You might be a liberal if

Anonymous Poster · Sep 9, 2002

I don't mind reading this discussion....And just when I was hoping I had seen the last of this thread. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

wroughtn_harv · Sep 9, 2002

Afternoon Ozarker, nice day, kewl even,

I said, "I was responding with the accurate observation about his god being much more of a leftist than a rightist."

You replied, "The only real problem with that is that you are wrong. God's wants people to good works and help the poor because it is the right thing to do. He never mentions having government or any other controlling group force people. It is about free will, not the tax collector. There is nothing "free will" associated with leftists. Only government control."

If you pick up your old military Gideon's Bible you will find Jesus' words in red, sorta like mine /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif. If you go through and read exactly what Jesus said in that Bible you will see he was so far to the left that the right fringe has to feel it is getting it from both sides.

In another post I point out as I'm sure you'll notice how Jesus works his backend off to not offend the law of the land, Roman, while having snot slinging fits with local church powers. He walked the tightrope between church and state understanding intimately the difference between the two and why it should be that way.

I know this doesn't fit in your cup of choice. But if you read his words and not what other's say were his words, well, it's a whole nother thing out there.

Kelvin · Sep 9, 2002

Jesus the Liberal: If you go through and read exactly what Jesus said in that Bible you will see he was so far to the left that the right fringe has to feel it is getting it from both sides. You keep saying that there are biblical examples of Jesus being a liberal, yet to my knowledge there hasn't been a single example given (the feeding of the multitudes doesn't support your argument). Would you provide one? EXCEPTION: I have been told that there are some liberals that will point to the fact that Jesus was never married and claim that as proof that he was homosexual; if this happens to be the type of example that you plan to give to support your argument then never mind...don't bother.

Church vs State: You imply that Jesus supported separation of church and state; I don't know of any example in the bible to support your claim (actually, I can't remember any example for either His support or opposition to separation of church and state).

Kelvin

Kelvin · Sep 9, 2002

wroughtn_harv,

Let me say that your responses are usually very long and would require an even longer response from me if I am to try to give an adequate response. I will address one of your concerns here.

I would like you to define if you can just when our government was doing so fine with God in it. I'm sure that with your statement you had a period of time in mind. If you could give me that period of time and maybe a little description as to why that period was so wonderful.

I have in mind the American government from its inception in the mid 1700s until the early 1900s. There is a video that your Baptist preacher friend should be able to get for you titled "America's Godly Heritage" that should help you understand my position and may cause you to re-think your own position.

Most of the founding fathers and writers of the constitution were devout Christians and made several quotes to the effect of "a country cannot survive without God" (I don't have the exact quote readily available), yet these quotes are conveniently ommitted from the teachings of our public school textbooks. A lot of the country's original laws were based upon biblical guidelines. The bible used to be one of the primary English textbooks used in public schools until the early (mid?) 1900s. What made this so wonderful? I think that America's dependence upon God and worship of Him was the basis of Him blessing our country so greatly thus allowing us to become the great country that we are.

I also believe that the "separation of church and state" was intended to be "one-way" separation to keep the government out of the church's buisness and to keep the government from mandating a particular religion or church denomination to the population (as was done earlier in England and is currently being done in many countries around the globe). I believe that the writers of the Constitution would be very disappointed to see how "anti-God" the American laws have become.

Question: How do you decide right from wrong? Save your answer; I plan to start a new thread in the next day or two and you can respond to that thread.

Kelvin

Ozarker · Sep 10, 2002

I've read it. In fact, as a child being dragged to church three times a week and attending more summer revivals and bible schools than I care to remember, I had much of it memorized.

There is no relationship between Jesus and leftists. You have obviously confused the words of Jesus with the words of Marx and Engels'.

wroughtn_harv · Sep 10, 2002

Morning Kelvin,

Your response is as I suspected.

I have in mind the American government from its inception in the mid 1700s until the early 1900s. There is a video that your Baptist preacher friend should be able to get for you titled "America's Godly Heritage" that should help you understand my position and may cause you to re-think your own position.

I wonder what your wife thinks of your concept of American greatness. If we regressed back to then we wouldn't have women voting. And she would not have the option of a working outside of the home.

I have to question what your kids would think of your dreams of the way it should be. After all their friends of color wouldn't be their friends nor would their friends have any kind of opportunity socially or economically.

It would be interesting to hear you explain to your children which god was the one in the right over the Civil War. Was it the one that John Brown and his supporters believed in or would it be the one referred to in the southern states documents like the letter of seccession by Texas?

I have to wonder just what kind of career you'd have if there hadn't been the unions and Roosevelt's attack upon the monopolys.

And of course I have to wonder how you reconcile Jefferson's statement about all men being created equal while he himself owned slaves. I know he wasn't a christian and that he ridiculed the false piety of some of his peers but we'd have to agree that's naught but the pot calling the kettle black, right?

Your statement might be the best one against God and our government having anything but a casual at best relationship. When we look back to when you feel their relationship was at it's best we see the darkest times for our average everyday citizen.

I believe that the writers of the Constitution would be very disappointed to see how "anti-God" the American laws have become.

I imagine they would be divided just like our people of today are on the issue of just what is freedom.

Those who probably thought the deepest and were the most dedicated to the Constitution would probably be like a kid in Disneyland at what their efforts had started. Those who were convinced that too much liberty wouldn't work in actuality would be shaking their heads sure they had been right in their fears.

I look forward to your new thread. We'll be able to discuss just what free will and freedom means in real life.

Wingnut · Sep 10, 2002

WARNING -- this posting is about religion and/or politics and therefore will offend at least 99.9995% of the population .... but is not intended to hurt your feelings. 

yep ... separation of church and state .... let's see ... the state was anyone who could raise a big enough army of mercenaries to conquer a piece of land .... I'm sure they (the conquerors) would have been willing to worry about not offending travelling preachers. Folks, there was no "state" and no formal christian "church" at that time.

I'm always curious as to why it's even necessary to compare lifestyles in the bible to life today. The world was a small piece of what's now mostly the "middle east". Countries were kingdoms. Populations were miniscule. Life was hand to mouth except for the rulers (for the short time they managed to hold things together). Separation? Heck, back then religious leaders would have supported the ruler and been part of the court ... even priests like to eat. Biting the hand that fed them was not exactly the way to keep their heads on their necks.

A liberal Jesus certainly wasn't ... he might have believed in a little bit of socialism ... although I doubt it ... but support all that crud that Liberals support? Involuntary wealth transfer (taxation)? Homosexuality? Welfare? Big Daddy (or Mommy) Government? Nah. You can translate the parables any way you want (kind of like the way that most liberals translate that "living" document - the Constitution) but you'll not find suppoirt in the bible for your babble.

Chuck52 · Sep 10, 2002

Nah. You can translate the parables any way you want (kind of like the way that most liberals translate that "living" document - the Constitution) but you'll not find suppoirt in the bible for your babble. 

In fact, you can find something in the bible to support just about any view you wish to espouse, if you get to do the translation. Which is, of course, what makes it such a marvelous document to discuss.

That said, it surely is correct that comparing the biblical lifestyles with those of today and trying to define Jesus or any other individual of that time using labels we use so freely and inadequately today is an exercise in futility, though there probably were some "skinhead" types, whom we could call typical "conservatives", in the same way some folks define "liberal" by beliefs and opinions most folks who think of their own beliefs as "liberal" do not hold.

Chuck

cstocks · Sep 10, 2002

Hey, Scott! Getting back to the original intent of this post...

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.
Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
Q Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

wroughtn_harv · Sep 10, 2002

I'm always curious as to why it's even necessary to compare lifestyles in the bible to life today. The world was a small piece of what's now mostly the "middle east". 

I'm sure anyone who's graduated from high school just choked on their lunch reading that statement. The bible covers a period of time allegedly four thousand years and has been a living document for another two thousand. Most of the world was populated before then and some societies were eons ahead of the middle east in sophistication and knowledge.

A liberal Jesus certainly wasn't ... he might have believed in a little bit of socialism ... although I doubt it ... but support all that crud that Liberals support? Involuntary wealth transfer (taxation)?

Jesus was definately an anti wealth personna no matter what you hear the scam artists on television tell you. In fact in one instance he stated that the it would take a miracle from God to get a rich person into heaven. His disciples came from the ranks of the unemployed and he commented more than once about the value of the poor people.

He never said one thing against taxation. That fact alone jerks him from the conservative's party. We all know the easiest way to find a conservative is to listen for the crying about taxation.

In fact when the scribes were trying to trick him into saying something against Rome so they could get the civil authorities on his butt was when he made the famous "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's speech. He muttered not a word against the taxation and if you take "give it up slick" as being protaxation then we can say the biblical record put Jesus on the tax'em roll.

 Homosexuality?

He never mentions it. So for him it might not have been an issue. But he does mention the error of ways of the rich many times over. So think about it. I guess he understood that if he got the rich and rich wannabees in line homosexuality wouldn't even come up./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Welfare?

He had a real concern about welfare programs. More than once he encouraged the miserable rich to find happiness by giving it all away to the poor. And there was the feast on the mount when he fed the five thousand. And the bible doesn't mention him or his filling out forms to see if the hungry had earned it.

Now if you think I'm wrong you might take the trouble to read the gospels and try to prove it.

You do understand the truth can set you free, right? Look what it's done for me./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Just a side bet for any interested. Anyone wanna bet Kelvin won't come up with the promised thread?