what its worth, I have no idea what Putin means by "very similar" - I take it "Christianity" to him is only EO/RO - which is why I never used "very".


A great book to put this all in perspective is C. Gregg Singer's A Theological Interpretation Of American History.  It's still in my top 5 books I've ever read.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Also, Transcendentalism was the forerunner to progressivism in America, and that was 100 years before what we are talking about.

----------


## Raginfridus

You guys and your books... :P There's another for the list.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You guys and your books... :P There's another for the list.


You don't read?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Another great book about how the history of theology intersected with the political order is The One And The Many by Rousas Rushdoony.

----------


## Raginfridus

> You don't read?


I mean another for the reading list. I do read some, not as much as I used to. I'm on call more often during winter, opposed to just normal hours, so my list is backed up more than usual. That's all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I mean another for the reading list. I do read some, not as much as I used to. I'm on call more often during winter, opposed to just normal hours, so my list is backed up more than usual. That's all.


Oh gotcha.

----------


## Raginfridus



----------


## Sola_Fide

> 


What is that?

----------


## Raginfridus

Like I said, the burning of Jan Hus.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Like I said, the burning of Jan Hus.


But what does "socialist" have to do with it?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

While Jesus today may have spoken  against Wall Street scams, there is no confirmed proof that Jesus was a socialist.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> While Jesus today may have spoken  against Wall Street scams, there is no confirmed proof that Jesus was a socialist.


There is proof he isn't:

*Leviticus 19:15*  “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in  judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the  person of the mighty: _but_ in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” 

King James Version (KJV)



*Exodus 30:15*  “The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when _they_ give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.” 

King James Version (KJV)

----------


## Swordsmyth

A  Russian Orthodox bishop has advised the faithful not to vote for  Vladimir Putin when he stands for re-election in March, a nearly unheard  of occurrence in the loyal church.
The  angry statement marked the first time an acting bishop has spoken  against supporting the current president, according to the independent  newspaper Novaya Gazeta, but it was motivated by Mr Putin's perceived  impiety rather than political differences. 
Bishop  Yevtikhy Kurochkin of the epiphany cathedral in the Siberian city of  Ishim wrote on his page on VK, Russia's most popular social network,  that he could no longer follow his “desire to vote for Putin” following  “blasphemous” remarks by the president.
“'If  the light that is in you is darkness, how great is your darkness!' are  the words of Christ,” Mr Kurochkin wrote. “And will I go against Christ  to vote for darkness or advise anyone to do this? No, no and no!”

Bishop Yevtikhy Kurochkin

The  bishop was angered by comments in a state television film about Valaam,  an island of monasteries and churches in Lake Ladoga where the  president has a holiday home. Mr Putin had argued that the Soviet regime  had “adapted” Christian ideas for its communist ideology, including in  its mummification of Vladimir Lenin, whose body remains on display on  Red Square.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/bishop-te...131425858.html

----------

