The Fortress of Snarkitude ([info]fizzyland) wrote in [info]christianity,
@ 2006-04-26 14:25:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Can a Christian be a liberal?
I came across this article by Doug Giles and wanted to see what everyone's thoughts on this are: A Christian Can Be a Christian or a Liberal, But He Can’t Be Both

"Can a Christian be a liberal? Short answer: no. There is no way a Christian can buy into neo-liberal ideology and be faithful to the bigger-than-Dallas teachings of the scripture and expect to continue enjoying his hard-won religious liberties.

For the "Christian" to lean politically to the left means that he must blow off huge chunks of the Bible and replace the scripture with the make-believe notions of postmodernism's malleable "Christ." Only after torturing the scripture can the Christian then fit liberalism into his supposed relationship with God.

For the Christian who believes that unfeigned faith in Christ should correspond with Jesus' high view of scripture, it is impossible to believe in God and be an adherent to postmodern liberalism.

Liberalism has been hijacked by bizarre special-interest thugs who defy the Word of God and believe that the Bible has no place in public life (except maybe in a museum where people can look at it from time to time).

The Christian skipping around the maypole wearing his rose-colored glasses who has a bent to the liberal left needs to understand something: if it were left up to the modern, secularized liberal establishment, he would be more restricted than Bill when Hillary's in town. If the Christophobic thugs had it their way, Christians would be relegated to a marginalized spiritual ghetto on the sidelines of life.

For the naive Christian voter who thinks he can toss a ballot in the Nuevo liberal direction, please know that a vote toward the secular left could leave you bereft of sacred liberties.

Modern liberalism tosses out the scripture on several different levels. How a true believer in the Christ defined by the scripture can buy into what Jesus, the prophets and apostles said and also give credence to what these secular goons say is beyond me. In addition to liberalism's obvious and odious pro-holocaust-like abortion stance, its anti-biblical view of marriage, its scripture-slamming aggressive secularism, and its feckless view of our nation's defense, liberalism completely clashes with the Christian worldview. Secular liberalism's aggressive desire to eradicate Christians' rights should cause Christians to be concerned.

The Democratic Party's liberalism has degenerated over the last 40-50 years in regard to its view of Christianity and Christian rights. This party, which formerly embraced and protected our nation's great Christian heritage and teachings, no longer does so. Thus, today the Christian is between a rock and a hard place: he can either be a Christian or a liberal—but he cannot be both."

Editor: It you go to the link there's more. I find this guy very angry and ranty. Funny thing is I've always associated Jesus with being a liberal - he defied the authority structures of the time, welcomed in people who were outcasts, threw the money-lenders out of the temple(show me a Republican who would do that).



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]mellanella
2006-04-26 07:40 pm UTC (link)
Whoops, guess I'm not a Christian then.

Anyway, I think the heart of the problem is more our political dichotomies than anything else. People can't seem to get past the homosexual and abortion issue.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tempus_aeterna
2006-04-26 08:51 pm UTC (link)
I totally agree. I think that the problem is the fact that people don't distinguish being Christian from wanting to enforce all Christian laws on everyone in the country. First the politically right doesn't always do that to begin with. And second, being a Chrisitan is about a person path of how to live and showing that path to others, not to try and impose it on everyone by force.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-26 09:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_elephant, 2006-04-27 03:14 am UTC

[info]jodamiller
2006-04-26 07:43 pm UTC (link)
I don't tie something as temporary as politics with something as permanent as Christianity.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dediced_nu
2006-04-26 07:48 pm UTC (link)
I cannot even begin to say just how much I agree with you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nuttynugget
2006-04-26 07:44 pm UTC (link)
I think it all boils down to do you believe the Bible as the true inspired word of God or not? Bottom line, you gotta stick with the Word as it is. Not pick out the parts you don't like. Do not add to it. Do not subtract from it. Right?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]hdaemon
2006-04-26 07:48 pm UTC (link)
The problem I see is that if you take the Bible as being the true word of God, then you can't really side with either of the major policital parties in this country. They both make a significant number of transgressions. It's all a matter of which transgressions you pay attention to, and lately that has meant homosexuality/abortion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]nuttynugget, 2006-04-26 07:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dua, 2006-04-26 08:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nuttynugget, 2006-04-26 08:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]caddan, 2006-04-27 01:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mister_wolf, 2006-04-26 07:49 pm UTC

[info]hdaemon
2006-04-26 07:46 pm UTC (link)
I for one find highly amusing the ease with which one could write a counterpoint article to this, stating in the same kind of tone why a Christian couldn't be a conservative.

Politics and religion are two separate things... keep 'em separate.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-26 08:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]laeva, 2006-04-26 08:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-26 09:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-26 09:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-26 10:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-27 02:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 02:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 05:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-27 07:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmaried, 2006-04-27 07:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kingwein22, 2006-04-27 02:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 01:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-27 03:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-28 06:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-29 02:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-28 06:15 pm UTC
Part 2 - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-27 07:23 am UTC
Re: Part 2 - [info]fanha, 2006-04-28 05:55 pm UTC
Re: Part 2 - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-29 03:07 am UTC
Arrogance? - [info]cmaried, 2006-04-27 07:32 am UTC
Re: Arrogance? - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-27 07:53 am UTC
Then all moral viewpoints are arrogant - [info]cmaried, 2006-04-27 08:31 am UTC
Re: Then all moral viewpoints are arrogant - [info]hdaemon, 2006-04-27 11:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gunslnger, 2006-04-27 06:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 09:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kingwein22, 2006-04-27 02:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 03:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gunslnger, 2006-04-27 07:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-28 07:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gunslnger, 2006-04-28 08:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-28 05:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gunslnger, 2006-04-28 06:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-28 06:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-28 06:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-28 08:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-28 08:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_methotaku, 2006-04-27 04:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 06:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_methotaku, 2006-04-27 10:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 03:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]foxmagic, 2006-04-30 12:29 pm UTC

[info]dediced_nu
2006-04-26 07:47 pm UTC (link)
Instead of people degrading God by bringing their politics into their faith, why not just follow Christ and let him guide you?

(Reply to this)


[info]mmaestro
2006-04-26 07:52 pm UTC (link)
Liberalism has been hijacked by bizarre special-interest thugs who defy the Word of God and believe that the Bible has no place in public life (except maybe in a museum where people can look at it from time to time).

Ah, the old "I'll define Liberalism as what I want rather than what it is and then say it can't be reconciled with Christianity," gambit. Of course, if liberalism was what he and much of the rightwing media says it is, then he'd probably be right. Thankfully, it is no such thing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]hdaemon
2006-04-26 08:06 pm UTC (link)
Agreed.

I think my biggest issue with his article is that his view of liberals is based upon the ideals of a non-representative few. If all I looked at was Fred Phelps, I'd get a pretty skewed and inaccurate view of Christianity as well (Although who knows, from the way he was spouting things, maybe that's the brand of Christianity this guy subscribes to).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]yechezkiel
2006-04-26 07:54 pm UTC (link)
This is me on ennui.

(Reply to this)


[info]katowns
2006-04-26 08:01 pm UTC (link)
Im sorry I love that icon.. took me a minute to see the bat signal xD

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fizzyland
2006-04-26 08:17 pm UTC (link)
Agreed. I have a print of Starry Night hanging in my room but the Bat Signal always makes me laugh - I wish I had print-sized version.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]uncleamos
2006-04-26 08:06 pm UTC (link)
The article fails to draw the neccessary distinction between liberalism and left-wingism. A Christian can adhere to basic liberal ideas like, I don't know, opposing imperialist wars, or thinking that God's earth should be protected, or being opposed to racial and socioeconomic discrimination without supporting abortion or secular humanism.

If we want to make massive stereotypes that don't appreciate the nuances of political positions, I could write a similarly long article on how a Christian can't be a conservative. (Which is to say, Republican.)

As for choosing a side of the political fence, I lean Democrat because of the nature of their offenses, which tend to favor individual freedoms. Because I believe that God is present in the world and Knows all of us, He can judge those who choose to have abortions, or (assuming He actually cares) those who have gay marriages. But the way of the Republican party - the destruction of the environment, the proliferation of weapons and of war, the social harms of extreme poverty made worse by tax cuts for the rich, and the social ills of a huge population of unwanted children or the dangers of back-alley abortions - these are things that have dire consequences for all of society, and I will not support a political party that would force them on me.

I think that the Democrats are the lesser of the evils, and we should all remember that God and God alone will judge each and every one of us in the end. Regarding the Law of God, I believe in letting he who is without sin cast the first stone. I won't judge people for transgressions against God, as He is quite capable of punishing them without any help from me. But I will judge and speak out against those who knowingly seek to destabilize society, take life in unneccessary wars, and generally make my life less safe in countless ways.

And then these people claim that *they* represent the moral high ground, and twist Christianity to serve their own ends. It disgusts me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]hdaemon
2006-04-26 08:08 pm UTC (link)
Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]laeva, 2006-04-26 08:54 pm UTC

[info]lazaruspdx
2006-04-26 08:14 pm UTC (link)
I just put a new bumper sticker on my car:

"God is not a Republican... or a Democrat"

The bottom line is that God is bigger than the labels that others would put on us. Humans want to define God and put God in a box that neatly matches their own political persuasions. God is bigger than that.

Yeah, I do it too, but hey, I'm right, 'cuz, y'know, God agrees with me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the_methotaku
2006-04-27 10:22 am UTC (link)
Can I gank your icon. This is my second Icon-love post. And I'm not doing the essay that's due at 9:30. Naughty me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jimb
2006-04-26 08:16 pm UTC (link)
It makes perfect sense if one is both Christian and conservative. But to the rest of us it seems kind of silly.

(Reply to this)


[info]desolateangel83
2006-04-26 08:21 pm UTC (link)
I've said it before and I'll say it again--Jesus is neither Democrat or Republican! End of friggin' story.

(Reply to this)


[info]muraven
2006-04-26 08:27 pm UTC (link)
A Christian can't be a conservative either. Conservatism favors the rich over the poor and the powerful over the weak. If the conservatives had their way our progressive income tax would be either flattened (which would put a greater burden on the poor than on the rich) or eliminated altogether in favor of a highly regressive national sales tax that would probably push the lower middle class into poverty and the poor onto the streets. They ignore the parable of the Good Samaritan by treating legal immigrants like leeches and illegal immigrants like trash. The current flavor of conservatism is especially anti-Christian, as it seems to glory in war and seeks to make an enemy of the entire world and fulfill some kind of twisted millenialist worldview by bringing on the Apocalypse. You just have to look at the man who conservatives idolize to see just how bad they truly are. Under Ronald Reagan's administration funding for anti-poverty programs was slashed, including progams such as Legal Aid which have no other purpose but to protect the poor and weak from the rich and powerful. This may have helped the very rich in the short term by lowering their taxes, but ultimately the economy tanked so spectacularly that we're still feeling the effects twenty years later.

Christians must be neither liberal nor conservative. We must follow the lead of Christ wherever it may lead, without giving any mind to such foolish labels.

(Reply to this)


[info]fanha
2006-04-26 08:31 pm UTC (link)
The modern "political liberal" is not the same as "liberal." A conservative can be all the things you have said, and in fact being "conservative" does not exclude one from being liberal. Being liberal does not mean "rejecting every conservative idea" nor does being conservative mean that one advocates disregarding poverty and such.

The Democratic campaign has been extremely good at painting a picture of all conservatives being rich white men who care about their businesses. In reality, the majority of white males in the income bracket above $100,000 per year voted Democrat, while among the lower income brackets Republicans get the most votes. This is an attempt to win by stereotype rather than by actually addressing the values the group holds. The smear campaign is huge, but seems to completely forget that the last Democratic president was so immature he couldn't resist stuffing a cigar up a woman's vagina on taxpayer-paid time.

Political liberalism today is essentially philosophically synonymous with secular humanism, while including anti-relgious sentiment such as:

- A disestablishment of religion. This does not follow the Constitutional philosophic of "no law shall be passed that respects an establishment of religion" but rather it goes to the point of saying "religious peoples' moral opinions are not valid politically and thus their opinions/votes are not admissible." This idea has extended to begin restricting free speech on issues of sexual morality, making it illegal to criticize certain forms of sexuality in the same sense as race or gender. This is not "liberal" and in fact is the opposite; this is fascist oppression of free speech.

- The feigned valuing of human life in international affairs, while massacring thousands of innocent children every year in their agenda toward sexual freedom. Apparently protecting against terrorism and removing corrupt brutal dictators isn't a worthy cause to shed blood over, but sticking a penis in a woman's vagina is. Let's not mask over how ugly and perverse this issue is with nice words or pretend for a moment this isn't a heinous hypocrisy.

- Breaking down the structure of the family by undermining parential authority. This includes allowing minors to make crucial life decisions without even consulting their parents such as receiving assistance in fornicating and dealing with pregnancy and rape. This also includes banning punishment of children such as spanking by forcing their own moral code of how to run a family upon others. Once again, this is not "liberal"; this is fascist.

- Deprivatizing assistance of the poor and advocating ineffective economic policies that only cause cyclical effects. By raising taxes and putting these into social welfare programs, the net effect is for companies to make budget cuts to deal with the tax increases and thus leads to a higher unemployment rate and lower/no benefits to low-paying jobs. What does this cause? More poverty, and less goods produced and thus higher prices to consumers and less money in the consumers' hands. The policy of tax-based poverty solutions only creates stagflation.

The solution is to empower/encourage charitible private organizations such as shelters, churches, and other organizations advocating not only financial but also social solutions to the problem. People need connections to get employment, education, and general encouragement in their hard times; getting a check in the mail doesn't meet that need. Millions of dollars worth of food is thrown out by food service businesses every day; that food can be collected and redistributed to the poor by private volunteers, the businesses can get a tax break for participating, and the volunteers can get some extra food themselves to make it worth their time. However, currently private charity has been greatly hindered by increasingly strict government regulations on private charity.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dediced_nu
2006-04-26 09:55 pm UTC (link)
Is it okay if I quote this sometime?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-26 10:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cpk, 2006-04-27 12:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 02:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 01:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 02:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_elephant, 2006-04-27 03:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganie, 2006-04-27 09:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 09:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lazaruspdx, 2006-04-27 04:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_methotaku, 2006-04-27 10:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mmaestro, 2006-04-27 03:10 pm UTC
Who Would Jesus Torture? - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 03:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganie, 2006-04-27 09:26 pm UTC
False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence” On Iraq - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 09:48 pm UTC
Re: False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence” On Iraq - [info]morganie, 2006-04-27 11:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 09:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganie, 2006-04-27 11:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-28 02:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganie, 2006-04-28 12:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganie, 2006-04-27 11:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_methotaku, 2006-04-27 11:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganie, 2006-04-27 11:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_methotaku, 2006-04-28 04:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganie, 2006-04-28 12:23 pm UTC
That's been disproven too - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-28 02:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]underhiswings1, 2006-04-27 03:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fanha, 2006-04-27 06:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]underhiswings1, 2006-04-27 06:33 am UTC

[info]sisyphus
2006-04-26 08:40 pm UTC (link)
This article is terribly argued. Aside from the obvious fact that Catholics in Latin America who gave their lives in the name of liberation theology were not Real Christians, but some guy who writes for townhall.com is by his premise, there is more.

He continually uses the word 'postmodern' very vaguely as some kind of bogeyman.

As to his points:

"1. Christianity to be scrubbed from government and whatever turf the government owns...The Judeo-Christian principles that formed the rock-solid foundation of this great American Experiment are now aggressively and consistently attacked by the lascivious left."

I'm not sure why the government would need to have any role in my faith. There is civic duty, and there is duty to God, and as far as I know, one should render unto Caesar what it Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

Furthermore, he presents no plan as to how to integrate the 10 commandments(which he doesn't even bother to actually quote) into actual law. Even if you think precedent has gone too far in interpreting the establishment clause, implementing the actual text of Exodus 20 into law would be blatantly unconstitutional by the standards of the 'Judeo-Christians' who founded the country, because it seems to me it would entail outlawing any other Gods etc.. which is exactly what they were trying to avoid.

"If . . . if . . . the secularists continue to stay behind the wheel of this American bus, you can kiss all semblance of Christianity good-bye in this heretofore God-graced government."

There is empirical evidence to the contrary, so we don't even have to speculate on this -- Sweden is pretty liberal, can we agree on that? They also have a population that is 64% atheist/agnostic, as opposed to America's 10%. Yet, here is a list of their national holidays:

"Nyårsdagen", New Year's Day (january 1:st).
"Trettondedag jul", Epiphany (January 6:th).
"Långfredagen ", Good Friday (the Friday before Easter)
"Påskdagen", Easter Monday
"Första Maj", May 1:st
"Kristi Himmelsfärdsdag", Ascension Day (39:th day after Easter).
"Pingst", Whit Sunday
"Annandag Pingst", Whit Monday
"Sveriges Nationaldag", June 6:th - Sweden's national day
"Midsommardagen", Midsummer Day (Saturday between JUne 20-26)
"Alla Helgons dag", Halloween (Saturday between Oct 31-Nov 6)
"Juldagen", Christmas Day (Dec 25:th)
"Annandag Jul", boxing day (Dec 26:th)

Wow, liberal Sweden has just stamped out all semblance of Christianity, haven't they? Please.

"2. Secularism to be continually mainlined into our public school system. Thanks to rabid, vapid secularism, our public schools and universities would rather you be a Rocky Horror super freak than a Christian."

There are these other, non-secular schools...they are called Christian schools. My kids would certainly be educated by Jesuits, but I don't think that anyone else's kids should have anything but as neutral a secular education as possible. This is after all a pluralistic society.

"3. Public officials, employees and appointees to be pressured to hide their faith in the closet and suppress their public displays of belief in God lest they be grouped with Hitler, Osama, or Mussolini and then fired."

Now I think he's just gone off the deep end. Can he cite one example of a teacher, or government official being called a Hitler or Osama because of their faith? It's entirely the opposite, where people have to go to Church to look religious to get elected. Maybe he missed the recent poll where we found out that atheists are the least trusted group in the US.

"And good luck, pastor and church committee, in trying to buy property and get zoning with the anti-Christian libs at the helm."

"How a true believer in the Christ defined by the scripture can buy into what Jesus, the prophets and apostles said and also give credence to what these secular goons say is beyond me."

Haha.., yeah, maybe he should make some bracelets-- 'WWJD about zoning laws.'

I would note that in this ridiculous mockery of an article, that makes Christians everywhere look terrible, the very Christian author cited not a single verse of Scripture, nor a single actual occurrence in the world to back up his claims. This seems to me be nothing more than reactionary speculation of the worst kind.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fizzyland
2006-04-26 09:31 pm UTC (link)
And sadly, I think the author is feeding a persecution complex that is both unrealistic and polarizing. You made good comments - I felt overwhelmed by the time I got to his numbered points. And the comments to his article were every bit as extreme.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]desolateangel83, 2006-04-27 12:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_methotaku, 2006-04-27 05:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 04:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_methotaku, 2006-04-27 07:33 pm UTC

[info]morganie
2006-04-26 08:51 pm UTC (link)
When I first read about them, I found Jesus (and the apostles) to be a bunch of a commies (my boyfriend at the time didn't like that interpretation at all! ;)

But when you think about it, Jesus didn't fit neatly in to any of the political or religious "boxes" of the time. He was more liberal than the Pharasees (and at the same time more strict) he was more orthodox than the Saducees, he wasn't the political hero they were hoping the Messiah would be, he didn't live up to their expectations: he died on a cross!

I think there are liberal values Jesus would espouse and I think there are conservative values Jesus would espouse. If he were alive today, I believe neither party would support him because they couldn't control him (he would definately point out their faults!) Just a thought :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the_methotaku
2006-04-27 05:07 am UTC (link)
>>I believe neither party would support him because they couldn't control him (he would definately point out their faults!) Just a thought :)<<
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I agree with that statement.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]galtogien
2006-04-26 10:04 pm UTC (link)
He's actually just saying you can't be a fundamentalist inerrantist Christian and a liberal, which everyone knows anyway.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fizzyland
2006-04-26 10:31 pm UTC (link)
But of course he's saying the over-simplified and wrong statement that you can't be a Christian period and a liberal.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]galtogien, 2006-04-26 10:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_methotaku, 2006-04-27 04:59 am UTC

[info]sufitom
2006-04-26 10:08 pm UTC (link)
Do you think Jesus was conservative??

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fizzyland
2006-04-26 10:39 pm UTC (link)
Mind you, this just opinion, but by most definitions used, I'd say no. Because he was a reformer. The Jews were looking for a Messiah to take the reigns of secular power and be a King David, the Pharisees and the Saducees all had their ideas what this person would be, and Jesus was none of those things. He didn't tear down the old Law in many respects but He brought a new understanding of relationship with God. And he welcomed many people(the whores and tax collectors) to his company and spread the Good News to people who were shunned by the established faith of the day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]malvino
2006-04-26 10:35 pm UTC (link)
Jesus was a socialist.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]spacebird
2006-04-26 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Prove it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]malvino, 2006-04-26 10:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]archaist, 2006-04-26 11:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]malvino, 2006-04-26 11:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]archaist, 2006-04-26 11:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]malvino, 2006-04-26 11:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]archaist, 2006-04-27 12:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]malvino, 2006-04-27 12:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 01:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]malvino, 2006-04-27 10:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 04:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]malvino, 2006-04-27 04:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 04:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]spacebird, 2006-04-27 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]malvino, 2006-04-27 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]malvino, 2006-04-27 12:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gelasia, 2006-04-27 12:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 01:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gelasia, 2006-04-27 02:36 am UTC

[info]spacebird
2006-04-26 10:39 pm UTC (link)
A Christian can be a liberal; they'd just be naive and self-defeating to do so, for the reasons mentioned above. It's an overly inflammatory title.

Also, Jesus was what is known as a "classical liberal," which I would also consider myself to be. However, classical liberalism and classical conservativism are not anything like their modern bastardizations. The liberals for whom the term was coined constantly strove to make things better, to minimize government and make everything streamlined as possible. The conservatives feared change and tried to keep things stable, believing that it had worked this far so why change it?

Now the "liberals" are constantly seeking a bigger, more invasive government. They drift away from biblical ethics into moral relativism. They seek to make things look good, but have proven that they don't care about what is best for the job (just look at our intelligence crisis that Clinton left behind). The "conservatives" are still trying to slow the "liberals" down, but they now are seeking to appease, and are as a result becoming the enemy. Thus the terms "neo-liberal" and "neo-conservative." This is what the author specifically refers to and he is dead on.

Fortunately for the fence-straddlers, some piss-poor theologians have invented a watered down blend of Christianity for those who don't seem to care about its actual teaching. It's like of like a decaf latte to the espresso of the Word.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fizzyland
2006-04-26 11:17 pm UTC (link)
So would you classify the Bush Administration as a liberal government?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]spacebird, 2006-04-27 12:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 01:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]worldchanger, 2006-04-27 05:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fizzyland, 2006-04-27 04:17 pm UTC

[info]policraticus
2006-04-27 12:39 am UTC (link)
I stopped reading when he confused neo-liberalism with liberalism.

Cause, I don't think he realizes the difference, which is basically similar to that between chalk and cheese.

(Reply to this)


[info]worldchanger
2006-04-27 05:15 am UTC (link)
I can't help but wonder if this particularly zealous article *cough*understatementofthecentury*cough* was chosen with the specific agenda of discrediting the "conservatives" with the ridiculous ravings of a neo-con republican.

A lot of conservatives would disagree with this guy... I'm one of them.

(Reply to this)


[info]the_methotaku
2006-04-27 05:30 am UTC (link)
Giles is an idiot and a crook. Click the links.

(Reply to this)


[info]swisscelt
2006-04-27 12:18 pm UTC (link)
Can you be a Christian and a liberal? Of course not. Everyone knows you have to be a red-blooded, red state conservative to be a REAL Christian. Next thing you know, people will be claiming you can be a Christian and a furriner! *shudder*

(Jesus was born in Bethlehem, North Carolina, right? ;-) )

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jennet
2006-04-27 06:17 pm UTC (link)
LOL You win at the comment that made me giggle the most :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]zcatcurious, 2006-04-29 01:54 am UTC

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…