Was Jesus liberal? Why or why not?

[PLAYER57832]

I say "of course!".
BUT..that means understanding what a liberal is and not just listening to the poppycock "definition" put out by the right to divert attention from the REAL criminals in our society.. the big corporations.

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.).

[Phatscotty]

No, because he did not support forced redistribution of wealth.

Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

btw, completely disagree with your definition of liberal, 100%

[PLAYER57832]

No, because he did not support forced redistribution of wealth.

Really?

Ever read the story of the temple? Or the story of the talents?

btw, completely disagree with your definition of liberal, 100%

Yeah, you have been brainwashed by the right wing. We know that.

BUT, here you go, the dictionary definitions:
lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.


lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.


Now, contrast that with the CONSERVATOPIA definition below:
A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons though some may practice Cafeteria Christianity. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.[2] Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist and, as in Europe, socialistic. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into corruption.

NOTE how NOTHING in the above compares to the prior definitions.

NOW.. I will say that the above don't specify " protecting the weak". However, if you want true freedom to persist, you HAVE to protect the weak, the unpopular views.

[Phatscotty]

No, because he did not support forced redistribution of wealth. Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

Really?

Ever read the story of the temple? Or the story of the talents?

btw, completely disagree with your definition of liberal, 100%

Yeah, you have been brainwashed by the right wing. We know that.

Tell me more about the story of the talents. Of course my disagreement makes me brainwashed, no biggie tho.

[PLAYER57832]

and here... of course the ultimate contradiction to your "idea" of liberalism = more government. ( from wikki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe, and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.[4] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties.[1] There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[5]

Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism," which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.[6] Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[7]

[PLAYER57832]

No, because he did not support forced redistribution of wealth. Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

Really?

Ever read the story of the temple? Or the story of the talents?

btw, completely disagree with your definition of liberal, 100%

Yeah, you have been brainwashed by the right wing. We know that.

Tell me more about the story of the talents. Of course my disagreement makes me brainwashed, no biggie tho.

There are actually several stories. I suspect you are referring only to one, and out of context at that.

[Phatscotty]

No, because he did not support forced redistribution of wealth. Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

Really?

Ever read the story of the temple? Or the story of the talents?

btw, completely disagree with your definition of liberal, 100%

Yeah, you have been brainwashed by the right wing. We know that.

Tell me more about the story of the talents. Of course my disagreement makes me brainwashed, no biggie tho.

There are actually several stories. I suspect you are referring only to one, and out of context at that.

Okay, well I am asking you about the story that you introduced, not how many stories there are. I am referring to whatever you introduced, so I guess you are gonna have to think extra hard what you were talking about. I have not introduced any context, and I ask again for you to share your example of "the parable of the talents", and how that shows that Jesus would rob Paul to pay Mary.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, well I am asking you about the story that you introduced, not how many stories there are. I am referring to whatever you introduced, so I guess you are gonna have to think extra hard what you were talking about. I have not introduced any context, and I ask again for you to share your example of "the parable of the talents", and how that shows that Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

Uh, no.. rather it shows that people SHOULD be sharing with others. You seem to have definitely missed what I said.

Jesus was not a governmental entity, he was a moral one. That said, he did not oppose government doing its job. A key distinction you and most right wingers today wish to ignore.

See, the TRUTH about liberalism is that it is not about "big government" It IS about ensuring that those who have gains do take care of those from whom they get their benefits, at least to some extent.

When you "decide" that you have the ultimate right to just take whatever you want from the land, for example, because you have a piece of paper saying you "own" the timber, minerals and water therein (never mind that in the US water was not "owned".. legally that is changing), that you have the right to just remove that from any use by future generations, to destroy and abuse without regard to even your neighbors in most cases, never mind any future... then you are taking more than just an esoteric idea of freedom from the future. You are removing any chance they have to even just get by.

When people have to spend all their efforts just "getting by", putting food on the table and clothes on the backs of their families, they tend to care a lot less about things like the ability to debate whether a monarcy is OK, whethe corporations should get tax breaks, etc... and THAT, is fully by intention.

I don't blame conservatives for being greedy bastards. They make no pretense. I blame powerful liberals for pretending those actions were not threats to our society, and I blame individual people for not caring enough to challenge the materialism and lies being spread by these big corporations.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, well I am asking you about the story that you introduced, not how many stories there are. I am referring to whatever you introduced, so I guess you are gonna have to think extra hard what you were talking about. I have not introduced any context, and I ask again for you to share your example of "the parable of the talents", and how that shows that Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

Uh, no.. rather it shows that people SHOULD be sharing with others. You seem to have definitely missed what I said.

Well, that is certainly your interpretation. Doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong tho. I asked you to share the story of the talents, I have not seen anything you have said about that yet to "miss" it.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, well I am asking you about the story that you introduced, not how many stories there are. I am referring to whatever you introduced, so I guess you are gonna have to think extra hard what you were talking about. I have not introduced any context, and I ask again for you to share your example of "the parable of the talents", and how that shows that Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

Uh, no.. rather it shows that people SHOULD be sharing with others. You seem to have definitely missed what I said.

Well, that is certainly your interpretation. Doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong tho. I asked you to share the story of the talents, I have not seen anything you have said about that yet to "miss" it.

I know, neither have you gone back to read any of them.

The one I believe you are thinking about is the one where the slave master gives workers talents. One saves his, one invests them, etc. The one who gained more is given more, etc.

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.

AND, of course, the temple story, where people are flat out condemned for selling goods people had to buy for sacrafice and looking down on those who did not have the money for a sacrafice, as if their lack of money made them somehow less worthy.

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.

[PLAYER57832]

moved from the "call republicans by full name" thread

The problem is that today's liberals only say they care about the individual but in reality they care more about making people dependent on their programs and services. Liberals only want power.

No, those are NOT liberals. However, they are a group that the conservatives have tried to paint up as liberal (including Obama).. to attack as a bogeyman.

Jesus cared about helping people and getting them back on their feet. Not making them dependent on a government check.

That is what liberals want. The one area where they sort of disagree is that, of course, Jesus was not really promoting freedom of religion. Except... well, he advocates spreading his message, not forcing it. Evne in that, I believe Jesus would more agree with the liberal approach than what conservatives claim.

from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"

I'm saying, Jesus would in no way affiliate himself with either the liberal or conservative party in today's age. He would likely be disgusted by both of them. He would focus on helping people from the bottom up, i.e. start at the community level and work his way up from there. He wouldn't do it by creating national laws and enforcing more government upon the individual as liberals do.

Except what you describe IS liberalism. I think you are confused by thinking the definition of liberal has changed because conservatives wanted it to do so.

No matter how many times you say "Jesus was a liberal", it simply does not make it true.

Well, nothing above disputes what I have said.

[comic boy]

Player no discussion is warranted , the answer is yes of course. The only argument you will get is from those who are ignorant of what liberal actually means and instinctively run around screaming whenever they hear the word.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, well I am asking you about the story that you introduced, not how many stories there are. I am referring to whatever you introduced, so I guess you are gonna have to think extra hard what you were talking about. I have not introduced any context, and I ask again for you to share your example of "the parable of the talents", and how that shows that Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

Uh, no.. rather it shows that people SHOULD be sharing with others. You seem to have definitely missed what I said.

Well, that is certainly your interpretation. Doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong tho. I asked you to share the story of the talents, I have not seen anything you have said about that yet to "miss" it.

I know, neither have you gone back to read any of them.

The one I believe you are thinking about is the one where the slave master gives workers talents. One saves his, one invests them, etc. The one who gained more is given more, etc.

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.

AND, of course, the temple story, where people are flat out condemned for selling goods people had to buy for sacrafice and looking down on those who did not have the money for a sacrafice, as if their lack of money made them somehow less worthy.

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.

#1) you don't just get to change the story that you introduced about the talents, and go into a different story with modern day substitutions.

#2) not only do I disagree with your original definition of liberalism, nor your original example to back of up of the story of the talents, but also I 100% disagree with your interpretation of the money changers story. I have never even heard anyone ever talk about it that way. Truly a new take on it.

#3) How does Jesus enforce his COMMAND to take care of orphans and widows? At the barrel of a gun (force), or through free will (voluntary)?

[PLAYER57832]

Player no discussion is warranted , the answer is yes of course. The only argument you will get is from those who are ignorant of what liberal actually means and instinctively run around screaming whenever they hear the word.

Well, that was part of my point here.

[Phatscotty]

Player no discussion is warranted , the answer is yes of course. The only argument you will get is from those who are ignorant of what liberal actually means and instinctively run around screaming whenever they hear the word.

Well, that was part of my point here.

yes player, you are making a wonderful case so far, really slamming me with facts here.

Why are almost all Atheists flaming liberals then?

Yup, Jesus was no doubt a liberal. Jesus and the Atheists would vote the same way and hang out and have beers together and trash the Christian right together and play race cards for fun. I'm sure Jesus considered abortion supporters his "comrades". Jesus would be all about spending more money than one has.

Just fits right into that large category of "the Religious Left"

[PLAYER57832]

#1) you don't just get to change the story that you introduced about the talents, and go into a different story with modern day substitutions.

LOL.. the only "substitution" I made was the word "fired". Nice try, but no.. no change to the meaning of the stories... and note the use of the plural. Its not one story.

#2) not only do I disagree with your original definition of liberalism

,
Unforunately for you, the only places that agree with your definition are conservatopia and similar right-wing sources.

nor your original example to back of up of the story of the talents

Uh.. the Bible. Try reading it.

but also I 100% disagree with your interpretation of the money changers story. I have never even heard anyone ever talk about it that way. Truly a new take on it.

Well, then you have only attended newer "judge your worth by your wealth" churches. You know, Jesus sat down with the poor, not the wealthy. Funny for a guy who supported keeping individual wealth!

#3) How does Jesus enforce his COMMAND to take care of orphans and widows? At the barrel of a gun (force), or through free will (voluntary)? Does it have to be money? Can it be time?

Oh come on. Now you are being intentionally stupid.
In the day, the church had the ability to cause censor with a threat as great if not greater than any governmental entity. The later, Its no cooincidence that the Roman Catholic church got VERY wealthy during the middle ages. So did the Byzantine church. It was merely a translation of greed from individuals to the specific church... andthe power that came with it. It took the Protestant reformation to undo much of that, and now we see a new threat. That movement, too has become corrupted into this idea the pursuit of individual wealth is a good in an of itself, over and above anything else.

(or, as they put it, pursuit of individual wealth will lead to solving all problems... as distorted as the idea that trusting human priests or monarchies would lead to true solutions).

[PLAYER57832]

Player no discussion is warranted , the answer is yes of course. The only argument you will get is from those who are ignorant of what liberal actually means and instinctively run around screaming whenever they hear the word.

Well, that was part of my point here.

yes player, you are making a wonderful case so far, really slamming me with facts here.

Uh... well, since you have ignored not only what I put forward, but the DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS, then, sure.

Why are almost all Atheists flaming liberals then?

They are not. However, some are because liberalism is about tolerance of ideas. Atheism is one of those ideas that is tolerated.

Yup, Jesus was no doubt a liberal. Jesus and the Atheists would vote the same way and hang out and have beers together and trash the Christian right together and play race cards for fun. I'm sure Jesus considered abortion supporters his "comrades". Jesus would be all about spending more money than one has.

Well nice to know you are still not interested in considering anything other than whatever right wing sources you seem to believe are presenting "truth".

The funny part is that REAL truth requires you actually consider the opposition, and investigate the validity of claims. Something you are obviously too lazy to do.

Case in point.. you have not even acknowledged any of the definitions I quoted above. Instead, you just persist in claiming I am wrong. That is pure intellectual dishonesty.

Just fits right into that large category of "the Religious Left" [/quote]

[patrickaa317]

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.).

Given this, since your definition of liberal does not fit what liberals today stand for, I think this is a tough conversation to have. I've personally never seen a liberal stand for individualism over institution.

[PLAYER57832]

Given this, since your definition of liberal does not fit what liberals today stand for, I think this is a tough conversation to have. I've personally never seen a liberal stand for individualism over institution.

PLEASE READ THE DEFINITIONS!!!!!!


The is no problem with what liberals today stand for, there is a problem with too many people thinking the right wing's DISTORTION is what liberalism really means. If liberalism today really stood for what you think, then why are the definitions above consistant?

[patrickaa317]

Given this, since your definition of liberal does not fit what liberals today stand for, I think this is a tough conversation to have. I've personally never seen a liberal stand for individualism over institution.

PLEASE READ THE DEFINITIONS!!!!!!


The is no problem with what liberals today stand for, there is a problem with too many people thinking the right wing's DISTORTION is what liberalism really means. If liberalism today really stood for what you think, then why are the definitions above consistant?

I don't think the right wing distorts your definition. It has become quite apparent by their actions that liberals do not stand for any sort of individualism over the collective.

If you feel that they feel the individual is more important than in institution please let me know why:

- A universal healthcare has been implemented but exceptions are given to different institutions but not to individuals.
- I have to pay for a public education system whether my child attends there or does not.
- We have a progressive tax rate where it is based upon your lifestyle and not what you need in return from the government.
- A person can not choose to take a job for certain companies in most states without becoming a part of that union.

Please review liberal politicians actions and compare them to your definition. Your definition does not fit with their behavior.

This has nothing to do with how a right wing person has distorted anything. It has to do with the actions of the politicians that feel they fall under the term liberal.

I think this video sums up how much liberals care for the individual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvl961uDoEg

[Phatscotty]

#1) you don't just get to change the story that you introduced about the talents, and go into a different story with modern day substitutions.

LOL.. the only "substitution" I made was the word "fired". Nice try, but no.. no change to the meaning of the stories... and note the use of the plural. Its not one story.

You ignore the reality that your "substitution" was not just of words, but of actual stories.

all facts and opinions aside, this is a very difficult conversation to have. Not because one person is brainwashed and stupid and the other person is super smart and speaks for Jesus, but because one line of discussion does not relate to the previous line. As far as I am concerned, I am still trying to get a coherent response to my original post.

[PLAYER57832]

Given this, since your definition of liberal does not fit what liberals today stand for, I think this is a tough conversation to have. I've personally never seen a liberal stand for individualism over institution.

PLEASE READ THE DEFINITIONS!!!!!!


The is no problem with what liberals today stand for, there is a problem with too many people thinking the right wing's DISTORTION is what liberalism really means. If liberalism today really stood for what you think, then why are the definitions above consistant?

I don't think the right wing distorts your definition. It has become quite apparent by their actions that liberals do not stand for any sort of individualism over the collective.

To whom do you refer? Ralph Nadar?

You referred to Obama! AGAIN, the problem is not that liberals have changed what they stand for, the problem is that liberals have been largely SILENT, and have let the conservatives try to redefine the terms.

If you feel that they feel the individual is more important than in institution please let me know why:

- A universal healthcare has been implemented but exceptions are given to different institutions but not to individuals.

What on EARTH makes you think that was a liberal idea? The liberal idea is to have true universal healthcare, a true public option.

- I have to pay for a public education system whether my child attends there or does not.

This IS fundamental. Education of ALL is necessary for a free running democracy. Without education, there is no freedom, becuase not telling kids about ideas is even more stifling than not allowing them to express or live them.

- We have a progressive tax rate where it is based upon your lifestyle and not what you need in return from the government.
- A person can not choose to take a job for certain companies in most states without becoming a part of that union.

These have nothing to do with being liberal. They are right wing bastardizations that have been allowed because liberals have not been stepping forward politically.

Please review liberal politicians actions and compare them to your definition. Your definition does not fit with their behavior.

First Name a liberal politician. I cannot think of one currently.

This has nothing to do with how a right wing person has distorted anything. It has to do with the actions of the politicians that feel they fall under the term liberal.

No, it absolutely DOES have to do with right wing distortions, because most of what you wish to call, what THEY call "liberal" is just anyone opposing their most arrogant agendas.. not true liberal anything, just not quite as far right as they wish.[/quote]


Like I said, read the definitions. If you have another printed definition, not by a conservative group (I already covered that!), the present it.

[CreepersWiener]

Jesus was God, therefor, God is neither Liberal or Conservative...He is. He has His law that we are all subject to. This is not a liberal or conservative way of thinking. Liberals have ideas that are debatable, as do Conservatives; however the Law of God is not debatable. God's law embraces the worlds of life and death, not taxes or economics. By following the commandments of the Lord, we obtain "treasure" in His Kingdom. Whether or not Jesus was a Liberal is of no consequence. This is, of course, a theological point of view. Surely, you wouldn't think that Jesus would support abortion?

The atheistic point of view would be one that would compare Jesus' way of thinking with philosophies and ideologies we are familiar with in our own society. Jesus challenged the Jewish hierarchy, therefor he was a rebel and an anarchist. If you lived in those times, Jesus would have been known as a "Shaitan" or a "Satan", which is to say that he was one that disagreed with the leading point of view. Jesus himself had his own "Satan" in his circle. His name was Judas. The "Shaitan" was not an uncommon term, as it was reserved for those who were close to their kings or leaders. The king or leader depended on the "shaitan" to disagree with his point of view. This helped the leader to not make mistakes. So the argument could be made that Jesus was more of a "Satanist" than he was a liberal.

Jesus was a Satanist.

[PLAYER57832]

#1) you don't just get to change the story that you introduced about the talents, and go into a different story with modern day substitutions.

LOL.. the only "substitution" I made was the word "fired". Nice try, but no.. no change to the meaning of the stories... and note the use of the plural. Its not one story.

You ignore the reality that your "substitution" was not just of words, but of actual stories.

hmm.. really? How.
Seems like I was the one posting the stories. You asked for an explanation and when I gave one, you are now claiming I "switched" them? You truly are dishonest!

I GAVE you the chance to explain.. you refused, instead deciding that my explanation of my own words is somehow "wrong"

all facts and opinions aside, this is a very difficult conversation to have. Not because one person is brainwashed and stupid and the other person is super smart and speaks for Jesus, but because one line of discussion does not relate to the previous line. As far as I am concerned, I am still trying to get a coherent response to my original post.

LOL

This one, you mean?

No, because he did not support forced redistribution of wealth.

Jesus would not rob Paul to pay Mary.

btw, completely disagree with your definition of liberal, 100%

Your original post had nothing to do really with the thread. It had to do with what conservatives claim liberals are about.


Even so, I challenged you to compare the idea that each person is entitled to what they earn without obligation to others to the Bible. You gave your typical flim flam about "not the government" and refused to even honestly address the other points I made.

So, ironically, even though "redistribution of wealth" is not really a liberal base.. (responsibility, not taking advantage of others, etc and yes, protecting the weak ARE), that idea is still very much supported by Jesus message. YET.. instead of addressing that, come in with some tripe about me "changing stories" on you.

[PLAYER57832]

Jesus was God, therefor, God is neither Liberal or Conservative...He is. He has His law that we are all subject to. This is not a liberal or conservative way of thinking. Liberals have ideas that are debatable, as do Conservatives; however the Law of God is not debatable. God's law embraces the worlds of life and death, not taxes or economics. By following the commandments of the Lord, we obtain "treasure" in His Kingdom. Whether or not Jesus was a Liberal is of no consequence.

This is true in the sense of politics, a political party (but note, there IS no "liberal party". However, as a discussion of ideas, the discussion is appropriate.. where best does this religious view, person fit?

This is, of course, a theological point of view. Surely, you wouldn't think that Jesus would support abortion?

It would depend on the circumstances. As I said to patrickaa (though, yes, in another thread), I don't really want to derail this into another abortion discussion, so if you wish to go on, please do it in another thread (I will try to answer there) I will note one, relatively non-controversial reason, that It is OK to have an abortion to save a woman's life, if for no other reason than that the woman can have another child (or, if damage is done, can at least raise another child). Also, a life is greater than a potential life. Again, I can get into this, but please not in this thread.

The atheistic point of view would be one that would compare Jesus' way of thinking with philosophies and ideologies we are familiar with in our own society. Jesus challenged the Jewish hierarchy, therefor he was a rebel and an anarchist. If you lived in those times, Jesus would have been known as a "Shaitan" or a "Satan", which is to say that he was one that disagreed with the leading point of view. Jesus himself had his own "Satan" in his circle. His name was Judas. The "Shaitan" was not an uncommon term, as it was reserved for those who were close to their kings or leaders. The king or leader depended on the "shaitan" to disagree with his point of view. This helped the leader to not make mistakes. So the argument could be made that Jesus was more of a "Satanist" than he was a liberal.

Not Satanist in the way the word has ever been used in recent times. In fact, you are pretty well distorting the old terms.. seemingly with intention.

If you have a real point, though present it.

Jesus was a Satanist.

The only reason you would use that term is to intentionally offend Christians. If you have a legitimate point, fine, but that is trolling.. actually it is more than trolling, it is plain offensive.