Liberal Christians

[TrutherAU]

Thank you. Now we know the problem. It is that you do not understand that in this country "Liberal" means "Democratic Socialist." It no longer has even the slightest connection to Classical Liberalism, which is most often associated these days with the word "Libertarian." I can well imagine that this might be confusing.

This ideological spectrum graph is universal so making the excuse it does not apply in US will not fly. What it clearly shows is that libertarians are on the progressive end of the spectrum along with neo liberals, liberals which was the only point i was making.

On the other issue you were having trouble with...this is one that sometimes also confuses Americans. That is the situation by which Christians, concerned about moral issues, support the Libertarian Party which tends towards allowing people to live their own lives, even when their lifestyles are not what many of us consider moral or even smart. But the thing to keep in mind there is that while we may strongly support -- or oppose -- certain behaviors, voting to have a police state in order to enforce that judgment is another matter.

I understand you loud and clear you are compromising your christian principles for your libertarian principles which are polar opposites. Thus showing which you believe has priority, freedom according to your own will rather than Gods will. Libertarianism is the political tag for new age philosophies every man/women is their own God thus "Liberty" they shout.

 

[Albion]

This ideological spectrum graph is universal

Uh, no. And for just one example of the inaccuracy of this chart, Libertarianism is labelled "Progressive" which we all know is a synonmy for exgtreme Leftism. Since the chart properly places Libertarianism at the opposite pole from Communism, that's all wrong. And putting Communism right next to "Conservatism" is even less sensible. By the way, the several misspellings don't do much to make this particular chart credible.

I understand you loud and clear you are compromising your christian principles for your libertarian principles

This kind of attackr from an admirer of atheistic Marxism would almost be funny if it were not for the meanspirited intention behind it.

 

[TrutherAU]

Uh, no. And for just one example of the inaccuracy of this chart, Libertarianism is labelled "Progressive" which we all know is a synonmy for exgtreme Leftism. Since the chart properly places Libertarianism at the opposite pole from Communism, that's all wrong.

Uh no Libertarianism is indeed progressive.Progressive simply means advancing the secular enlightenment principles which have been there since the european enlightenment. It has nothing to with being a lefty per se.

For example in Australia the Liberal Party is rightwing party so far as social morality is concerned they are progressive thus they support the affirmative action for minorities.So in this respect they are no different to leftwing parties. Libertarians in the US are no different they support rights, affirmative action for minorities their main differences with the left wing are economic policies e.g free markets vs the size of governments, gov intervention in markets etc..

The point that is relevant for christians is the fact libertarians are extremely permissive of deviant morality in this respect they are exactly the same as lefties,liberals, socialists etc Any how the ideals of a political party are always compromised once they enter government.
Its easy for minority parties to claim all kinds of ideological purity however once they enter government they sell out their principles big time. Thus no doubt Mr Paul may end up being a big government man himself if he was ever elected president just like Ronald Reagan whom was also a libertarian didnt stay that way for long why, one acronym; CFR the real government of the US.

This kind of attackr from an admirer of atheistic Marxism would almost be funny if it were not for the meanspirited intention behind it.

Who ? trying to label me this sorry mate wrong guess.

 

[Albion]

Uh no Libertarianism is indeed progressive.Progressive simply means advancing the secular enlightenment principles which have been there since the european enlightenment. It has nothing to with being a lefty per se.

Well, that's just wrong.

For example in Australia the Liberal Party is rightwing party so far as social morality is concerned they are progressive thus they support the affirmative action for minorities.

Parties choose names for all manner or reasons, often for impact, not at all because the name is an accurate description of its beliefs. Consider, for instance, the National Socialist German Worker's Party or the many Communist Parties that include the word "Democratic" in their name or propaganda even though they are the farthest thing from being democrats. Outside Australia--and on this forum in the past, BTW--it's been necessary for some poster or other to have to mention that the Liberal Party in Australia has a misleading name.

The point that is relevant for christians is the fact libertarians are extremely permissive of deviant morality in this respect they the exactly the same as lefties,liberals, socialists etc

That's a very immature characterization of the situation. What Libertarians stand for is personal freedom, for non-intervention in the private affairs of other people. They oppose force and fraud--you know, those ideals you support. In a free or moral society people will do things that "good" people do not approve of. That does not give us the right to enslave them. How denial of liberty can be equated with Christian morality is something you've yet to explain.

 

[TrutherAU]

What Libertarians stand for is personal freedom, for non-intervention in the private affairs of other people.

Yeh I am aware of all that. However like i said you really dont know what they might or might not do once they get into power in the US. COMPROMISE & pragmatism is what politics is about. I suppose your aware the tea party was actually hijacked I believe by GOPers when it actually started completely reactionary.It has stalled as a movement it failed, if you & other reactionaries want radical change your never going to get it.
Your government wasnt setup that way so dream on. I suppose you sit around waiting on every breath of Alex Jones do you the guy is good making lots of noise thats about it.
The US was setup to be big government face it. The congress takes marching orders from CFR, dont believe me research it for yourself. The day the US stops playing the global empire will be the day US citizens get rid of big gov and get more rights, so that would need to happen first. One of the main things that doesnt make sense about libertarians is that you have ones preaching Globalism and others preaching Isolationism they have no consistency they make no sense, neither here nor there. They are their own worst enemy.

 

[Albion]

Yeh I am aware of all that. However like i said you really dont know what they might or might not do once they get into power in the US. COMPROMISE & pragmatism is what politics is about.

It's not as theoretical as all that. There have been Libertarians elected at many other levels of government (and the Party's current candidate for president was formerly the governor of one of the states for two terms while a member of the Libertarian Party), and we know how they performed.

While there is a certain pragmatism in office, as we all know is unavoidable, they have shown a determination to promote libertarian principles just as one would hope. My personal opinion is that they have been truer to the principles their party advocates than the personnel of the two major parties.

 

[TrutherAU]

It's not as theoretical as all that. There have been Libertarians elected at many other levels of government (and the Party's current candidate for president was formerly the governor of one of the states for two terms while a member of the Libertarian Party), and we know how they performed.

Ah well keep dreaming then since you cant change anything with anything less than an armed rebellion.

 

[Soothfish]

The enemy is getting very powerful. He has successfully convinced many people that God and his son are only interested in their physical comfort, narcissism, and domination over others. Satan tells them that all humans have THE RIGHT to experience animal pleasure and THE RIGHT TO DESTROY anyone, even a helpless child, that gets in the way of what their animal bodies desire!

I don't blame anyone for struggling to understand how anyone could call themselves a "liberal christian" with a straight face.

 

[Norah63]

Reading over a few posts on this thread. Good to hear another voice chime in, Soothfish.
Politics have divided the body of Christ to some extent in many ways. Christians are pro life,
for traditional marriage, and freedom from ever increasing government regulations.
Still freedom carries responsibility, those who choose to do wrong will continue, those that walk
the narrow pathway, must carry on in faith. Believers know full well what the outcome will be,
Yet we vote in hopes and prayer for a leader that will honor truth. That will bring us closer inline with
That straight and narrow path.

 

[TrutherAU]

The enemy is getting very powerful. He has successfully convinced many people that God and his son are only interested in their physical comfort, narcissism, and domination over others. Satan tells them that all humans have THE RIGHT to experience animal pleasure and THE RIGHT TO DESTROY anyone, even a helpless child, that gets in the way of what their animal bodies desire!

Yes however rights speak appears to be very important to americans.More important than it is for commonwealth nations for example. Foreigners that criticise americas level of rights, americans will label socialists whether they are or not.
Libertarians are big Rights Advocates in fact I dont even know why they want to run for government in US when they dont even believe in government period. The level of gov they are after is so minimal anarchy would ensue pretty quickly. Maybe Ron or Rand Paul would be better off running as a Corporate CEO or Head Honcho of a Corporate interest group representing Corporate America, president for either of them would seem to be an an oxymoron.

 

[Soothfish]

Yes however rights speak appears to be very important to americans.More important than it is for commonwealth nations for example. Foreigners that criticise americas level of rights, americans will label socialists whether they are or not.
Libertarians are big Rights Advocates in fact I dont even know why they want to run for government in US when they dont even believe in government period. The level of gov they are after is so minimal anarchy would ensue pretty quickly. Maybe Ron or Rand Paul would be better off running as a Corporate CEO or Head Honcho of a Corporate interest group representing Corporate America, president for either of them would seem to be an an oxymoron.

A lot of Libertarians are saying that there are plenty of functions that could be moved from the fed to local state agencies and that would make things more efficient and less prone to corruption. Don't see how anyone could disagree with that. It just makes sense.

 

[Albion]

A lot of Libertarians are saying that there are plenty of functions that could be moved from the fed to local state agencies and that would make things more efficient and less prone to corruption. Don't see how anyone could disagree with that. It just makes sense.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[If Not For Grace]

The wine that Jesus drank I would imagine was not fermented.

That is just one of the ideas I would imagine to be incorrect-why do you think everyone was impressed (regular consumers of WINE) that is was the best?

We were never told not to drink from the vine-but to not be drunkards...

The message never changes but the packaging has been changing since day one-Paul was the biggest game changer of em all. Thank God He sent Paul or the gentiles would still be excluded as other groups are today. ALL means All, ya'll...

 

[TrutherAU]

A lot of Libertarians are saying that there are plenty of functions that could be moved from the fed to local state agencies and that would make things more efficient and less prone to corruption. Don't see how anyone could disagree with that. It just makes sense.

Well you are the one that posted this previously :

THE RIGHT to experience animal pleasure and THE RIGHT TO DESTROY anyone, even a helpless child, that gets in the way of what their animal bodies desire!

I don't blame anyone for struggling to understand how anyone could call themselves a "liberal christian" with a straight face.

So I am having problems following you.Your either concerned about the negative effects of this permissive liberality or your more concerned with personal liberty make your choice one way or the other. I dont see how you can have both or advocate for both.
You already seem to realise rights have a darkside and they are not all Roses and goodness. So where are you going with this next post. How about the word "Responsibility" many progressives dont like that word they dont like having to have to take responsibility for the consequences their selfish ME ME ME rights speak.

Right wing libertarians only give dam about families above a certain income bracket.
Left wing libertarians dont give a dam about the wealthy libertarians or where their taxes go.

So why are your rights or albions rights more important than those libertarians or the poor or jobless or the elderly or war veterans that rely on their government pension or their food stamps, simple question.

Libertarians- Liberals left or right something different drag.

BtW before some stupid cowboys call me socialist for criticising your sacred cow. I am believer in C.H Douglas theory of "Social Credits" for my favoured economic system this is not Socialism.

 

[timur123456789]

Are there really any good old fashioned conservative Christians out there anymore? If so, I want to find you! lol. I am so sad to see the Christian population has become so liberal in their morals, thinking etc....

I am Liberitarian Chrisitan .

Economically Conservative, Civil rights Liberal !

Non-aggression principle - Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"NAP- is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate

Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership."

 

[Albion]

I am Liberitarian Chrisitan .

Economically Conservative, Civil rights Liberal !

Non-aggression principle - Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"NAP- is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate

Agreed, although I don't know how the term "Civil rights Liberal" fits, considering that those laws almost always come with and necessitate government force/aggression.

ANYWAY, let's remember that this forum is about religious conservatism, i.e.doctrinal traditionalism, and does not have anything much to do with political preferences.

 

[Yahu]

Are there really any good old fashioned conservative Christians out there anymore? If so, I want to find you! lol. I am so sad to see the Christian population has become so liberal in their morals, thinking etc....

I am very conservative in my personal beliefs and convictions BUT I also have tolerance of the spiritual immature that still have sin in their life.

I get so sick of baby Christians that go around slapping other babies for being babies as well as the self-righteous that attack others in ignorance. It is one thing to teach in meekness to those that are in error. Too many are trying to run around pointing out each other's splinters.

Yes I personally find liberalism within the church disturbing. For example, I don't understand how any professing Christian can be a democrat with their agenda against Yah.

Conservative Christians can tend to fall into the error of Phariseeism. That is just as much of a problem within the churches IMO. They expand on the laws of Yah to punish those that break their added traditions of man.

 

[Yahu]

What I mean is the world seems to be filling up with liberal Christianity by the minute. Those who decide it is ok to drink in moderation or do drugs because God made them or date several people at once, look at inappropriate material because it "does not hurt anyone", accepting of worldly ways and things. Women not being submissive, men not taking the lead, woman dressing provocatively, men "checking out" every woman who walks by. Those are just a few examples. The list goes on for miles. Nobody seems to be concerned with avoiding the appearance of evil these days. Ok, just my two cents

Actually some of those are examples of the problems of Phariseeism I was talking about.

There is NOTHING immoral about drinking in moderation. It is very clear that the biblical wine was fermented. My father had a vineyard and we made wine when I was young and my father was an Elder of our church. There are many clues that wine had to be fermented in biblical times. That is why new wine had to be put in new wine skins. The fermentation process would split the old wine skins. It had to be able to stretch because of the gasses produced in the fermentation process. Once the 'new wine' was done fermenting, it could be transferred to old wine skins for storage. Grape juice would not store without fermenting.

The alcohol content was also used to kill off the germs in the water. It was used to purify water to make it safe to drink by mixing water with wine. Even when the wine soured to vinegar it was used for water purification.

It is the excess use of alcohol that is discourages in scripture. It is Phariseeism to forbid all alcohol and attribute it to sin. To attack another over their greater understanding is the error of the Pharisees. They attacked Yeshua for things like picking wheat to eat on Sabbath. By their expanded RULES that was considered working on the Sabbath.

There is no evil in the consumption of alcohol in moderation therefore it can't be an 'appearance of evil'. Don't expand on the laws of Yah with the traditions of man. THAT IS EVIL. So I suggest you need to worry about the beam in your own eye and repent of self-righteousness.

Too many take the concept of 'appearance of evil' way too far when they define evil as violating their own expanded rules that are not based on correct understanding of scripture.

 

[Norah63]

Conservative, liberal, moderate. I'm still trying to figure out what part
revenge playes in voting?

 

[actionsub]

I would like to address this ........... I believe you are incorrect about it. I believe it is a requirement of anyone graduating from a seminary that they know how to read the Bible in Greek. There are certainly a lot of conservative pastors here on CF that know how to do just that. And they'll be right up here with us saying that it is often misinterpreted by liberals.

Nope, not a requirement at all seminaries. More conservative seminaries place higher emphasis on the original languages. Others, like the liberal seminary I attend, do not require any language study at all...unless you're PCUSA, and the denomination requires that its ordinands pass tests on Hebrew and Greek.