Gloating Liberals

[Andy T.]

We've all seen the gloating by the Left about the mandate from the electorate in the last election and how conservatism is quickly becoming marginalized. We've even seen such ugly gloating by members of this board.

My thought is (and hopefully Christians who are beholden to the Democratic Party and liberalism in general will consider this too) it is no surprise as America becomes more atheistic (recent polls show this) and anti-Christian that it will likely support the Democratic Party and liberalism in greater numbers. No surprise at all.

 

[OldRegular]

We've all seen the gloating by the Left about the mandate from the electorate in the last election and how conservatism is quickly becoming marginalized. We've even seen such ugly gloating by members of this board.

My thought is (and hopefully Christians who are beholden to the Democratic Party and liberalism in general will consider this too) it is no surprise as America becomes more atheistic (recent polls show this) and anti-Christian that it will likely support the Democratic Party and liberalism in greater numbers. No surprise at all.

And a sad but hearty AMEN to that.:tear::tear::tear:

 

[Crabtownboy]

We've all seen the gloating by the Left about the mandate from the electorate in the last election and how conservatism is quickly becoming marginalized. We've even seen such ugly gloating by members of this board.

My thought is (and hopefully Christians who are beholden to the Democratic Party and liberalism in general will consider this too) it is no surprise as America becomes more atheistic (recent polls show this) and anti-Christian that it will likely support the Democratic Party and liberalism in greater numbers. No surprise at all.

Kind of reminds me of 1996 and 2000 and the Republicians.

Wish I could remember the Republician heavy hitter who said back then that the Democrats would never be in the majority again.

Seems to me lots of people in both parties in both wings have short memories.

 

[Timsings]

. . . My thought is (and hopefully Christians who are beholden to the Democratic Party and liberalism in general will consider this too) it is no surprise as America becomes more atheistic (recent polls show this) and anti-Christian that it will likely support the Democratic Party and liberalism in greater numbers. No surprise at all.

It appears to me that you have set a circular argument: support for the Democratic Party means that America is more atheistic and anti-Christian which means that there will be more support for the Democratic Party and liberalism.

Our politics moves in cycles because no one party or faction has a perfect answer to our problems. Even if someone comes up with a perfect answer, the implementation will be flawed because human beings will be involved. At this point things are in particularly bad shape because no one is willing to work for the common good of the people. Everyone wants to work only for their side. Rush Limbaugh's assertion that he wants the Democrats to fail is evidence of this. It is also incredibly honest. There are Democrats who wished the same thing for the Bush administration. They just didn't have Limbaugh's platform. As the writer of Ecclesiastes said, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Tim Reynolds

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

We've all seen the gloating by the Left about the mandate from the electorate in the last election and how conservatism is quickly becoming marginalized. We've even seen such ugly gloating by members of this board.

My thought is (and hopefully Christians who are beholden to the Democratic Party and liberalism in general will consider this too) it is no surprise as America becomes more atheistic (recent polls show this) and anti-Christian that it will likely support the Democratic Party and liberalism in greater numbers. No surprise at all.

Just out of curiousity, was it equally bad when the GOP was gloating during the "Contract with America" days, or the ridiculous hearings on Whitewater that didn't produce anything?

Again, just curious, the implication here is that the "gloating" is somehow bad.

Regards,
BiR

P.S. Please provide links to the polls you reference - would very much like to read them.

 

[Andy T.]

It appears to me that you have set a circular argument: support for the Democratic Party means that America is more atheistic and anti-Christian which means that there will be more support for the Democratic Party and liberalism.

That not my argument. It doesn't surprise me that a country becoming more atheistic and anti-Christian also becomes more politically liberal. The liberal worldview is unbiblical in its basic principles, so it follows. Look at post-Christian Europe as Exhibit A - less Christianity, more political liberalism. If A, then B follows. That's not circular.

 

[Andy T.]

Just out of curiousity, was it equally bad when the GOP was gloating during the "Contract with America" days, or the ridiculous hearings on Whitewater that didn't produce anything?

Again, just curious, the implication here is that the "gloating" is somehow bad.

Sure, gloating is bad (or, at a minimum, it is simply childish and annoying) when it comes from either side.

P.S. Please provide links to the polls you reference - would very much like to read them.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090526133116AAUr7nV

 

[Magnetic Poles]

TThe liberal worldview is unbiblical in its basic principles, so it follows.

This is a false premise. There are many liberal principles (and yes, conservative ones as well) espoused in scripture.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is a false premise. There are many liberal principles (and yes, conservative ones as well) espoused in scripture.

Very true, it is a false premise.

Also, if a person studies the society Jesus lived in and then studies what Jesus taught it is obvious that Jesus was a liberal.

Who did Jesus come down hard on? The Pharasees, the most fundamental and conservadtive folk of his day. Why? Because they put dogma and belief and ahead of how people were to be treated.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Baloney. Pure, unadulterated baloney.

Jesus is, and was a dictator. It is his way, or no way. Nice try, but there is nothing conservative about twisting scripture to elevate yourself over others, like the Pharisees did.

 

[Andy T.]

Of course you guys think it is a false premise, because you are liberals.

"Jesus was a liberal." For all the whining I hear that conservatives mix politics and religion too much, this is exactly what you do with statements like this.

So do you think that the Europe becoming post-Christian and politically liberal is just a coincidence?

 

[targus]

This is a false premise. There are many liberal principles (and yes, conservative ones as well) espoused in scripture.

Which liberal policies would that be?

Gay marriage?

Abortion?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Which liberal policies would that be?

Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.

Go the second mile.

Give to the poor.

Visit the sick.

Visit the prisoner.

Turn the other cheek.

Just a few liberal ideas of Jesus for starters.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Those are liberal ideas ?

Why do conservatives give more to charity than liberals, as proved several times, right here ?

Who started the Vietnam war ? Who refused to give blacks the right to vote ? Who tapped Martin Luther King's phone, illegally ? Who sexually harassed interns & had them drug thru the mud when they spoke up ?

You're all wet on this one, CTB. Christ was no liberal.

ETA...who wanted Maria Schriver dead ? Who was OK with a half million dead Iraqi women & children ? Who rolled over a compound in Waco, burning women & children to death in the process ?

 

[sag38]

Curtis, surely it wasn't democrats. Bleeding hearts would never drop a bomb on anyone. God Forbid!!!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Those are liberal ideas ?

You're all wet on this one, CTB. Christ was no liberal.

Jesus was very liberal in that society.

He would talk to women.

He talked to a Smaritan woman. Good conservative Jews would not even walk through their area of the world, much less talk to one ... especially a woman.

Who were the goats in the parable of the Good Samartian?

He taught peace and love. That was not part of the belief system of thefundamentalists of his day.

He forgave rather than condemn. Remember the woman taken in adultry. Christ's response was quite a liberal one....even in our day and time it would be a liberal response for a person to take.

Read of Christ's life and teachings and there is no other conclusion than that Christ was very liberal in his day and time on earth.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Who does Christ forgive ? Does he forgive everyone ? What must they do to be forgiven ? What happens to those he doesn't forgive ?

Talk to women ? What does that have to do with anything ? What a crazy statement.

He taught peace & love ? Hogwash. He taught separation. He said he was bringing a sword to earth. He said he would make the blood run up to the horses bridle.

And Christ's response to the adulteress was "go and sin NO MORE".

You can try and paint the Pharisees as fundamentalists, but there was nothing fundamental about them.

I've read Christ's teachings. They don't mean a hill of beans without his death & resurrection.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Who does Christ forgive ? Does he forgive everyone ? What must they do to be forgiven ? What happens to those he doesn't forgive ?

The fundies of his day were going to stone her to death. He stopped that and forgave her. A very liberal thing to to.

Talk to women ? What does that have to do with anything ? What a crazy statement.

Because that was something that simply was not done in that day and time ... talk to a woman in public. No fundie of that time would have done so. It was very liberal of him to do that.

He taught peace & love ? Hogwash. He taught separation. He said he was bringing a sword to earth. He said he would make the blood run up to the horses bridle.

Yes, he taught peace and love. Turn the other cheek. Go the extra mile, etc., etc. His sword was for those who abused religion, the fundies of his day.

And Christ's response to the adulteress was "go and sin NO MORE".

That is true. For that day and time a very liberal statement instead of stoning them or shunning them.

You can try and paint the Pharisees as fundamentalists, but there was nothing fundamental about them.

The were the most fundamental of the fundamentalists of his day. They, like fundies today, knew they were right and everyone else was wrong. They misued religion and Christ came down hard on them. They knew all the fundamentals by heart. It was a requirement that they did have them committed to memory ... believe it was the first 5 books of the OT had to be memorized.

I've read Christ's teachings. They don't mean a hill of beans without his death & resurrection.

So nothing about Christ's teachings mean anything to you? Interesting.

Yes, his death and resurrection are vital, but so are his teachings on how we are to live our lives and how we are to treat others.

 

[rbell]

Those are liberal ideas ?

You're all wet on this one, CTB. Christ was no liberal.

Jesus was very liberal in that society.

He would talk to women.

He talked to a Smaritan woman. Good conservative Jews would not even walk through their area of the world, much less talk to one ... especially a woman.

Who were the goats in the parable of the Good Samartian?

He taught peace and love. That was not part of the belief system of thefundamentalists of his day.

He forgave rather than condemn. Remember the woman taken in adultry. Christ's response was quite a liberal one....even in our day and time it would be a liberal response for a person to take.

Read of Christ's life and teachings and there is no other conclusion than that Christ was very liberal in his day and time on earth.

Pretending that "liberal" means now what it did then is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.

If you want to espouse the "Jesus was a liberal" view, then you have to take it all...not just your pet views. Do you really want the pro-gay, pro-abortion, relativistic view? Or shall we both admit that "liberal" mighte mean totally different things depending on the era involved, and is irrelevant to this discussion?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The fundies of his day were going to stone her to death. He stopped that and forgave her. A very liberal thing to to.

You have been proven wrong on this, before, yet you still put the same lie up. Those "conservatives" were breaking Old Testament law during this episode. They needed to stone the guilty man, as well, but he was nowhere to be seen. Jesus stopped a lynch mob. He then told her to live a righteous life. Tell the whole story, CTB, not just the parts that you like.

Because that was something that simply was not done in that day and time ... talk to a woman in public. No fundie of that time would have done so. It was very liberal of him to do that.

Where is talking to women banned ? Why are you bringing fundie/liberal into that argument ? It is ridiculous.

Yes, he taught peace and love. Turn the other cheek. Go the extra mile, etc., etc. His sword was for those who abused religion, the fundies of his day.

Baloney. His sword is for his enemies, those who reject him.

The were the most fundamental of the fundamentalists of his day. They, like fundies today, knew they were right and everyone else was wrong. They misued religion and Christ came down hard on them. They knew all the fundamentals by heart. It was a requirement that they did have them committed to memory ... believe it was the first 5 books of the OT had to be memorized.

They broke O/T law when it suited them, they judged people's giving, they rejected Christ's deity. True fundamentalists do not misuse the bible. It is liberals who condone homosexuality, deny the Genesis account, say women preachers are fine, say folks don't give enough, and find nothing wrong with abortion.

So nothing about Christ's teachings mean anything to you? Interesting.

I didn't say that, and you KNOW it. More twisting of my words. I said they mean nothing without his death. Stop being so dishonest.

Yes, his death and resurrection are vital, but so are his teachings on how we are to live our lives and how we are to treat others.

His death is the reason for our salvation, not his teachings. Christ's teachings will not help the unsaved.

I noticed you cowardly stepped over my first questions, concerning forgiveness. Very telling .