Gloating Liberals

[Freedom]

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 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.

 

[Alcott]

I would say that the Pharisees were definitely conservative.

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.

 

[Andy T.]

I would argue that the current state of the church has nothing to do with the prervailing political philosophy in the country.

I agree, and that was never my argument. My argument is more along the lines that the prevailing political philosophy is a result of the amount of Christian influence in the culture. The less Christian influence, the more liberalism and statism grows, as evidenced in Europe.

The strongest examples of Christ's church are usually in countries where they are persecuted not in countries which claim to be a "Christian nation."

Agreed. And in countries like China where the state tries and tries to squelch the Church, they find their attempts to be futile. And the result so far has been that China has become less statist than it was before (although they still have a long way to go).

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.

Not sure why you ascribe this thinking to me, since I've never said anything remotely like it. And I don't know very many conservatives who do think like that.

 

[Andy T.]

You are demonstrably wrong, given the existence of Christians who are politically on the left.

It's been awhile since we've traded posts on this thread, but what am I demonstrably wrong about?

Christians who are politically liberal (in the current U.S. sense) just aren't applying their Christianity correctly.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It's been awhile since we've traded posts on this thread, but what am I demonstrably wrong about?

Christians who are politically liberal (in the current U.S. sense) just aren't applying their Christianity correctly.

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.

 

[Andy T.]

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.

So you would deny me the right to think or have an opinion on such things? Sounds like you are the one playing arbiter. My position is that statism and political liberalism (in the U.S. and Western sense, generally) is against Biblical principles - that is what I meant by liberals not applying their Christianity correctly. Now you are saying I don't have the right to think that? Your statist-like beliefs even show through in this post. I have said nothing about trying to take away your right to believe what you want, and in your attempt to create that strawman against me, you do the same yourself.

You are incorrectly mixing things of God with things of Caesar.

How so? By saying that Biblical principles speak to political issues? Biblical principles apply to every sphere of life.

Just another scary strawman of yours.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

So you would deny me the right to think or have an opinion on such things? Sounds like you are the one playing arbiter. My position is that statism and political liberalism (in the U.S. and Western sense, generally) is against Biblical principles - that is what I meant by liberals not applying their Christianity correctly. Now you are saying I don't have the right to think that? Your statist-like beliefs even show through in this post. I have said nothing about trying to take away your right to believe what you want, and in your attempt to create that strawman against me, you do the same yourself.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

My position is that statism and political liberalism (in the U.S. and Western sense, generally) is against Biblical principles - that is what I meant by liberals not applying their Christianity correctly.

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.

 

[Matt Black]

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:

A liberal Christian is one who twists scripture,

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

in order to allow gay church members,

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

women preachers,

I don't mind those

and tell us John the Baptist wasn't alive in the womb.

I believe he was alive in the womb.

They are ones who will elevate the word of man & compare it with what is in the Bible.

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

They are the ones who tell us we evolved from apes, that there never was a family saved from a wold-wide flood, and Jonah never was in a water-born creature for three days.

I will admit to being agnostic on these points

A liberal Christian is one who says Jesus hung out with sinners

Yes

& never called them out.

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

A liberal will judge other's giving, despite scriptural warnings to do so.

I don't do that

A liberal Christian will say the death penalty is old-fashioned,

I'm against the death penalty

and we need to adapt the bible to the 21st century.

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!)

 

[Andy T.]

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.

How have I slandered anyone? By thinking your political philosophy is against Biblical principles? That's hardly slander.

It seems your biggest beef with me is that I actually believe what I say - i.e., that I am too certain. Well, I am no more certain of my belief that political liberalism is against Biblical principles than you are certain that I should not be certain.

 

[Revmitchell]

How have I slandered anyone? By thinking your political philosophy is against Biblical principles? That's hardly slander.

It seems your biggest beef with me is that I actually believe what I say - i.e., that I am too certain. Well, I am no more certain of my belief that political liberalism is against Biblical principles than you are certain that I should not be certain.

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

 

[Magnetic Poles]

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

Are personal attacks all ya got? :sleep:

 

[Revmitchell]

Are personal attacks all ya got? :sleep:

That is exactly what you should ask yourself.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

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?

 

[Revmitchell]

So you got nothing? Thought so. You can only do ad hominems and answer with questions and unfounded attacks.

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

How about addressing the issues or have a nice hot cup of shut yo' pie hole! :laugh:

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

Got any examples of where I have attacked you personally?

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.

 

[Crabtownboy]

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

2.That is exactly what you should ask yourself.

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

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

5. Do you really want to do this?

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:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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?

Oh you have made the most liberal interpretation of scripture of almost anyone I have seen here.

You seem to really dislike people.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

 

[RAdam]

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.

 

[Crabtownboy]

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:

The record shows that on moral issues, Jesus was clearly Conservative. Jesus believed in a standard of right and wrong set forth by God. He did not shy away from using the word "sin" for bad behavior. In some of His parables, Jesus recommended doing business for profit. He preached about Heaven and Hell. Jesus believed there was only one way to God, and He claimed to be the way, the truth and the life. Jesus believed in a literal resurrection of the body. Like a conservative, Jesus believed in creation and in God as the Creator.

Yet on social issues, Jesus remained Liberal. He saw part of His mission as liberating the oppressed of society. His compassion drew Him to the poor. He never spoke one word in favor of war. Instead, He taught His followers to turn the other cheek, to overcome evil with love.

At times, Jesus blended His Liberal and Conservative sides in perfect balance. One example was when He asked the woman accused of adultery, "Where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?", and the woman answered, "No one, Lord." Jesus told her, "Neither do I condemn you; from now on, sin no more." The Liberal Jesus did not condemn the woman, but the Conservative Jesus called her behavior "sin", which she needed to stop.
http://searchwarp.com/swa380626.htm

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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.