Blind guide to Moderate and Liberal

I noticed that the sentence didn't end with "label you". It ends with "falsely for my sake.". Labeling isn't a sin, it is just identifying footwear size...and if the shoe fits...

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you,...hypocrites!
Mat 23:14 Woe unto you,...hypocrites! ...ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you,...hypocrites!
Mat 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides,
Mat 23:17 Ye fools and blind:
Mat 23:18 ...he is guilty.
Mat 23:19 Ye fools and blind:...
Mat 23:23 ...hypocrites!
Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides,
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you,...hypocrites!
Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee,...
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you,...hypocrites!
Mat 23:29 Woe unto you,...hypocrites!
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers,...
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes:
Mat 3:7 ... O generation of vipers,
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers,...
Luk 3:7 ...O generation of vipers,

Name calling isn't the problem. It is misapplying the name. If I am inaccurate in labeling then convince me and I will say as Saul did in I Sam 26:21 "...I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly."

Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

Conservatives and liberals believe they are right in their own eyes. This does not preclude their being a fool. The difference is whether they will hearken to counsel or not.

I am not interested in labeling for the sake of labeling but, I am interested in truth in advertising. I will not label someone as a wise Christian or even as a Christian at all, just because they say they are a Christian. Jesus gave practical illustrations of what He meant when He labeled people. "You are a hypocrite or viper or blind because you..." What we need is not merely to have generic words like conservative/liberal that we can then imbue with whatever definition we want but have a definition with practical illustrations so that we can at least know what we are talking about.

Come on, Ed, give us a definition. We already know the labels. I'll help get you started...

The definition of a liberal is one who...

The definition of a conservative is one who...

The trick is that the definition must be one that both sides accept so that there can then be discussion.

 

that's a good one ed.

and Jesus was right(correct), that the best way to describe his views.

thankyou and God Bless

 

sounds like a different jesus to me that you believe in, surly not the biblical Jesus.

you like to hear preaching of all sorts dont you?

 

This is my point, Ed, nobody will define "feminist" so that I can compare it with what Jesus taught.

Some people who call themselves feminist, don't mean much more that the idea that women should be eually paid for equal work. I have always agreed with that. Does that make me a feminist? Some people who claim to be feminists DO advocate gay lifestyles, abortion, the superiority of women, and other pointedly man hating ideas. I have always disagreed with these. Does that make me an anti-feminist. I will work with whatever definition someone wants to use but I can't say I am for or against feminism until someone defines it.

 

I'm not so sure about the first part of that statement...my wife says there is little hope.

As to the second part, that would make communication virtually impossible.

My dictionary defines feminism as:

The doctrine advocating extention of the activities of women in social and political life.

Therefore, I am NOT a feminist. Therefore, Jesus was not a feminist.

I am not trying to hijack the thread but merely using this one example to illustrate how that unless we have a common definition there cannot be a valid discussion of conservative, liberal, moderate, fundamental, ultra/hyper, etc.

 

Liberal and conservative are two opposite directions away from an arbitrary moderate position when one chooses to categorize ideological views along a linear spectrum.

 

But what about a guy who wants to both balance the budget and bring about better equality between men and women in the workplace? What about a guy who wants to see the US embrace and choose to obey moral standards in - prisoner questioning? What about a guy who wants to see all salaried employees earning a living wage at a minimum? What about a guy who wants to see teachers allowed to teach in classrooms of less than 20 kids? What about a guy who wants to see limited health coverage for all, not full health coverage for all?

 

what about all the love and peace in the world. with perfect fairness and perfect regulation?
it just is not possible for government to do all the social justice that we all want. reagan used to say that the heavy hand of government will hurt you, i believe he is right. but Christians are not given the example to change government but they are given the duty to give the gospel and tend to biblical examples. but it is always biblical to speak out against lifestyles that want to be accepted as God honoring. that is where ed is in total fault and liberalism is never going to be acceptable. and modereates are only liberals that are just not as far gone.

 

massdak, I don't think Ed is at fault there. I don't think he believes it is wrong to speak against lifestyles that do not honour God.

"and modereates are only liberals that are just not as far gone." Tonight was a pretty sad night here...thanks for the God bless ya though.

 

Ed...no problem. I do hope though, that you are anti-homosexuaLITY and not anti-homosexual. God bless.

 

Ed, I think your point is valid about lumping someone into a category just because ONE of their beliefs or ideas fit the category. I think of myself as a fundamentalist because I believe in the traditional fundamentals of the faith. I grew up in a church which was somewhat legalistic. However, that being said I am probably more like 80% Fundamentalist, 5% moderate, 5% conservative and 5% ultra-fundamentalist, and the other 5% various combinations and permutations (maybe even a speck of liberalistic thought on a rare occassion).