Gloating Liberals

I don't separate Christianity from my vote either. But I don't think it's important at all whether the state allows the Ten Commandments or a manger scene to be put up on the court house lawn.

 

That is not entirely true within the context of their times, and it's almost impossible to make a comparison with our times. The Pharisees were a religio-political party/sect in opposition to the Sadducees. While most Bible-reading Christians know about the 2 parties from the 4 gospels and the book of Acts, I would venture to say that most could not explain the differences in their objectives. But instead of some treatise on that, the bottom line was the Sadducees totally rejected the "oral tradition," or Oral Law, which the Pharisees considered as binding as the written law. Thus, the Pharisees taught according to both, and many of their conflicts with Jesus came from that perspective-- ceremonial handwashing, specifically what is not allowed on the sabbath, et al. The Sadducees were in control of the temple and were aristocratic. They acquiesced to Rome as long as the Romans let them keep their temple and their property. So-- the Pharisees, who added to the Law, who challenged the power and property of the opposition, and who believed a religion must change to suit changing times (the Jews had been relocating to other lands and their new rules were meant to keep them "pure")-- they were the conservatives of the time?

But I don't mean to say the Sadducees were the conservatives, either. While they were literalists for the Mosaic Law-- they believed "an eye for an eye" meant literally that, unlike the Pharisees who believed a price could be put on an eye for compensation-- they were actually liberal in a person's own account of himself and they thought God really didn't care if one does what is "good" or "evil," since we live and we die and it's all over. The Law was for holiness-- being separated-- and could do them (worldly) good if they followed it word-for-word. IOW they cared about little but themselves in the here-&-now, and as long as a person or outsider didn't threaten that, they werent' concerned. But the tiniest 'threat'-- like speaking against the temple-- was worthy of death in their minds. Thus, Jesus driving out the merchants and rumored to have said he would destroy it made them murderous toward him.

So neither Pharisees nor Sadducees were "conservative" in the more modern sense. The '3rd party,' the Essenes, would be closer to that description; but they would really be more like the killer of the abortion doctor, whose act most conservatives today do condemn. Modern Judaism, obviously, came from the Pharasaic tradition, which made the Oral Law into a written law.

 

Au contraire. No one appointed you to be the arbiter of how to correctly apply Christianity, nor does anyone on the right have that role. You are incorrectly mixing things of God with things of Caesar.

 

Not at all. You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese if you like. However, you make absolute statements as if they are facts rather than opinion. You slander your fellow brothers & sisters who are liberal politically, then play the victim. Think whatever you want, but don't confuse your opinion with the facts...see my Moynihan quote below.

 

And you would be correct and on solid biblical ground. We are not to live dual hypocritical lives. We are to speak out against the political movements that will destroy society and turn it form God.

 

I think that there are quite a few unresolved problems with this thread, chief of which is that we're unable to agree on the definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. The definitions will vary according to cultural and theological contexts, eg: the definitions in the US will differ from those in the UK which will in turn differ from those in continental Europe, and you will get variations in those definitions within continental Europe as well, such as between northern and Mediterranean Europe, Catholic and Protestant etc. For instance, applying Bro Curtis' definition to me:

I think all Christians do that if we're to be brutally honest with ourselves, me included

I'm in favour of as many people in church as possible, but I am against same-sex relationships as contrary to Scripture

I don't mind those

I believe he was alive in the womb.

I don't think I do that; I am however painfully aware that any interpretation of Scripture I arrive at has of necessity my own human error mixed within it

I will admit to being agnostic on these points

Yes

No - he did call upon them to change (John 8:1-11)

I don't do that

I'm against the death penalty

No, but we need to adapt our presentation to the needs of the 21st century without compromising the message.

I'm also anti-abortion, anti-gay 'marriage', anti-guns and was anti- the invasion of Iraq; I'm also pro-social action and evangelism. I tend to vote Conservative and regard myself as largely conservative. I would think I'm fairly typical of the average UK evangelical.

So what does all that make me? (And if you say 'confused', I'll shoot you with my non-existent gun!)

 

It is only slander when he doesn't do it.

 

Are personal attacks all ya got? :sleep:

 

That is exactly what you should ask yourself.

 

So you got nothing? Thought so. You can only do ad hominems and answer with questions and unfounded attacks. How about addressing the issues or have a nice hot cup of shut yo' pie hole! :laugh:

Got any examples of where I have attacked you personally?

 

You do yourself no credit to make such wild accusations. There iscertainlyno truth in it.

How about reading back through the tread so you will not look so foolish.

You as well as anyone else who has posted here for any length of time knows it is your habit. But then you always and I do mean always act as if they are not personal attacks. You either do not know what one is unless a post bothers you or you are completely ignorant of what they are. The former is most likely. Grow up.

 

None of these comments have anything to do with the topic of this thread. It would be nice is something meaningful, or even thoughtful were said.

Here is the original posting:

Why is this no surprise 'at all?' I may be wrong, but I do not think this was addressed.

 

Not sure why you chimed in. How many others in this thread did not directly respond to the post #1 and why do you come to me? Other than your personal agenda with me. Good Luck with that. So tell me what do these posts have to do with the op?

 

Jesus was neither a liberal nor a conservative and frankly it's disheartening to see people trying to align the Son of God with a political movement or philosophy. Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, the promised Messiah, the Savior of His people. He absolutely refused to get involved in politics in His day. The people wanted to make Him a king in the earthly sense and He departed to be alone. He was not a politician, did not have a particular political view that aligned with any in His day or ours, and wasn't involved whatsoever in that realm and still is not.

While I disagree strongly with liberals on many, many things, I also disagree with conservatives on many things. One side isn't absolutely right, but out of necessity I would align myself more with the latter rather than the former due to the radical views the former holds.

Bottom line is most politicians are liars, hypocrites, and self-preservationists. Now, who in scripture sounds like that. Well, Pontius Pilate for one. King Agrippa for another. These folks were politicians and thus cared more about what people thought of them than about what is right and wrong. Republicans are just as devious as democrats, although I don't their views are as harmful to America as the liberals are.

Would Jesus align with the liberals or conservatives? Neither. Rather, He would reprove each group for their hypocrisy and preach the gospel. That's what He did in His day.

 

I saw a short article yesterday and posted a quote on this that I found very interesting and one I tend to agree with. I will be interested in reading your response:

 

While a agree with the majority of your post you are ot recognizing that the liberalism being spoken of in this thread is not political but theological. We certainly do not want to conflate those.