My Definition of Liberal

[Received]

My definition of a liberal with rational justification for his views: a would-be traditionalist who got jipped by history.

Can we see the fallacy of appealing to tradition in its full delirious light?

We need internal consistency; whether or not the ideas are themselves true is a difficulty of epistemology. So far as ideologies are valid makes them credible, though many ideologies are contrary to basic principles of benevolence.

Le thoughts?

 

[Received]

Still no-one to tackle this?

It doesn't make the 'right' traditionalists and conservatives here a least bit frazzled that the logic involved in their claims of holding many liberals in derision is fallicious, and that they themselves are -- from an objective point of view -- possible of being just as liberal as the liberals here, whereas various liberals may be more worthy of a conservative stance?

 

[Father Gregory]

Dear Received

The trouble is (from my point of you) that your characterisation of "tradition" excludes rationality. If I really did dine at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party I wouldn't sense my irrationality would I? Curiously those who appeal to Tradition as the Church's informed reflection on deep issues inspired by the Holy Spirit seem to me to be quite aware of their surroundings. Perhaps we should drop the words "liberal" and "Tradition" in favour of a more precise understanding of truth and the psychology of its testing and reception.

 

[Received]

I would say that reason is inherent to ideologies in the sense that they are internally consistent; but this is to say nothing of the value of the ideologies themselves. In this sense, so far as liberals are with justification for their views, they are no different -- at a glance -- than claimed conservatives, fundamentalists, traditionalists. It has been stated -- with the consequences of infinite bewilderment by many here -- how claimed "liberal" Christians either aren't Christians entirely, or are intrinsically inferior to those who hold tradition.

I am only attempting to point out -- via my definition of a liberal with justification -- how utterly silly and irrational this standing is.

 

[McCravey]

Dear Received

If I really did dine at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party I wouldn't sense my irrationality would I?

If you really dined at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, you are rational. Everyone else, through lack of the same experience, are also rational.

It's not a matter of rationally.

 

[Father Gregory]

Some would say that there is no such thing as rationality or sanity. I can imagine the Mad Hatter considering himself to be the very model of sane reason. Having that perception of oneself, however, does not make it so. I recognise though that there are limits to this argument. Some wish to confuse unconventional with irrational. These are the ones with keys to the asylum. These are often the ones really behind the bars of their own narrow horizons.

 

[McCravey]

Some would say that there is no such thing as rationality or sanity. I can imagine the Mad Hatter considering himself to be the very model of sane reason. Having that perception of oneself, however, does not make it so. I recognise though that there are limits to this argument. Some wish to confuse unconventional with irrational. These are the ones with keys to the asylum. These are often the ones really behind the bars of their own narrow horizons.

Revelation is often first perceived as irrational and insane thinking, especially by those receiving it.

 

[TScott]

Isn't perspective really at the very core of what faith and religion really are?

 

[Received]

Yes.

And given that we cannot discern which view works objectively -- i.e. there are always other possibilities that may fit just as well as our own model --, to consider a liberal inferior to a conservative or traditionalist is a fallacy. For all we know the truly 'liberal' interpretation may be the correct one, that would have been used by advocants if they were given an earlier existence in history.

 

[xiod]

Isaiah 32:5-8

5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.

6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.

8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You realise that in the KJV the word "liberal" meant "generous", don't you, xiod?

 

[tulc]

Hey xiod that quote looks alot like the thread you started. Are you spamming this or did you want to add something to the disscussion?
tulc(hey Welcome to Cf by the way!! )

 

[Gwynne]

Isaiah 32:5-8

5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.

6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.

8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

Isa 32:5 The fool shall no more be called prince: neither shall the deceitful be called great:
Isa 32:6 For the fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and speak to the Lord deceitfully, and to make empty the soul of the hungry, and take away drink from the thirsty.
Isa 32:7 The vessels of the deceitful are most wicked: for he hath framed devices to destroy the meek, with lying words, when the poor man speaketh judgment.
Isa 32:8 But the prince will devise such things as are worthy of a prince, and he shall stand above the rulers.

From the Douay-Rheims Bible.

Basically it's saying that "liberals" are good