Jesus Christ a Liberal......

[franklin]

Liberals believe that they are helping people who have failed, not providing excuses.

ROFLOL    I get the feeling you don't like Rush! Your remarks do not surprise me mr seebs.....  you sound just like the left wingers that call him and try to attack him.  Keep up the good work!

Well, I think Rush struck a nerve here, which speaks volumes, because it's lib's like you seebs that is great to have around.  Lib's like you are great for laughs because there is no logic or commensence to your thinking. It is not the liberals who are helping people who fail it is the conservatives who are the ones who are truly helping those who fail because they are not the ones making excuses for people.  Conservatives, true conservatives believe in the human spirit.  They are the ones who believe in the potential that ordinary people possess, not liberals! 

I'll get to the rest of your posts and remarks later, I have to get back to work so I can pay my bills and not rely on the government or the lib's for help. Oh is that bad thinking or a bad word?  Work ? 

It would be only polite of you to recognize this, and come up with a new term for these people you wish to complain about.

What is your point seebs!?!  Liberals are the biggest whiners out there!  They are the ones who are always complaining about how bad America is!!!  They are the ones who are always pitting one group of Americans against another, it's called class envy and class warefare and it sounds like you bought their big lie!  Oh gee, that isn't polite enough for you?     

Limbaugh is attacking straw men of his own invention; I've seen him take a study, change numbers, and recite the changed numbers on the air - not the actual numbers in the study.

Attacking straw men of his own invention?      You have a wild imagination.  How often do you listen to him?  And be more specific about why you think he changes numbers, statistic's etc...  

What he is talking about has nothing to do with "liberals" in any world that has ever existed.

I know, he also talks about conservatism which is the opposite of liberalism....  Now, how do you define liberalism seebs?  Let's hear it!  Go ahead, fill us all in huh?  I can't wait to hear this.....  

But, as a down side, tends to say "it's good for you to go hungry a bit, it'll make you work harder" - which is bad thinking.

Working harder is bad thinking???? !!!!!  Hunger has always been a great motivator to seek work.  Did Jesus grow up believing that hard work was a bad thing or bad thinking?  What trade did He learn from His earthly dad?  However seebs, I think your right in a sence, work is a dirty word to those who place the burden on other hard working Americans for support! 

 

[Job_38]

Guys, let us not forget the love Christ demands we show. Stay civil brothers.

 

[seebs]

Today at 08:51 AM franklin said this in Post #41 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677163#post677163)
ROFLOL    I get the feeling you don't like Rush! Your remarks do not surprise me mr seebs.....  you sound just like the left wingers that call him and try to attack him.  Keep up the good work!

Indeed, I don't like Rush. He makes conservatives look stupid and heartless, and I think this is a disaster, because I think many of the principles of conservatism are the only real hope we have.

Well, I think Rush struck a nerve here, which speaks volumes, because it's lib's like you seebs that is great to have around.  Lib's like you are great for laughs because there is no logic or commensence to your thinking.

Wow, that's amazing! Not only is it a personal attack, but it's one totally unrelated to my positions on any issues.

It is not the liberals who are helping people who fail it is the conservatives who are the ones who are truly helping those who fail because they are not the ones making excuses for people.

I would say that the people who actually feed the hungry guy are the ones helping him at the moment when he's out there hungry, and the people trying to help him get a real education are the ones helping him in the long run. Both are helping.

  Conservatives, true conservatives believe in the human spirit.  They are the ones who believe in the potential that ordinary people possess, not liberals! 

This is bald assertion, and frankly untrue.

I'll get to the rest of your posts and remarks later, I have to get back to work so I can pay my bills and not rely on the government or the lib's for help. Oh is that bad thinking or a bad word?  Work ? 

Well, speaking as someone who normally has at least one and a half to two jobs, I guess I'm not entirely opposed to it.

What is your point seebs!?!  Liberals are the biggest whiners out there!  They are the ones who are always complaining about how bad America is!!!  They are the ones who are always pitting one group of Americans against another, it's called class envy and class warefare and it sounds like you bought their big lie!  Oh gee, that isn't polite enough for you?     

My point is that what you're talking about has nothing to do with the people I've met and talked to who call themselves "liberals", or the philosophies most of them espouse.

Attacking straw men of his own invention?      You have a wild imagination.  How often do you listen to him?  And be more specific about why you think he changes numbers, statistic's etc...  

There was a study released having to do with divorce percentages and infidelity; it was news for about two days. I had a newspaper with the study in it in front of me, and he happened to be on the air talking about it, and he changed several of the numbers around to make the female statistics worse and the male statistics better.

I know, he also talks about conservatism which is the opposite of liberalism....  Now, how do you define liberalism seebs?  Let's hear it!  Go ahead, fill us all in huh?  I can't wait to hear this.....  

Socially, or economically? Social liberals believe in individual freedom and self-determination on a number of issues; typical positions would be in favor of freedom of religion, pro-choice, and probably generally opposed to the "war on drugs". Social conservatives tend to feel that morality should be enforced by law; social liberals tend to believe morality should be a personal decision.

Economic liberals tend to believe that society's safety nets should be strong, and that most people should receive support from them, and advocate some degree of economic equality. Economic conservatives tend to argue against safety nets, and that they should apply to relatively few people, and that economic equality or inequality is not the business of the states.

I'm generally economically conservative; I believe that most of the welfare system is a giant nightmare which does very little good, and traps people. On the other hand, I could imagine a welfare system which worked - I just don't think we could get there from here.

Working harder is bad thinking???? !!!!!  Hunger has always been a great motivator to seek work.

Uh-huh. But when there's no work, and you're hungry *today*, Christ teaches us to feed you. Christ didn't say "When I was hungry, and it was my own fault for not working harder, you laughed in my face and told me to get a job", when He was talking to the righteous people.

  Did Jesus grow up believing that hard work was a bad thing or bad thinking?  What trade did He learn from His earthly dad?  However seebs, I think your right in a sence, work is a dirty word to those who place the burden on other hard working Americans for support! 

Your straw man has little to do with my position.

When someone is already hungry, Christ's position is clear: Get out there and feed the hungry. NOW. No excuses. No "but they could have done something different". We feed the hungy; that's what Christ tells us to do, and He leaves no room for doubt or excuses.

Now, given that we are commanded to feed the hungry, we may rightly ask questions like "how can we best really help these people?". In the long run, we should focus on getting them independant, not on keeping them on the dole. That suggests that we should focus on programs that help people get back into the work force and fend for themselves. In the short run, it is utterly unacceptable for us to let people starve; that contradicts Christ's commandments to us. In the long run, though, if we wish to keep people from starving, just feeding them is not enough; we'll run out of food ourselves, and then *everyone's* hungry.

So, in the long run, we need to work on education, and on getting people back on their feet. That's something neither side likes to do, but it's more popular among conservatives.

However, too many conservatives do exactly what you do here - ignore the reality, which is people who are hungry *right this minute*, and talk in general terms about grand sweeping solutions to these problems, or about how these people "ought to work more". That's not okay; we are commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and minister to the sick. These are not obligations we can shirk just because someone is hungry, naked, or sick due to his own errors. God doesn't like excuses like that.

In the long run, yes, we need to do more than feed people; we need to teach them to feed themselves. However, if we aren't willing to do that, well, we can't exactly be surprised when people don't know how.

 

[Outspoken]

"I've been told by many people that Christ would favor laws against abortion"

I think christ would change the hearts of the law makers and show then abortion is wrong and from that laws would stem.

 

[caley]

Yesterday at 08:51 AM franklin said this in Post #41

ROFLOL    I get the feeling you don't like Rush! Your remarks do not surprise me mr seebs.....  you sound just like the left wingers that call him and try to attack him.  Keep up the good work!

Well, I think Rush struck a nerve here, which speaks volumes, because it's lib's like you seebs that is great to have around.  Lib's like you are great for laughs because there is no logic or commensence to your thinking. It is not the liberals who are helping people who fail it is the conservatives who are the ones who are truly helping those who fail because they are not the ones making excuses for people.  Conservatives, true conservatives believe in the human spirit.  They are the ones who believe in the potential that ordinary people possess, not liberals! 

I'll get to the rest of your posts and remarks later, I have to get back to work so I can pay my bills and not rely on the government or the lib's for help. Oh is that bad thinking or a bad word?  Work ? 





What is your point seebs!?!  Liberals are the biggest whiners out there!  They are the ones who are always complaining about how bad America is!!!  They are the ones who are always pitting one group of Americans against another, it's called class envy and class warefare and it sounds like you bought their big lie!  Oh gee, that isn't polite enough for you?     



Attacking straw men of his own invention?      You have a wild imagination.  How often do you listen to him?  And be more specific about why you think he changes numbers, statistic's etc...  

[/b]

I know, he also talks about conservatism which is the opposite of liberalism....  Now, how do you define liberalism seebs?  Let's hear it!  Go ahead, fill us all in huh?  I can't wait to hear this.....  

[/b]

Working harder is bad thinking???? !!!!!  Hunger has always been a great motivator to seek work.  Did Jesus grow up believing that hard work was a bad thing or bad thinking?  What trade did He learn from His earthly dad?  However seebs, I think your right in a sence, work is a dirty word to those who place the burden on other hard working Americans for support!  [/B]

This post is a textbook example of what is known as "attacking a strawman."

 

[caley]

I think Outspoken hit the nail on the head when he said that Christ probably wouldn't have much to say about any law. He certainly didn't appear to have much respect for the laws of men when He was on Earth.

 

[Job_38]

Excactly. We do not adhere to the laws of man, for our adherence is to those above. We

 

[Outspoken]

"He certainly didn't appear to have much respect for the laws of men when He was on Earth."

exactly. He would be busy talking about the issues yes, like saying abortion is wrong and homosexuality is still wrong, but he was more focused on changing lives of the law makers...and leave it to them to change the laws.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Interesting discussion and now back to the original point. Actually the opening quote is from myself, I think, based on Christ's opposition to temporal authority and advocacy for the poor.

There is much good and much bad in what we, imprefectly, define for practical purposes as both liberalism and conservatism in America. Tony Campolo has a great riff on it in his book "Is God a Republican or a Democrat?"

On social issues, I am very liberal and I do not believe Christ would disapprove. In the case of abortion he would certainly admonish those antis (and this would include most of them) who have no sympathy at all for the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. He would, I believe, take no position of legal aspects of it. He would not approve of the Christian Coalition using his name to advance their political power.

To those who complain of high taxes he has already spoken with his famous 'render unto Caesar' comment. He would not approve of policies which make the rich richer and the poor poorer. He certainly, as others have said, was not a policy wonk and would not have much to say about the minutiae of government.

Internationally and on war, peaceniks are probably right when they say Christ would not approve of warfare; yet in just wars such as WW II, Bosnia, and the present imbroligio over Iraq, it is doubtful he would condemn military action undertaken for the greater good.

Theologically Christ would not have much patience with exercise of judgementalism by many who are among his followers. As we say in Christ there is no East nor West, in him no North or South, and that applies geographically, ideologically, and theologically.

He certainly would not approve of deception in politics or punditry, though, all fall short of the mark there.

Would Christ accept the contriteness of such as Trent Lott over his misdoings? Undoubtedly yes, though perhaps an adminotion that actions speak louder than words might be in there somewhere.

He would oppose policies that hurt families such as companies like Wal-Mart using deceptive and meanspirited means to fight unionization of their workforce.

He would admonish all to join hands despite our differences.

It is because of such an understanding of "The Fighting Jesus" that I can see the wisdom of the line in Kris Kristofferson's song "Jesus was a Capricorn" where KK said he'd "reckon they'd just nail him up if he came down again."

 

[StingRay]

27th February 2003 at 02:17 PM Job_38 said this in Post #47 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680037#post680037)

Excactly. We do not adhere to the laws of man, for our adherence is to those above. We

Uhh, the bible tells us to adhere to to the laws of our nations. Because all nations are under God.

I'll find the scripture hopefully, but it is there.

 

[caley]

Yesterday at 02:44 AM StingRay said this in Post #50

Uhh, the bible tells us to adhere to to the laws of our nations. Because all nations are under God.

I'll find the scripture hopefully, but it is there.

You are speaking of Romans 13.  This is the common interpretation of it, but I would like to offer a different viewpoint.



<TABLE>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD>In Romans 13:3-4 Paul states, </TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD><I>"Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."</I> </TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD>Paul knew that the Roman Empire was a terror to Christianity, and that Christians would not receive praise from it. His intended audience knew this as well. What he has just listed are qualifications and properties of legitimacy that beyond a doubt would eliminate the Roman Empire and anything like it from the category of legitimate "governing authorities" from the minds of his readers.



<TABLE>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD><I>"Therefore you must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."</I> Romans 13:5 </TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD>Paul is referring to natural authorities that one’s conscience would also feel obligated to obey. He knew no one would feel guilty for not worshiping the emperor or whatever other insane ideas a State may think fit to put on paper and call statute law, state law, royal law, etc. (Or not put on paper and enforce as a defacto law, or make a stealth defacto law by not punishing those who attack people of a particular belief or action.) And would one’s conscience ever feel guilty for not knowing the current and future official and de facto interpretations of all the millions of possibly contradictory laws of states? I think not! </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The above is from this article: http://anti-state.netherweb.com/article.php?article_id=307, an excellent analysis of Romans 13.

 

[lared]

True, we are to obey Caesar (human governments) but we are also commanded to obey God.

Is this a dilemma?

No, because of something called 'relative subjection'.

For example, you may go out for the evening and leave your children in the care of a babysitter. You tell your children to mind the babysitter and do what she tells you to do.

Of course, if the babysitter now orders the children to do something that the parents would never allow (perhaps like stealing or smoking)......then the children will have to refuse. The law of the parents will then have to supercede the law of the babysitter.

This is the way Jehovah's Witnesses handle laws of Caesar.

They gladly obey all the laws of the government in the land in which they reside.....but always put God's laws first, even if it means prison, ridicule, or even death.

Sincerely, Lared

 

[caley]

I would argue that one who is truly following the practice of Christ would completely ignore the law of men and follow only the law of God. That's what Christ did. Would it have been disobeying God's law for him and his disciples to avoid eating wheat from the field on the Sabbath? Not necessarily, but he did it anyway, showing disrespect for the laws of men. I try to live my life by ignoring the law of men and following only the law of God. If something does not conflict with the law of God, but does conflict with the law of men, I don't really care.

 

[Ezra]

Not necessarily, but he did it anyway, showing disrespect for the laws of men. I try to live my life by ignoring the law of men and following only the law of God. Christian Anarchist

Anarchist:

With all due respect, your name is an oxymoron and betrays you unfamiliarity with Scripture. Christ did not show disrespect for the laws of men, but he disregarded the "traditions of men" -- the Rabbinic baggage that men had added to the holy laws of God. However, Christians today are commanded to obey the laws of men, provided they do not conflict with the Word of God. "SUBMIT YOURSELVES TO EVERY ORDINANCE OF MAN FOR THE LORD'S SAKE" (Please see 1 Peter 2:12-25). At the same time, when Christians are commanded by civil authority or even eccelsiastical authority to disobey God, that is another matter. The same Peter (with John), when commanded to refrain from preaching and teaching the Word of God responded thus: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but [help] speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20). The same principle was followed by Shadrach, Meshac, Abedenego and Daniel in the book of Daniel.

 

[anon5354]

of course Jesus is liberal, look at his long hair

 

[undead1]

Today at 02:07 AM Ezra said this in Post #54 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688469#post688469)

At the same time, when Christians are commanded by civil authority or even eccelsiastical authority to disobey God, that is another matter.

What happens when you pay your taxes? They go to support a state judiciary that awards unjustified divorces to women complainants. So a Christian's taxes lead directly to the propagation of sin.

Long live anarchy!

 

[Texas Lynn]

We did a hymn in church Sunday that supports my contentions; I hadn't heard of it before or noticed it if we've done it before: it's "Hail to the Lord's Annointed" by James Montgomery (1821; #203 in the Methodist Hymnal). In part verses 2 and 3 go "...he comes to break oppression, to set the captive free; to take away transgression, and rule in equity. He comes with succor speedy to those who suffer wrong; to help the poor and needy, and bid the weak be strong."

Sure don't sound like, if that describes the work of Christ's ministries, that Ralph Reed and Tom DeLay are doing his bidding...

 

[Texas Lynn]

Today at 12:27 PM undead said this in Post #56

What happens when you pay your taxes? They go to support a state judiciary that awards unjustified divorces to women complainants. So a Christian's taxes lead directly to the propagation of sin.

Long live anarchy!

You can't possibly&nbsp;determine unless you are a court clerk which divorces are justified are which are not, my friend.&nbsp; &nbsp;Leave it in God's hands.

 

[caley]

Today at 06:27 AM undead said this in Post #56

What happens when you pay your taxes? They go to support a state judiciary that awards unjustified divorces to women complainants. So a Christian's taxes lead directly to the propagation of sin.

Long live anarchy!

Glad to see another anarchist on the board.

Taxes also fund many other sinful activities--the National Endowment of Arts pays for artists to **** on religious icons and I won't even start on the Department of Defense.

Also, if you hold a government to the same moral standard that you hold any person, then taxation is effectively theft.

 

[undead1]

Today at 10:12 PM Texas Lynn said this in Post #58 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=690364#post690364)

You can't possibly&nbsp;determine unless you are a court clerk which divorces are justified are which are not, my friend.&nbsp; &nbsp;Leave it in God's hands.

No divorces by women are justified (unless they were refused marital relations by their husband over a prolonged period, which applies to almost no divorces).