Dennis Prager's Are You A Liberal Quiz?

[seebs]

That just makes the whole thing surreal, then.

 

[Texas Lynn]

That just makes the whole thing surreal, then.

Exactly. Praeger is kind of Alan Colmes of "Hannity and Colmes" liberal but half-heartedly and wimpy. Al Franken discusses Colmes aspect here in his book Lying Liars and everytime he says Colmes' name it's printed in a typeface half the size of everything else. They're like the all white basketball team that always loses to the Harlem Globetrotters.

 

[seebs]

Exactly. Praeger is kind of Alan Colmes of "Hannity and Colmes" liberal but half-heartedly and wimpy. Al Franken discusses Colmes aspect here in his book Lying Liars and everytime he says Colmes' name it's printed in a typeface half the size of everything else. They're like the all white basketball team that always loses to the Harlem Globetrotters.

Well, what's weird is, a lot of the stuff on that list was in many ways much stronger positions than many liberals hold; that makes it make no sense AT ALL.

 

[Bingley]

The original post seems to be mainly about American domestic politics. Is there not a more appropriate forum for it?

 

[UberLutheran]

I do NOT enjoy being manipulated by someone who posts -- and runs, and doesn't bother to "discuss"; and I do NOT enjoy engaging with someone who confuses "civil dialogue" with brinksmanship and baiting.

I've seen very little in the way of "dialogue" and "discussion" from you, and a whole LOT of smearing entire groups of people. You have been painting what you perceive to be "liberalism" with a brush which has very, VERY broad strokes, Sharp.

Even worse -- when someone responds to you, we rarely hear anything from you unless it's something with which you agree.

Even your very last comment to me was a calculated, deliberate insult: "I thought of that when I read Uber. Maybe he was German and Ub is a nickname for Uber meaning 'hyper' or 'over'.' Do you REALLY think that response constituted "civil dialogue", sharp?

I've now given you your reply. That's more courtesy than most of us have received from you. If you want courtesy, then you give courtesy.

Are you feeling manipulated? Really? Is it too much to suppose that some of your fellow posters might actually be interested in a discussion of liberalism (theology)?

You need not participate if you feel uninclined. But please don't spoil it for the rest of us. Oh and I do read all replies, but I may not be able to reply daily. Sorry. If you want to engage in civil dialog, feel free to join in. Thanks for courtesy should you choose to reply.

Trivia Fact: Did you know the name of Walt Disney's first cartoon business partner was Ub Iwerks? I thought of that when I read Uber. Maybe he was German and Ub is a nickname for Uber meaning 'hyper' or 'over'. That does it. I am going to bed. Later, dudes.

 

[CaDan]

The original post seems to be mainly about American domestic politics. Is there not a more appropriate forum for it?

Seconded.

 

[Anastasis]

I often say the liberals I know are usually about the most conservative people I know, too.

Yeah the classical definitions of the postitions have totally been redefined so it's murky as to what one means when you say liberal or conservative.

But I agree - this is more about politics than theology so maybe this should go to the politics forum.

 

[redheadmt]

I do NOT enjoy being manipulated by someone who posts -- and runs, and doesn't bother to "discuss"; and I do NOT enjoy engaging with someone who confuses "civil dialogue" with brinksmanship and baiting.

This is so typical of Sharp-like tactics. It's like the phrase "eat and run" except it more like "get a verbal jab in and run", or "prove Christian superiority and run". In "real life" when I respond with the intent of thoroughly explaining my position on the various issues that I have just been verbally demeaned and insulted on, the offender suddenly has to leave or just clams up. It happens every time.

 

[neocon]

A solid ZERO for me on that little checklist. Thank God.

 

[neocon]

.............................. you seem to be assuming that a liberal theologian will be a political liberal, and vice versa.

...........with VERY few exceptions that is simple truth.

 

[CaDan]

...........with VERY few exceptions that is simple truth.

Remember in the future: You are the one who chose that rule of argument. It is OK to use hasty generalizations if one calls it "simple truth."

 

[Sharp]

Within Christianity we have factions especially in America where conservatives in the church wish to have established a Christianity of law and liberals in the church favor a Christianity of love.

Nonsense. More correctly: Christians believe the Word of God (the Bible) and wish to have preach and live historic Christianity. Some people call themselves Christians but doubt God's Word (the Bible) and want to make up their own philosophy and call it "Christian". Both groups cannot be correct. Either the Bible is true or it isn't.

I have no doubt as to which side Christ would stand with, and it's not the one seeking to amass power through fear and superstition.

I am sure you need to read the Bible. Jesus Christ reveals Himself in the written Word. Faith in Christ is not superstition, and true love in Christ casts out fear. Many people who don't believe the Bible use hateful words to smear those who do believe it. Please read God's Word and stop repeating cliches.

 

[CaDan]

Nonsense. More correctly: Christians believe the Word of God (the Bible) and wish to have preach and live historic Christianity. Some people call themselves Christians but doubt God's Word (the Bible) and want to make up their own philosophy and call it "Christian". Both groups cannot be correct. Either the Bible is true or it isn't.

Nonsense. I do not wish to live in the First Century Roman empire. Your "historic christianity" is a FANTASY. There is no such thing. There are various "forms" of Christianity, all of which sprout from the "essence", but THEY ARE NOT THE ESSENCE.

And this "call themselves christians" stuff is very close to the line. Very close.

I have vanilla and strawberry tonight.

 

[seebs]

Hmm. We could experiment with this phrasing. "Some people call themselves Christians, but replace the Word with a book." That's particularly nice because it's quite clear that early Christians can't possibly have believed that a book was "the Word", because they didn't have a book yet.

 

[tulc]

Nonsense. More correctly: Christians believe the Word of God (the Bible) and wish to have preach and live historic Christianity.

It would be nice if it was as simple as you make it sound. But what happens if you discover it isn't? For instance what happens if you realize "the Word of God" isn't a book but a person? What if (bear with me here) you realize the black and white words (and even the red ones ) aren't enough to help you minister to the person in front of you? It will also take you to show them what real love is. Don't get me wrong I read my Bible every day but my relationship is with the author, not just the book He inspired. Just a thought.
tulc(who see's everyone already beat him to it!)

 

[Anastasis]

Nonsense. I do not wish to live in the First Century Roman empire. Your "historic christianity" is a FANTASY. There is no such thing. There are various "forms" of Christianity, all of which sprout from the "essence", but THEY ARE NOT THE ESSENCE.

And this "call themselves christians" stuff is very close to the line. Very close.

I have vanilla and strawberry tonight.

With sprinkles?

I agree that people have a rose colored view of what early Christianity was like.


Also, to respond to people who said that people who are liberal politically will be liberal theologically - you can't ever make sweeping statements like that about people.

In the local newspaper there was an editorial from a Christian democrat (yes, they do exist) and he said that he considers the democrat party to be the more Christian party because of its support of welfare and other such agencies for helping the poor (this isn't the place to discuss whether or not he's right, but that's what he believed) and the truth is his political beliefs were far more liberal than mine but his theology was much more conservative.

People are amazingly diverse - you can't place them into neat little categories - they don't all fit. So I guess you need to pick if this is about liberal theology or liberal politics? If the latter, maybe it should be on another forum.

*goes to eat her ice cream with sprinkles*

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Also, to respond to people who said that people who are liberal politically will be liberal theologically - you can't ever make sweeping statements like that about people.

Very true. I went to a Unitarian church when I lived with my sister. Some members were quite conservative politically yet very liberal on religion. The opposite is true in many cases regarding some evangelicals and African-American church groups.

 

[tulc]

I agree that people have a rose colored view of what early Christianity was like.

Only those who don't read about it! They were just as whacked out as us, hence the need for Paul and the rest to write the New Testament!
tulc(there was no perfect Church, and never will be, until we stand before the Father! )

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Nonsense. More correctly: Christians believe the Word of God (the Bible) and wish to have preach and live historic Christianity. Some people call themselves Christians but doubt God's Word (the Bible) and want to make up their own philosophy and call it "Christian". Both groups cannot be correct. Either the Bible is true or it isn't.


I am sure you need to read the Bible. Jesus Christ reveals Himself in the written Word. Faith in Christ is not superstition, and true love in Christ casts out fear. Many people who don't believe the Bible use hateful words to smear those who do believe it. Please read God's Word and stop repeating cliches.

I believe in Christ.