PDA

View Full Version : Jesus was a liberal



Sniper
03-26-2003, 10:00 PM
This website makes a very strong case that Jesus is one of the most liberal leaders of all time.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 10:11 PM
Religion and politics don't mix ....

iceblizzard69
03-26-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Religion and politics don't mix ....

Exactly.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Religion and politics don't mix ....

Not according to Dubya and the GOP... So this is fair game:

according to the American Heritage Dictionary liberal is defined as:

1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

Jesus really was a liberal!

Sniper
03-26-2003, 10:43 PM
Here's some synonyms of liberal:

liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded

These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; fond and openhanded grandparents. See also synonyms at broad-minded.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 10:47 PM
I particularly like the antonym:

stingy

I guess that makes conservatives stingy

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I particularly like the antonym:

stingy

I guess that makes conservatives stingy

One man's stingy, is another man's fiscally responsible....

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Not according to Dubya and the GOP... So this is fair game:

according to the American Heritage Dictionary liberal is defined as:

1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

Jesus really was a liberal!

Snipe....

Let's clarify something.

While I do agree with a lot of W's policy's ... I don't agree with all of them...

Church and State should be separate. Period. It says so in the constitution... which is why IMHO, people like Jesse Jackson should never be allowed to run for office..... If they have an affiliation with a church, they shouldn't be considered for public office. GWB may consider himself a religiously motivated man... but he's not a Pastor, Reverend, Priest or Rabbi.

That said...I think Bush carries the religious factor just a little too far... Don't get me wrong, I think if kids want to pray in school, they should be allowed to.... and I don NOT think references to God should be removed from the National Anthem, etc... but there should be a happy medium...

I also don't consider myself "conservative" as the definition applies.... certainly not liberal, although I do have some liberal views.... I suppose that makes me a "moderate"... who knows.... who cares...
My point is.....


what was my point anyway? Oh yes...

Religion and politics don't mix.....:goof:

Sniper
03-26-2003, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
One man's stingy, is another man's fiscally responsible....

Definition of Double Talk:

NOUN: 2. Deliberately ambiguous or evasive language. Also called doublespeak.

WharfRat
03-26-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Definition of Double Talk:

NOUN: 2. Deliberately ambiguous or evasive language. Also called doublespeak.

:lol:

I know...I know.... it was ambiguous....

My point, however, is that the Dems have a rep for overspending, while the GOP is touted as being a little more "conservative" with their spending....

all I was saying is that your post seems to punctuate that stereotype....

Sniper
03-26-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Snipe....

Let's clarify something.

While I do agree with a lot of W's policy's ... I don't agree with all of them...

Church and State should be separate. Period. It says so in the constitution... which is why IMHO, people like Jesse Jackson should never be allowed to run for office..... If they have an affiliation with a church, they shouldn't be considered for public office. GWB may consider himself a religiously motivated man... but he's not a Pastor, Reverend, Priest or Rabbi.

That said...I think Bush carries the religious factor just a little too far... Don't get me wrong, I think if kids want to pray in school, they should be allowed to.... and I don NOT think references to God should be removed from the National Anthem, etc... but there should be a happy medium...

I also don't consider myself "conservative" as the definition applies.... certainly not liberal, although I do have some liberal views.... I suppose that makes me a "moderate"... who knows.... who cares...
My point is.....


what was my point anyway? Oh yes...

Religion and politics don't mix.....:goof:

Actually Wharf,

This post really isn't meant for you. There are some people on here who claim acting in this manner is practicing communism. I maintain it is being Christian. That is really my intent. In fact, I don't consider Bush & Co., the Pat Robertsons, and the Jerry Fallwells of the world very Christian at all.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
:lol:

I know...I know.... it was ambiguous....

My point, however, is that the Dems have a rep for overspending, while the GOP is touted as being a little more "conservative" with their spending....

all I was saying is that your post seems to punctuate that stereotype....

Yes.. I agree

I guess my post is also trying to make a point about what the word 'liberal' really means. It has such a bad rap lately when it is really a divinely inspired concept.

baccarat
03-26-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Actually Wharf,

This post really isn't meant for you. There are some people on here who claim acting in this manner is practicing communism. I maintain it is being Christian. That is really my intent. In fact, I don't consider Bush & Co., the Pat Robertsons, and the Jerry Fallwells of the world very Christian at all.

It isn't very Christian to question and judge others faith. I also don't think Jesus would want to keep Saddam in power, but this is all speculation.

Sniper
03-26-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_
It isn't very Christian to question and judge others faith. I also don't think Jesus would want to keep Saddam in power, but this is all speculation.

True.. but Christians can judge other's actions... Judging them from their actions and they don't seem to follow Christ's teachings as much as they claim to.

As for keeping Saddam... I don't think Jesus would approve of a war to remove him. I also think Jesus wouldn't approve of these people who profit from war.

Dolfan984
03-27-2003, 03:31 AM
Just because you're liberal means you want Saddam in power?

WharfRat
03-27-2003, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan984
Just because you're liberal means you want Saddam in power?
who said that? :confused:

iceblizzard69
03-27-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Sniper


As for keeping Saddam... I don't think Jesus would approve of a war to remove him. I also think Jesus wouldn't approve of these people who profit from war.

No one knows what Jesus would think of this war. You can speculate, but the only way to find out would be to talk to him, and since he is dead, that won't happen.

I could seriously care less what Jesus would think about this war, and I don't care what the Pope thinks either.

I don't think Bush is as religious as he acts. He hasn't done much about religious political issues (abortion) except for banning partial-birth abortion which was probably going to happen anyway. Also, Bush grew up in a house where his Dad was a different religion than his Mom, and in this situation there is a better chance that you won't be that religious. Also, Bush ignores what his church has to say about the war. He may believe in God, but he doesn't exactly read the Bible every day.

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Here's some synonyms of liberal:

liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded

These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; fond and openhanded grandparents. See also synonyms at broad-minded.

Both contemporary ideologies of Liberalism and Conservativism embrace generocity, the difference boils down to this...Conservatives think they should be able to be generous with their own money....Liberals think they should be able to be generous with everyone elses money.

Jesus, was very Liberal, but there's a world of difference between the definition of Liberal and Conservative, and the actual practice of Liberalism and Conservativism as it exists today. In reality, given the current state of the US, I'd say that the GOP is more "liberal" than the DNC simply because it's the one who's trying to change much of the status quo here in the US(banning abortion, bringing prayer back to schools, cutting taxes...etc). I don't agree with many of those changes, but I would have to label tham as quite Liberal given that the DNC is trying to maintain more of the status quo.

Sniper
03-27-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Both contemporary ideologies of Liberalism and Conservativism embrace generocity, the difference boils down to this...Conservatives think they should be able to be generous with their own money....Liberals think they should be able to be generous with everyone elses money.

Jesus, was very Liberal, but there's a world of difference between the definition of Liberal and Conservative, and the actual practice of Liberalism and Conservativism as it exists today. In reality, given the current state of the US, I'd say that the GOP is more "liberal" than the DNC simply because it's the one who's trying to change much of the status quo here in the US(banning abortion, bringing prayer back to schools, cutting taxes...etc). I don't agree with many of those changes, but I would have to label tham as quite Liberal given that the DNC is trying to maintain more of the status quo.

:lol: I'm not going by the contemporary meaning of liberalism. Neoconservatives perverted the true meaning a long time ago just as they had perverted the meanings of other virtueous concepts.

Neocons were certainly taking notes from Josef Goebbels, the infamous Nazi Propagandist. They know full well if you repeat something enough people will believe it.

Greed is good
War is Peace

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2003/03/1984-1.jpg

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 11:38 AM
Great, now we're falling back on George Orwell. Both liberal and conservative have their good and bad connotations, many of which are richly deserved. I think that much of the "liberalism" of the 60's was noble and richly overdue...while other elements of that liberalism were self serving and caused many of the problems this country now faces. Likewise, much of the Conservativism of the 50's was demonstrative of the heart of "American values", while many other elements of it were holdovers to an era of hatred and injustice. Basically, I think it all comes down to this...this nation was founded by Liberal minded Conservatives. They were open to exacting change, but that change was within a framework of rather conservative ideals. It was that balance which created the greatest nation on earth. Quite honestly, if we could get all the hard right and left wingers in this country on a sinking boat, we'd all live much easier, happier lives.

WharfRat
03-27-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Great, now we're falling back on George Orwell. Both liberal and conservative have their good and bad connotations, many of which are richly deserved. I think that much of the "liberalism" of the 60's was noble and richly overdue...while other elements of that liberalism were self serving and caused many of the problems this country now faces. Likewise, much of the Conservativism of the 50's was demonstrative of the heart of "American values", while many other elements of it were holdovers to an era of hatred and injustice. Basically, I think it all comes down to this...this nation was founded by Liberal minded Conservatives. They were open to exacting change, but that change was within a framework of rather conservative ideals. It was that balance which created the greatest nation on earth. Quite honestly, if we could get all the hard right and left wingers in this country on a sinking boat, we'd all live much easier, happier lives.

Excellent post PhinPhan ....
except, without the extreme left and right...there would be no middle .....

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Excellent post PhinPhan ....
except, without the extreme left and right...there would be no middle .....


In my industry we incorporate the philosoophy of "top grading". It's where you replace the poorest producer with a higher producer, and then replace the NEXT poorest producer, with a higher producer, and so on. Get rid of the farthest left, and farthest right wing elements, and you'll still have a left and right wing....you'll just move progressively more towards the middle.

WharfRat
03-27-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
In my industry we incorporate the philosoophy of "top grading". It's where you replace the poorest producer with a higher producer, and then replace the NEXT poorest producer, with a higher producer, and so on. Get rid of the farthest left, and farthest right wing elements, and you'll still have a left and right wing....you'll just move progressively more towards the middle.

The problem with that is .... we're talking about ideology here... not production.
You'll never be able to "funnel" peoples beliefs like that...

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
The problem with that is .... we're talking about ideology here... not production.
You'll never be able to "funnel" peoples beliefs like that...

Lol...come on man, I was talking about loading them into a sinking boat. That was just SLIGHTLY tongue in cheek!!:lol: Saddam tries to "funnel ideology" that way, he just uses plastic shredding machines to do the "funneling"!:rolleyes:

WharfRat
03-27-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol...come on man, I was talking about loading them into a sinking boat. That was just SLIGHTLY tongue in cheek!!:lol: Saddam tries to "funnel ideology" that way, he just uses plastic shredding machines to do the "funneling"!:rolleyes: I knew how you meant it... :up: but i wanted you to clarify, before there was another... "misunderstanding" :D

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 02:47 PM
No sweat....there were no apostrophes anywhere near that sentence...:)

WharfRat
03-27-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
No sweat....there were no apostrophes anywhere near that sentence...:)

:spit: