Gloating Liberals

Can we get back on topic, please.

Besides, the gloves are latex, not rubber, lol. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I don't think Jesus wore either kind.

 

Bear in mind that many who vehemently argue to the contrary use the terms "socialist" and "communist" interchangeably, and others who simultaneously refer to President Obama (often making reference to his middle name) as a "socialist" and a "fascist." Don't expect these people to grasp your point.

Regards, hope this post finds you well,
BiR (in St. Louis) - a bona fide LIBERAL!
:laugh:

 

I would argue that the current state of the church has nothing to do with the prervailing political philosophy in the country. The strongest examples o0f Christ's church are usually in countries where they are persecuted not in countries which claim to be a "Christian nation." In fact, that attitude is really what's wrong with the church in America today. People identify with the church/state as if it were a single entity. Christians are admonished in the Bible to be in this world but not of this world. You and most conservative Christians argue the opposite. The Church should be of this world and this world should be of the Church.

 

Freedom, you and Crabtown Boy must have had the same logic teacher or else you both drink the same koolaide jug.

Most Conservative Chrisitians are not in favor of a theocracy as you describe except that it be Jesus on the throne (Which will literally happen on earth one day.) However, we do not seperate our Christianity from our vote, etc.

 

I don't.

It is amazing how the extreme right-wing attacks the truth that Jesus Christ would be considered a liberal in His day.


This goes to show the grasp the conservatives (republicans) have over so many in today's church. To hate the word "liberal" so much that they refuse to look at the evidence directly in front of their faces, shows that on some issues there is no dialog is possible at all!

 

Perhaps we would be more persuaded to your position if you provided more than your opinion.

How about a little documentation?

Perhaps you could start with the Greek and Hebrew for the words "liberal" and "conservative" and show us some ancient writing which used those words in a political or social context.

 

All you have to do is read your Bible, see what the conservatives, the Pharasees, believed, learn about the culture of those times and you will see that Jesus was very liberal.

I gave a few examples in an earlier post.

 

Using the word "culture" only shows your ignorance. Jesus could not have been more conservative in comparison to the lost and liberal pharisees who had taken liberalalities with the law and changed it from what God intended. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees was not about culture but about the law and the Messiah.

A sure sign of a liberal is they think they can throw the word "culture" into anything to justify their position.

 

"Jesus was a liberal" has to be the most unschooled biblical position I have yet to see.

Mitch is correct, as the examples that have been posted. Pharisees, with their twisting of scripture, and their self-exalting brow beating of others, were the liberals. CTB has not posted a single conservative position the Pharisees held. Nor has Mr. Snow. Jesus' positions were not liberal, they were scriptural. As the examples show.

 

Of course... according to your world view: All liberals are good - all conservatives are bad.

From this we know that Cain was conservative and Abel was liberal.

Just read your Bible to see what the bad conservative Cain did to the good liberal Abel.

It's all so easy when you put on your liberal colored glasses.

 

I don't believe I've made a value judgement on either liberals or conservatives. I simply said study their culture, study the Bible and there is on other conclusion you cam come to that than people in Jesus time on earth would have considered him liberal.

Now that is a liberal interpretation of Cain and Abel. I would never make such a statement.

Again it is illogical to make a statement about Cain and Able when we are discussing Christ.

We could turn that around and apply conservative glasses to you.

However, I do not consider myself liberal in the traditional sense of liberal. Would you explain to me what you mean when you say 'liberal?" Thanks in advance.

During the time Jesus was on earth the Sadducees would have been considered more conservative than the Pharisees. But compared to Jesus they were also conservative. The Pharisees had an insteresting statement, ""A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest." (A mamzer, according to the Pharasaic definition, is an outcast child born of a forbidden relationship, such as adultery or incest, in which marriage of the parents could not lawfully occur.) [From Wikipedia] However, the Pharisees would neve have eaten with anyone they considered sinners and certainly would never have talked to a women in public. Jesus did both. In fact this was one of the criticism of Jesus, he was a wine bibber and was often with sinners. That, in that day, was a very liberal thing to do.

Here is an interesting statement showing Jesus was conservative concerning moral issues and yet liberal when it came to social issues. I had not considered Jesus in this way before, I had been thinking of social issues only in this thread ... I believe the fellow is on to something here:

http://searchwarp.com/swa380626.htm

 

Why is that ? What is so illogical about it ?

 

Liberalism challenges the status quo. Conservatism is resistant to change. I would say that the Pharisees were definitely conservative...in fact, ultra-conservative, in that they did not like having their traditions challenged. Jesus was a liberal, in that he came to show us that the strict interpretation of the law was not correct. Instead, sabbath was made for man, not vice versa. I also would say he was a humanist, in that he cared for the downtrodden of society, wishing to better the human condition.

 

Strict Interpretation has nothing to do with being correct. Strict means giving no room for leniency. Christ never allowed for any such thing. In fact he refused leniency with divorce and the money changers. Your post is just one more clear example of libbies reaching to justify their position. Thanks for making my point.

Quite the liberal interpretation. He reached out to those who were rejected with love but His concern was strictly eternal. His healing and miracles were to show who he was, to fulfill scripture, to glorify God not to improve mans condition. Christ died on the cross ultimately to glorify God and the salvation of men was the means by which to do that. Your utilitarian religion couldn't be more liberal.

 

Actually yours is the liberal interpretation as you try to force the Bible to say what it does not say.

Read the following quote please:

 

In the traditional sense of the liberal...

This implies that there are other definitions of liberal.

I take it that your definition of liberal is one that you have consturcted according to your personal beliefs, experiences and values.

That is fine - but if you wish to define a word such as "liberal" in a unique way than there is no basis for discussion as to whether Jesus was a "liberal".

And in doing so you make the whole discussion pointless.

 

When you use the word liberal, what do you mean. What is your definition of liberal?

 

That is your habit as has been evidenced on this forum quite often.Again your ungodly utilitarian religion is not the gospel of the One true and Living God. The true gospel is about glorifying God not man's happiness.

 

You are the one making the assertion that Jesus was a liberal. Not me.

What difference would it make what my definition of liberal is.

It's your assertion.

If you can make up your own definitions of words you might as well say that Herod was a peanut butter sandwich.