Was Jesus liberal? Why or why not?

[Phatscotty]

What is perpetuated by the Right as "Christianity" is nothing more than theocratic dictatorship. That debate has absolutely persisted within the church.. aka the Byzantine Empire, Rome, etc. It is a valid debate.

There was only one theocratic-ordained government in all of history, and that was Israel. You keep alleging things like the above post with a broad brush which encompasses anyone who doesn't view economics, philosophy of origins, or social justice through your little personal prism as "right wing" or "the right". In my time here, you've feigned thread after thread as to wanting to discuss things, and the minute someone offers anything remotely different than viewing society as a class struggle between the oppressors vs. the oppressed, you start with this "right wing is guilty" rhetoric. I've seen you annihilated by the likes of Iz Man, Nobunaga, Luns, Jimboston, and most recently, Saxitoxin (the funniest of them all). You have little understanding of history, economics, or science despite your claims to such. Your little song and dance has never changed, ever since the time I first started reading your posts. I fly with many people who are liberal-minded in my profession, but yours is a blind obedience which shuts out any chance of rational discourse.

As already pointed out, Jesus is neither a liberal or conservative.

[BigBallinStalin]

On the whole, Jesus comes down more on the liberal side. Unsurprisingly, he's kind of a complex figure, and doesn't fit neatly into one side or the other. Neither do people, for that matter (Nightstrike, I exclude you as I think you were built by Fox News).

I think you were built by a dog and a can of Alpo.

I think we can all agree Jesus would not use force.

Just don't bring him around Jews making money in the Temple. That guy gets all anti-Semite on them bitches.

[Night Strike]

a REAL liberal means that you believes that people and individuals are more important than any institution. It means that becuase individuals have the right to their own ideas, tolerance is important for things not harmful to others. Liberals believe that the government is necessary for some things, but that it should only be relied upon for the minimum. However, that minimum should be structured at truly helping people, not simply appeasing those who are powerful, and certainly should not be used as a tool to keep people from protesting or moving up through a cycle of dependence. (sadly, of late the conservative have liked to destroy true liberal institutions, then step back and claim it was a bad liberal idea that cuased the problem.. be it destruction of unions, defunding of training and food programs, etc.).

That definition sounds EXACTLY like what the Tea Party and real conservatives are espousing, not the liberals of the Democratic party.

It is NOT what they are espousing. It is absolutely not what will result from the policies they are, in truth, putting forward. If you want to keep watching the wizard on the wall instead of the guy behind the curtain, go ahead. I DO agree that the Democratic party is not liberal.

Really? You aren't going to gain freedoms by having less government spending and taxation? The current "liberals" in the government want to constantly expand the government while the Tea Party conservatives are working to preserve our freedoms. Your liberals have distorted liberalism to become statism, so why don't you just start using REAL definitions instead of ones you want to believe. OR you could take the liberal definition you want to use and actually realize that it's currently the conservatives who are espousing those values in today's political arena.

Conservatives believe that each individual is much more important than the institution of government.

and that corporations get he full rights of people, which pretty much negates all the previous

Then rewrite the law that states that corporations are person. I'm not stopping you. Granted, if you rewrite it you're also going to have to change a TON of other laws such as the ability to still be able to sue corporations, but go right ahead.

Today's liberals believe that government is the solution to every ill and will trample over any individual who disagrees with them. Today's liberals look for every single opportunity to grow the government, not to make it as small as possible.

No, but that IS the conservative "straw man" argument.

It's not a straw man when it's true. Look at the people who call themselves liberal today. They're ALL trying to grow the government and expand its powers. If you can't see that, you're blind.

Just look at the liberal uproar over just asking that the government only spend the money that they take in. Liberals were about to shut down the entire government over a paltry $60 billion in budget cuts (that didn't even end up being cuts). And you think that's a group of people who want a minimal government?

Nice try, it was NOT the liberals who wanted that or fought for that.

Oops, I'm sorry. The people who you think are liberals were actually the ones who were saying that we need to spend even more money.

HOWEVER, there is another story. That is about the man who is about to be fired (basically, though different terms were used in that day). He took and as the agent of his master went around forgiving the loans, erasing the record of their debts. His master's loans,that is. So, when he was dismissed he found welcome in amongst the population.

Seriously, what story are you referring to? What book, chapter, and verse? Because the only similar story that I can recall is one where, if that's what you were referring to, you completely cut out half the story. I know there's the story where a rich man forgave the debt that was owed him, but then that debtor refused to forgive the debt of the person who owed him. That story had absolutely nothing to do about politics and all to do about making sure you do unto others as you have been treated.

No, that is yet another story.. but an appropriate one for this thread, none-the -less. It is not an often cited text, because it is a difficult one. The only reason I know of it is that our pastor did a sermon on it a few months ago. I will try to find it.

Just requoting to make sure it doesn't get forgotten.

Then again.. it is a COMMAND to take care of the "widows and orphans". and note that this is an idea, not just a definition. In that day, widows were the ones recognized not to be able to support themselves without help. Today, that list is far greater because our times have changed a LOT.

You're right, that is the command. Except, you missed one VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL. That command is to Christians to take care of the widows and orphans, not for the government to do so. In fact, it even says that the Christians are supposed to do so because the government and others cannot be relied upon to do so.

You will have to show where that is specified in a way that means the government should not be tasked with this at all.

Because Jesus was specifically talking to his followers. He wasn't addressing government representatives. He was specifically giving his followers a command to help the widow and orphans. He expected THEM/US to do it, not for them/us to tell a government entity to take money from "rich" people to make them do it.

If liberals and the government were such great helpers of the poor, we wouldn't see the utter lack of living in inner cities (the ones that only elect Democrats) that we do. It's individuals that make a difference in the lives of people, not a faceless government.

LOL... what does having poor in the inner cities have to do with liberals? You will have to explain that one!

People in the inner cities continue to elect liberals term after term yet their situations never improve. Maybe if those liberals would stop handing out stuff like free entitlements, real change could actually take place in the inner cities and people would be able to stop the cycle of poverty.

[Night Strike]

I pulled this part out because it's so damn good that I didn't want it to get lost in everything else.

Individuals will ALWAYS be better protectors of the widows, orphans, and poor than the government. We see it every time natural disasters happen, and we also see if on a daily basis for those in need.

No, actually you don't, though nice how you combine modern FEMA with the more general taking care of the poor. I have another thread on FEMA, so I will leave that bit lie. Its nothing to do with this. (not as you imply, anyway)

No, actually we do. Do you know which 2 organizations are the top organizations for disaster relief? The Red Cross and Convoy of Hope. Those two organizations are ALWAYS helping out people, and they do NOT rely on the government to force people to give them money. They exist because people donate their time, money, and donations (food, clothing, supplies, etc.) to those organizations to give to needy people. The Southern Baptist Disaster Relief Team (or something like that) is about to join those 2 organizations as the premier disaster relief teams in this nation. Plus you have other agencies like the Salvation Army that provide more local support to people for all sorts of needs. And those are just lists of national organizations, not even all the regional and local ones that help the people in their vicinity. There are PLENTY of people already trying to do what they can to help others. The last thing we need to do is continue to increase the size of the government to crowd out the ability for people to help other people.

[neanderpaul14]

Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary

I believe the term you're looking for is "Robbing Peter to pay Paul". And I for one support this policy completely.

-PAUL

[PLAYER57832]

a REAL liberal means that you believes that people and individuals are more important than any institution. It means that becuase individuals have the right to their own ideas, tolerance is important for things not harmful to others. Liberals believe that the government is necessary for some things, but that it should only be relied upon for the minimum. However, that minimum should be structured at truly helping people, not simply appeasing those who are powerful, and certainly should not be used as a tool to keep people from protesting or moving up through a cycle of dependence. (sadly, of late the conservative have liked to destroy true liberal institutions, then step back and claim it was a bad liberal idea that cuased the problem.. be it destruction of unions, defunding of training and food programs, etc.).

That definition sounds EXACTLY like what the Tea Party and real conservatives are espousing, not the liberals of the Democratic party.

It is NOT what they are espousing. It is absolutely not what will result from the policies they are, in truth, putting forward. If you want to keep watching the wizard on the wall instead of the guy behind the curtain, go ahead. I DO agree that the Democratic party is not liberal.

Really? You aren't going to gain freedoms by having less government spending and taxation?

You are not going to get freedom by further stripping controls on company abuses, banks, and limiting even more environmental controls, nor do you get freedom by gutting our public education system and taking virtually all critical thinking out, to be replaced by boring memorization.

The current "liberals" in the government want to constantly expand the government while the Tea Party conservatives are working to preserve our freedoms.

Name ONE current liberal, please. I don't see any.

Your liberals have distorted liberalism to become statism, so why don't you just start using REAL definitions instead of ones you want to believe. OR you could take the liberal definition you want to use and actually realize that it's currently the conservatives who are espousing those values in today's political arena.

HUH? Since when am I responsible for something creepersweiner said, particularly when I told him it was blatantly offensive.

The definition I use is the definition I quoted, the one I learned in school. That you seem to believe the world began after Reagan is not my problem. Nor is it my problem that a lot of people seem to believe the Conservative garbage that "liberal" is nothing more than more government.

Might as well say conservativism is just being greedy and uncaring.

Conservatives believe that each individual is much more important than the institution of government.

and that corporations get he full rights of people, which pretty much negates all the previous

Then rewrite the law that states that corporations are person. I'm not stopping you. Granted, if you rewrite it you're also going to have to change a TON of other laws such as the ability to still be able to sue corporations, but go right ahead.[/quote]
Unfortunatley, not in my power. And currently, the supreme court would overrule it. One cannot take away rights. It would take a constitutional amendment.

AND.. the fact that you fail to see this as a problem, pretty much speaks volumes for how little you understand of (or care about) the impact to individuals.

Today's liberals believe that government is the solution to every ill and will trample over any individual who disagrees with them. Today's liberals look for every single opportunity to grow the government, not to make it as small as possible.

No, but that IS the conservative "straw man" argument.

It's not a straw man when it's true. Look at the people who call themselves liberal today. They're ALL trying to grow the government and expand its powers. If you can't see that, you're blind.[/quote]Again, what liberals?

I see people the far right claim to be "liberal", mostly as a slur, because they are not quite as rightists as those individuals would like.

Just look at the liberal uproar over just asking that the government only spend the money that they take in. Liberals were about to shut down the entire government over a paltry $60 billion in budget cuts (that didn't even end up being cuts). And you think that's a group of people who want a minimal government?

Nice try, it was NOT the liberals who wanted that or fought for that.

Oops, I'm sorry. The people who you think are liberals were actually the ones who were saying that we need to spend even more money.[/quote]I see, so according to you we have had a LIBERAL government in charge for the last 30 years? Pretty much explains why you blame liberals...

Because Jesus was specifically talking to his followers. He wasn't addressing government representatives. He was specifically giving his followers a command to help the widow and orphans. He expected THEM/US to do it, not for them/us to tell a government entity to take money from "rich" people to make them do it.

Actually, its an Old Testament law dictate he was reiterating and confirming.. to everyone. There are times when he spoke specifically to the apostles, but that was not one.