Liberals are Tolerant and Progressive?

[MrJim]

Christ's Crucifixion~Passive?

St. Peter's Crucifixion~Passive?

Abraham & Isaac~Passive?

Millions of martyrs could have picked up arms and fought the bad guys~we like the "wise as serpents" but not the "harmless as doves"...


Mt 10:16 –Mt 10:23 NKJV
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
“Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.
And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

With this post I'm going to back out of this forum for a while~~it may well be when the rubber hits the road I'm not the typical conservative, and I've some other projects to deal with. Further I dwell I find myself even further away from the red-white-blue gop conservative paradigm that is trying to be preserved. I would love to wrap myself in it again, but it is a soiled garment I have cast off once~and while I've come close to donning it again it would simply be a dog returning to its vomit. Some will consider me a lib no doubt~that would be your error. But the arguing is something of which I've no interest at this point. I came to a point with this regarding calvinists~should be no surprise it would come to a head these topics we've been hammering out here.

It may well be you all could be right~if so then I'm arguing against God and that would be just one more sin for me to deal with; so I bid you all peace and Godspeed.

Jim

Jim

 

[ladyt28]

It is appalling to me when Christians will be passive in the guise of "holiness".

Asking if people can manage to disagree without being so unbelievable nasty about it does not equate being passive. And no, no one used vulgar language - is that the line you wish to draw? That "anything goes as long as it doesn't involve vulgar language"? There are a lot of ways to be hateful. Isn't there a way to be conservative without being hateful about it?

 

[sealacamp]

MODESTO, October 13 /Christian Newswire/-- In a violent display of intolerance, an opponent of Proposition 8 attacked and seriously injured a Catholic parishioner who was volunteering on Sunday for the initiative to define marriage as between and a man and a woman.
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=5477a37a-561a-488a-875b-35a385186839

We've seen this before. They call themselves tolerant while using Brownshirt tactics. They get their instructions straight from Mao's Red Book.

Unfortunately that is no surprise. It is really sad that so many people are deceived by the words of these people while seemingly ignoring their actions or making some nonsensical justification for such behavior.

Isn't there a way to be conservative without being hateful about it?

I agree with this in regard to any person for we are told that we should not hate our fellow human beings. If there is any hate at all it needs to be directed toward inappropriate actions no matter where they come from. As for me I have no room for hate at all but that does not negate disgust, anger, turmoil or any other variety of emotions that many times are mistaken for hate.

Sealacamp

 

[porterross]

I, too, find it most frustrating that the label "liberal" has been adopted by leftists. Being libertarian is not synonymous with advocating leftist ideals. From my perspective, it merely means that I realize I can't and shouldn't force my beliefs on others. Maybe it comes down to respecting others first, before trying to love them, which is admittedly very difficult to do a great of the time.

I certainly don't like it when those with beliefs differing from mine try to force their views on others, so why should it be OK for us to break the Golden Rule? The attackers in the OP were wrong and most offensive, but we must be mindful of becoming the very thing we profess to find so distasteful and unscriptural..

Given that, it is hard for me to concede that I might not, out of instinct, do my best to defend my loved ones facing a hypothetical attack as the one put forth by Chris. It might come down to flawed human nature, but it's hard to imagine that standing by and letting someone I love be harmed would be possible for me, especially if it were my child or anyone else's child for that matter. However, that is a matter separate from the one presented in the OP.

 

[Tenebrae]

I think what you are prescribing is Evil.

You reccomend fleeing from a home invader with the intent to rape and murder.

I had this situation the other day, a client handed me a knife and told me that they were going to use it on their doctor. I took the knife and put in somewhere safe, and after dropping the client home, went back and let the doctor know what had happened and it would be to the doctors benefit not to have contact with my client at that time.

Now I could have gone on about it, ended up annoying my client, however I was more concerned about having a good end to the situation. Now, had the client not given me the knife and actually used it on their doctor, you bet cha I would have used everything within my power to stop him.

That said, blessing those who curse you, and doing good to those who would seek to harm you is powerful, and the only thing that stops a cycle of violence


Calming and restraint training that I do always advocates trying to end the situation with non psychical means sometimes that doesnt work, and one has a client on the floor with six nurses/social workers on top of them, however I prefer thats a very last resort, because its an unpleasant experience for all involved.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Chris,

Our Lord says to turn the other cheek and to love those who hate us; He does not say we should use violence against them. If that is evil, then as has been suggested, take it up with the Man Himself.

As I say, I do not write lightly. Copts are, every day, faced with this dilemma, and they do what the Lord told us to do; sometimes those who would smite us are, indeed, turned from their evil intentions; sometimes they are not. But if you will point me to Our Lord saying we return evil for evil, then I shall accept that Our Lord is agreeing with you.

My Church finds, nowhere, in Our Lord's teaching, the mandate for personal violence. It is a heavy cross to bear, but He bore it for us - can we do less if that cup comes to us? Are we so attached to the things of this transitory world that we would risk losing salvation by taking the life of another? As Christians we are called to the highest standard, and the blood of the martyrs has ever been the nurturing of the Church.

peace,

Anglian

 

[GQ Chris]

Asking if people can manage to disagree without being so unbelievable nasty about it does not equate being passive. And no, no one used vulgar language - is that the line you wish to draw? That "anything goes as long as it doesn't involve vulgar language"? There are a lot of ways to be hateful. Isn't there a way to be conservative without being hateful about it?

You're not making any sense to me, how am I being nasty by disagreeing... I didn't insult anyone, just merely saying that there isn't anything wrong with self defense as a Last resort when all other efforts for peace are exhausted.

 

[GQ Chris]

I'm not talking about martyrdom Jim, I am talking about self defense situations where loved ones are in grave danger from someone who wants to commit an evil act. You still haven't come up with anything in Scripture that says self defense is wrong or a sin.

 

[Secundulus]

You're not making any sense to me, how am I being nasty by disagreeing... I didn't insult anyone, just merely saying that there isn't anything wrong with self defense as a Last resort when all other efforts for peace are exhausted.

The Catholic Church would agree with you.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[GQ Chris]

Yeah it doesn't make any sense to me, with some people's logic on here, Police Officers who must use lethal force to save other lives would be wrong also.

 

[Tenebrae]

Yeah it doesn't make any sense to me, with some people's logic on here, Police Officers who must use lethal force to save other lives would be wrong also.

I think you'll find most police officers are trained to resolve a situation using the least force possible.

 

[GQ Chris]

I think you'll find most police officers are trained to resolve a situation using the least force possible.

Of course, that's what I am talking about. Lethal force as an extreme last resort.

I am not talking about going on the offensive at all.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Passive is exactly what extreme liberals depend on. The more passive we are the more they understand that their terroristic tactics work. We are where we are today because of the passiveness of most christians.

Loving your neighbor has nothing to do with allowing other citizens to physically attack you. Jesus was crucified by the government - the situation in this thread isnt someone being found guilty of something and being executed under the law of the land. Its a private citizen acting well beyond what is the pale and people here wrongly thinking that biblically they should stand there and take it instead of being appalled that someone (anyone leftist or not) would act in such a horrifying manner not to mention against what they claim to believe.

Keep acting like its ok how everyone else does and that we should just put up with it and then lets see what this world looks like in 10 more years.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I think you'll find most police officers are trained to resolve a situation using the least force possible.

They do not cease to use force when they are physically attacked. They do not stand there and take it or ask other citizens to take it and let the antagonist walk free to harm others while people stand around and blame the victim and say they should have taken more.

 

[Tenebrae]

They do not cease to use force when they are physically attacked. They do not stand there and take it or ask other citizens to take it and let the antagonist walk free to harm others while people stand around and blame the victim and say they should have taken more.

And you see me saying that they do where?

As I said in my previous example, had that client not given me the knife and proceeded to use it on the doctor, I would have done everything within my power to stop him including the use of physical force.

Of course, that's what I am talking about. Lethal force as an extreme last resort.

I am not talking about going on the offensive at all

Ahh good. I thought we were probably on the same page.

Personally I tend to think God would be pretty hacked off if one of his followers was to stand by while an innocent person was being attacked. I think the difference is the final objective. If I have a client that is acting out and putting themselves and others at risk I'm obliged to work with my colleagues to bring about a safe resolution of that situation with as little harm to all involved.

I've had one moment in particular where I got whallopped by a client with an intellectual disability, and it was really hard to work on the safe resolution of the situation without getting personal feelings in the mix

Where as sometimes the line between safe resolution of a situation and payback gets blurred, which can lead to a bad outcome.

 

[Cris413]

<snip>
Actually, we should probably all specify whether we're referring to liberals or leftists from now on, cos I really don't think they're one and the same.

But in answer to the OP, no, leftists most certainly are not peaceable and tolerant and progressive, and waving the "liberal" banner was a truly crafty move to make. Unfortunately, though, it's both altered the meaning of liberal, and given far leftists a cloak of tolerance and love and they absolutely do not deserve

bold emphasis...

I totally agree...this is very important distinction to make...

I sometimes assume that people understand when I say liberal agenda...I'm speaking regarding the Leftist Lunatic Fringe...

...even though I try to be clear...I'm not referring to individual liberals...or what I consider valid liberal ideals...(some of which I still dearly embrace...that is...as I understood them some 30+ years ago)

And it is the the leftist extremists that are defining liberalism today...sadly.

The same could also be said for extremist conservatism...which...apparently gives many liberal idealists that conservatives are heartless, selfish, greedy, power hungry ogres and such.

What I find truly heartbreaking...is that the liberal agenda has not only taken liberal ideals and turned them into a propaganda machine...

...but they're lying, with aforethought, to those they say they advocate for...and I firmly believe they couldn't care less...that they serve only their own interests and political position...but such is the way of politics I guess.

 

[fated]

Many Liberals are not tolerant of opposing views, if that was the case, they would apply legal protections for religions, along with their laws and judgements that seek to undermine Christian fundamental principals. That makes them intolerant. I'd like to see this addressed by the next administration(s) if they claim what I say is not the case.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is one thing to disagree with people but the amount of hatefulness I am seeing in this thread is heartbreaking. Is this what conservatism has come to - that it's ok to use name-calling and open hatefulness? Don't people know how to disagree without being nasty anymore?

I am sorry, but you really have no understanding of what is happening here.
When I posted my first recent post in the CC subforums, Mr Jim was quite sincere in his welcoming of me here. Nevertheless, I am certain that for someone who is a pacifist such as he, who has both participated in America's war and is a gun owner, who is thereby conflicted in his genuine faith, there has got to be some emotion chords being pulled here, regardless of what I do or do not say. Likewise, there have been posts of mine where I have called Anglian specifically a saint for his honorable conduct in CF.
It is not an easy topic being disucssed. The inner meanings of the Bible are not as transparent as some might wish. There is a real struggle to hear the message God has for us in his Word, both personally and amonst ourselves.

So please do not mistake genuine disagreement and struggle with hatred. Such labelling has only the effect of poisoning real discussion.

I understand what others are saying to be heartfelt and genuine- both those that are more or less agreeing with me and those who in this instance are not. That being said, I understand that my posts are difficult for people to understand, and easy to put into the box that our 'liberalized' society has made for us Christian conservatives. I expect that even other Christian conservatives will not only sometimes disagree, but actually misunderstand what I am actually talking about. The current liberalized worldview we are all living under has its effect on all of us and not just those who have drank the leftist Kool-aid.

My conservatism is not spin. It is genuine. It is not out of a sense of hatred of 'dispised' liberals that I disagree with the Left, but out of love for them. It is out of a conservative understanding that their ideals, when enacted in society, will cause great danger and harm not only just for us conservatives, but for themselves as well.

It is not against flesh and blood that I am fighting. Indeed, it is for flesh and blood people that I am opposing the dangerous mindset of the current Left. I have no doubt that many people form the left are loving and caring and compassionate and even enjoyable to hug. That does not mean that I embrace any of their ideas which I understand to be evil in effect, even if the people who hold such ideals intend no evil personally.

I do not come to a conservative board expecting agreement on all particulars . Like I said before, there is much more diversity of opinion in this era amongst those on the Right side of the political debate than there can be on the Left, which has more and more demanded conformity of opinion for inclusion in that club.

 

[SolomonVII]

Many Liberals are not tolerant of opposing views, if that was the case, they would apply legal protections for religions, along with their laws and judgments that seek to undermine Christian fundamental principals. That makes them intolerant. I'd like to see this addressed by the next administration(s) if they claim what I say is not the case.

You may see the next administration enacting legal protections for the Islamic faith, such as the anti-blasphemy laws that radical Muslims are now pushing through the UN.

It would be rather startling though to see a leftist adminstration anywhere enacting legislation to protect the fundamental principles of someone like Sarah Palin. Indeed, it would not be surprising to see hate laws being enacted to protect others from Christians such as she.

The faith of the conservative right and people like Palin is the ultimate source of contempt that the Left now has for us.

 

[SolomonVII]

bold emphasis...

I totally agree...this is very important distinction to make...

I sometimes assume that people understand when I say liberal agenda...I'm speaking regarding the Leftist Lunatic Fringe...

...even though I try to be clear...I'm not referring to individual liberals...or what I consider valid liberal ideals...(some of which I still dearly embrace...that is...as I understood them some 30+ years ago)

And it is the the leftist extremists that are defining liberalism today...sadly.

The same could also be said for extremist conservatism...which...apparently gives many liberal idealists that conservatives are heartless, selfish, greedy, power hungry ogres and such.

What I find truly heartbreaking...is that the liberal agenda has not only taken liberal ideals and turned them into a propaganda machine...

...but they're lying, with aforethought, to those they say they advocate for...and I firmly believe they couldn't care less...that they serve only their own interests and political position...but such is the way of politics I guess.

I shouldn't be amused, but when making the distinction between liberals and the 'loonie left" in another sub-forum that I used to frequent here, it wasn't long before I was being accused of calling liberals a bunch of loonie lefties.

It is not always what you say. It is what people remember. Once your words are put through the filter of their own particular worldview, chances are you will be put in the box of just another hateful, name-calling intolerant conservative soon enough.

For what it is worth, I think I understand what you are saying, and I agree.
Thanks for yet another well argued post. You are always a good read.