Being a 'liberal' or a 'conservative'

JackRT said:

Jesus executed by the Romans as a threat to social order. They did this at the behest of the High Priest and the band of Sadducees that surrounded him, The judges were the Sanhedrin which was controlled by the Pharisees and who opposed the High Priest at nearly every turn. As a threat to social order it is quite clear that Jesus was the liberal radical and the conservatives were those who put him to death.

Click to expand...

Jesus refutes the liberal views of the Sadducees in Matthew 22 - they denied the resurrection.
They just couldn't figure out how God had the ability to sort out all the details at the resurrection.

Jesus refutes the "making stuff up via tradition" ideas of the leadership in Mark 7:6-13 condemning their man-made-invented-ideas "sola scritura" in Mark 7. He was a Biblical literalist as was Paul when Paul says "Adam was made first and then Eve"-- not exactly blind-faith-evolutionism

Jesus never actually goes after the Romans but Jewish zealots were doing that all the time.
The Roman governor Pilate himself says he could find nothing wrong with what Jesus was doing.

JackRT said:

Jesus executed by the Romans as a threat to social order. They did this at the behest of the High Priest and the band of Sadducees that surrounded him.................As a threat to social order it is quite clear that Jesus was the liberal radical and the conservatives were those who put him to death.

Click to expand...

Not that I agree with you in general.

But I do notice here that you say that those who are a threat to social order are liberals and, conversely, those who are liberals are a threat to social order.

On that we can agree.

JackRT said:

......The judges were the Sanhedrin which was controlled by the Pharisees and who opposed the High Priest at nearly every turn........

Click to expand...

Apparently not when it came to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus.

The High Priest was considered the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus and sent Him to Pilot.

We see them working together in Matthew 26.

Both the Pharisees and the Sadducess opposed Jesus and had Him killed.

Jesus knew full well what the original intent of the scriptures were - having, as it were, written them Himself. He lived and taught that conservative view every day of His life since studying it and understanding it for Himself as the Son of God..

He was persecuted and eventually killed by the ones who had added heir own idea to that original intent.

Not to make a direct parallel but it is the same in some ways as liberals are doing to conservatives now in our country.

If not actually persecuted and killed - at least persecuted and impeached.

BobRyan said:

Christianity it is much more common as a term for "not really all that close to what the Bible teaches", "Bible not really the Word of God", "Bible can't be trusted"

Click to expand...

Exactly the definition of liberal.

charsan said:

Exactly the definition of liberal.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. That may be true of a few liberals but it is hardly true of all. In an effort to discredit all liberals you are telling a falsehood. I would try to avoid that.

america used be conservative. only in the last 50 years has there been a drastic split.

MarcusT said:

This liberal/conservative dichotomy is currently being imported to my country by some - let's say quite aggressive - evangelical movements from the English speaking countries. I'm not sure the local evangelicals here understand completely the vocabulary their new friends from abroad use.

Click to expand...

A very long time ago "Liberal" used to mean "unselfish, high concern for the welfare of others". That was the good ol' days. But in Christianity it is much more common as a term for "not really all that close to what the Bible teaches", "Bible not really the Word of God", "Bible can't be trusted"

charsan said:

Exactly the definition of liberal.

Click to expand...

JackRT said:

No, not at all. That may be true of a few liberals but it is hardly true of all. In an effort to discredit all liberals you are telling a falsehood. I would try to avoid that.

Click to expand...

Aside from "just saying no" is that all you have for your definition of "liberal" or those that you find calling themselves a liberal?

Over the last several decades a most remarkable thing has happened in the Christian religious life of both Canada and the USA. One group has been singled out for vilification and contempt. Whether this was a deliberate campaign or not, it has been both widely and wildly successful. It has been so successful that a great many people who should know better do not even question its conclusions. Even nonchristian institutions like the media have uncritically accepted this movement. Sadly, it has been dead wrong since the beginning. It has been so wrong that it is evil and yet it remains largely unchallenged. It is the language of fascism and we all should know how that worked out. I am a member of that vilified group and no, I am not a Jew, I am a liberal Christian. It both distresses and angers me that my fellow Christians have allowed this to happen. I am not ashamed of what I am even in the least. I say that because for me it is the only way I can be true to my moral convictions and my integrity as a Christian. I will not tolerate being abused by fellow Christians who blindly accept incendiary rhetoric and even outright lies. This evil campaign is a blot on Christianity and we must all find a way to end it.

When I am asked, I usually identify myself as a liberal or progressive Christian. Quite a few do not know what that is and there are a few who think that a liberal is some sort of a monster. I suspect that the bottom line is in how we regard the bible. Quite a few Christians regard the bible as inspired by God or as the word of God and think of it as inerrant and to be read literally. Most liberals of my acquaintance would disagree. The bible is "inspired" in the same way that Shakespeare's plays and poems were inspired. The bible frequently shows great wisdom and insight but it also can be ugly and even hateful. It is a very human book that comes with all the baggage that being human implies. I see in it poor history, poor science and even poor geography. Contradictions are frequent and prophesy is more often than not quite wrong. In spite of all this, I read it daily. It tells us how an ancient people in a very different culture understood themselves, their world and their conception of God. We can read in it a very real evolution from an understanding of God as angry, judgemental and wrathful into a God of love, compassion and forgiveness as exemplified in the life and teaching of Jesus.

None of that has much of anything to do with the terms liberal and conservative which developed much later in response to ideas that had no play whatsoever in the time of Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin, and the rest of those people.

MarcusT said:

You describe here an ideal. Many Christians - including so-called traditional Christians - have a bad track record when it comes to upholding family values. It is easy to criticize e.g. homosexuals while turning a blind eye to adultery, inappropriate content and general obsession with all things sexual.

Click to expand...

That's a valid point, but it only goes to the matter of hypocritical individuals, not to the meaning of liberal and/or conservative.

Those are terms that describe certain values, etc., regardless of who or how many or which people call themselves by either of those terms or are labelled with them by other people.

Liberals... follow a worldly view.
Conservatives... follow a worldly view.
Moderates... follow a worldly view

One side clams the other is at fault for the evils of the world.... ignoring the fact that the hearts of man... ALL mankind... not all liberals/moderates/conservatives... but ALL are wicked.

Its far more important to follow Christ than a political ideology/party/group...

The problem with ALL of those world views/groups... is that... they are all led by the wicked hearts of men.... even those that claim the name of Christ, show in their fruit... the type of tree they truly are.... an orange tree can call itself an apple tree... but it will always produce an orange left to its own strength.