Long comment ahead, that happens when i leave the phone for the computer, sry :/ :

Einstein’s “god” probably is. Mainstream christian god, as described by the bible, definitely isn’t.

I.d.k. how Einstein described God, if it's like Spinoza, as we often hear, then i hope that it wasn't entirely like Spinoza, who was closer to atheists than i first thought.
But you're mentioning the Bible, what's the one you're thinking about, the Eternal ? If so, well, Eternity is difficult to grasp, perhaps that God is only the First Cause(, and what that Cause became).
I'm thinking about that one : I am what I am
Christian theology didn't stop with the New Testament, just like for every other religion.

Rationality is different from materialism. Theology is based on an explicitly idealist concepts which it then rationally develops.

Religious axioms like the golden Rule ? Ethicists have tried to start from a material standpoint, and theologians as well, like, i.m.o. God's existence is certain under some definitions : I know that something exist, i can't doubt that something is existing right now(, Descartes wasn't the first to start from this), hence God defined as the All necessarily exists, whatever that All may entail.
And my argument would be that God is even greater than the All, e.g. by distinguishing quality and quantity, etc.

I first learned about materialism//idealism in regard to consciousness, and in that regard, i believe that consciousness is a product of our material body(, in other words the pseudo-material body, that we're being conscious of, only exist in our consciousness ; while our really material body exists outside of our consciousness, and that holds true in the case of a simulation), even if i leave some room to entertain a twist.
On the other side, i hope that you're not materialist to the point of denying that there are at least two worlds(, an infinity more would say Spinoza i.i.r.c., i never went beyond the beginning of two of his books t.b.h.), one of Idea(l)s and the other material. Saying that the world of Idea(l)s is inside or produced by the material world would only make it a qualitatively different subworld inside the material world, justifying the distinction. Mesuring a nervous signal and linking it to a complete chart to give it some meaning wouldn't be the same as measuring a thought or a qualia. But since you probably agree that there are obviously at least two distinct world, material and immaterial/ideal, then that paragraph wasn't useful.
God is both in the material and ideal world(, and the others inaccessible to humans), i don't understand the materialist point of view. (edit : i was thinking that God defined as Highness could be seen as (the )All ; but if Highness is seen as Maximum/Perfection, then S.H..e would exist in the ideal world, yet only in potential in the material world)
If you're stating distinctions like "it's not idea(l)s that creates the environment, but the environment that creates our idea(l)s", then it's kinda obviously both ? And it's not because humanity discovered God, or at least the few we can fathom, that God was hence created, just like scientific inventions that are discoveries of a now unveiled pre-existing potential of our reality.

What i agree with is that in order to change the material conditions, then having a materialist approach is useful(, and we can see God in the inviolable rules of our reality, as well as in causality), however changing the spiritual conditions is useful as well, and that was the point of this post : material conditions will never be enough to quench our thirst. Leaders of nations should probably be more materialists than idealists in their decisions, they should especially precede them with experiments to fully understand the consequences. However, individuals should perhaps be a bit more idealists than materialists when we're interacting with other persons, as well as when planning for the future ?
Wouldn't you say that stoics are idealists when they say "you're sad because of your consciousness and not because of the world, so it's your decision to stop being sad" ? Would a materialist like you claim that prayers have no use ?
I believe that attributing a consciousness to, e.g., a car or a computer, will make me take more care of it, such feelings bring material consequences.

But i agree with you that educating the masses won't change their social position, most crimes are made by young males in poor urban areas, i don't&won't deny the evident influence of material conditions on ideas, we imperatively need to have the same standard of living throughout Earth.
But our standard of living is higher and our population is multiplied and yet we/i still look at the past with the admiration of something unreachable, everyone in the Renaissance expressed h.er.im.self beautifully, we've lost that. And our present could be worse though, but we don't even aim for a well-defined goal, so what promise are westerners even standing for.

I doubt our discussion would be of much value. I won’t be able to come up with anything that’s not been written already by Engels and later Lenin.

I believe that this sentence could be taken on the first degree, but if it's also a reference to the way i ended that comment, then it'd be a pertinent critic, and i use that occasion to rectify myself and say instead that i should have no good reason to refuse a debate, since it'd be like refusing to learn, i.e. to be better. ("no good reason" was a bad choice of word, i feel late and i'd like to hurry up so it does feel like debating/learning/'becoming better' isn't the best use of my time, and perhaps yours as well)
I don't think i've read Lenin’s “Socialism and Religion”(, even if it's possible with such title), it's now added to a list of books i should read.

This song, from Max Romeo, who died recently, is the first that Red Creators Network made.
Joshua is an interesting name, because Jesus can be written Yehoshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) YHWH saves, in aramean Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ), and Joshua is also the name of the son of Nun, an homonym with the equivalent of the First Cause in Egypt, and the successor of Moses, in other words "Joshua, son of Nun" echoes "Jesus, son of God".
Moreover, nun(נוּן or nun–vav–nun) means fish in hebrew, and is also the 14th letter in the middle of the alphabet, with a numerical value of 700, that apparently gave us the N through semitic/phenician similarities with the greek, but it looks like a J : נ. You also have other interpretations apparently, such as the snake here, or seed there. The wiki article confirms the link with the snake, who's never assimilated to the devil in Genesis.
Many names in the old testament start with a J, even Mark was named John(, “YHWH has shown grace”), Mark being his greco-roman name. It's perhaps not coincidental that the name of the first two gospels of Mark and Matthew look similar, with the M preceding the N. Unlike Mark, Matthew was an hebrew name that means gift of YHWH. There's also the tribe of Judah and Simeon.

It doesn't prove anything about Jesus-Christ, it may have been a relatively frequent jewish name, Isaiah/Yesha‘yahu also means "YHWH saves", and is the most cited in the Gospels. There are other layers to the appellation son of God, such as stating that Adam was the son of God and that we descend from Eve&Adam, or discussing the differences between the son of Man and the son of God. If you read the gospels, you'll see that their authors weren't lying because they talked in symbols, sometimes signs, and others straight-out explanations. These texts were meant to provide for a lifetime of contemplation, and were deeply thought of, probably at first from memory through many announcements, and in a very specific time, the second temple being destroyed in 70 A.D., around the first gospel of Mark, etc.
Don't doubt that the people of the past knew this if they've read the gospels with a minimum of devotion, it's written clearly enough, more than in some places of the old testament, but we're still ignoring that great mystery in 2025, and unavoidably it'll leak from the Internet one day, it's kinda miraculous that it hasn't already have, it's not even really hidden(, and i'm not even tempted to read a book to know all of them, it's a pleasure to understand by oneself).
There are some books of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted allegorically, and others more rationally. Even if there's always a mix of both, the Gospels followed the former while the holy Quran followed the latter.
(Edit : and it's been some time since i began to think that christian teachings are more adapted to individuals, and islamic teachings to states/leaders, making a fusion easier)
I'veno doubts about overly weird "coincidences" though(, i still remember three of them that happened this year), if it means that God sees us then it's frightening. I can only hope to somehow lighten the weight of my sins, and wouldn't trust someone that doesn't recognize s.he's a sinner(, and/or who isn't scared of lengthening its list).

In short, i choose both materialism and idealism, sorry if i wrote this too long comment while missing the point of view that you have on this, i.d.k. much about the opposition idealism//materialism.

That's only if you read the literal kinning. There are multiple, for reasons.