You might be a liberal if

[Ozarker]

<font color=blue>Jesus was definately an anti wealth persona no matter what you hear the scam artists on television tell you.</font color=blue>

That would make him a conservative Monk, not a liberal. Liberals are not anti-wealth. Check out all the limo-liberals at the next fund raiser. That said, he was not anti-wealth. He was anti-stingy. His references to the difficulty of a wealthy man getting into heaven were aimed at those who didn't take his advise and use a portion of that wealth to help the poor.

<font color=blue>He never said one thing against taxation.</font color=blue>

Of course he did. In those days, taxation is what made many wealthy men wealthy.

<font color=blue>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.</font color=blue>

Looks like they were able to trick you even if they couldn't trick him. Jesus didn't mention exactly what it might be that was Ceasers and needed to be rendered in the first place.

<font color=blue>He had a real concern about welfare programs.</font color=blue>

Nope. No programs. Just encouraged his followers to take care of the poor.

<font color=blue>More than once he encouraged the miserable rich to find happiness by giving it all away to the poor.</font color=blue>

No mention of government programs there. He didn't tell Ceaser to tax the rich and create welfare programs. He encouraged the rich to voluntarily share their wealth.

<font color=blue>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.</font color=blue>

The first think you have gotten right. he didn't create a welfare program administered by the government and fed by taxes. He just did it......volluntarily.

<font color=blue>Homosexuality? He never mentions it. So for him it might not have been an issue</font color=blue>

Might not?????? He didn't say a lot about ********** as well. How have you come to the determination that his not mentioning it means that it's status was changed from "an abomination" to being OK?

<font color=blue>Now if you think I'm wrong you might take the trouble to read the gospels and try to prove it.</font color=blue>

No need. All that is required to prove you wrong is to point out the glaring errors and omissions in your own analysis.

 

[Kelvin]

<font color=blue>Just a side bet for any interested. Anyone wanna bet Kelvin won't come up with the promised thread? </font color=blue>

If I was a betting man I would take you up on that bet. But, I'm sure that you had already guessed that I'm not.

My original statement in this thread started off "<font color=blue>I think that the most conservative man to set foot on the earth went by the name of Jesus</font color=blue>". You sure do appear to be very anxious to argue biblical issues and must have really got excited about arguing the validity of my statement. It seems that you are not convincing anyone that Jesus was a liberal (at least so far), and I'll tell you up front that you'll never convince me. So what's the purpose of all these threads?

Looking at all of the points that you are trying to argue, I have to ask the question: Are you practicing for judgment day (just in case there really is one)?

Kelvin

 

[DarrenP]

If it wasn't for liberals (Democrats), who'd cook the French fries?

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Evening Kelvin,

I'm sure today has been an emotional one has it has been for most of us. 9-11 was a shock to our system as a society and it appears it will continue to be so.

I feel I owe you and some of the others here an explanation.

<font color=blue>You sure do appear to be very anxious to argue biblical issues and must have really got excited about arguing the validity of my statement. It seems that you are not convincing anyone that Jesus was a liberal (at least so far), and I'll tell you up front that you'll never convince me. So what's the purpose of all these threads?</font color=blue>

I am rather quick to jump on Biblical discussions. I do enjoy reading the Bible. I find it fascinating on many levels. And like most others who find the Bible fascinating I discover new insights each time I read it. And yes, even as an atheist I find the Bible inspiring more often than not.

And like most other folks I try to understand not only what's being said in the Bible but by whom and why. And as is typical of a human being I have opinions and the more I read the Bible the more opinions I have. Sorta the cart and the horse thing vying for control I guess, again, very human I suspect.

I love as you've guessed the four gospels. It is intriguing to watch the journey through the eyes of different individuals as Jesus becomes not just a carpenter but a leader of men.

Of course I don't believe there is, was, or even should be a deity of any kind for any reason. Some folks think such an attitude is the ultimate example of conceit. I see it as the ultimate example of humility. I am not so special as an individual, group, or species to have been created by a god.

That said I read the words of Jesus and see a man smart enough to accept that inspiring a revolution for the betterment of mankind starts with empowering the individual first as a human being. He does that over and over again in the gospels by pointing out the importance of the person and the unimportance or revelance of possessions.

I hope I haven't offended you or others with my pointed questions and statements. I feel they are important ones because they shift the focus from Jesus the God to Jesus the inspirational leader who was willing to die for principles he believed were important to all of mankind.

As for whether Jesus was a liberal or not that is best left up to the individual to decide in their own heart. I think the authors of the gospels considered him to be liberal. After all when you look at the parables and ancedotes that they share you see a pattern of Jesus denouncing the value of wealth and the importance of the person.

I again thank you for your participitation in the discussion with me.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

<font color=blue> they share you see a pattern of Jesus denouncing the value of wealth and the importance of the person </font color=blue>

I am a conservative and the above statement separates me how????

I couldn't care less about money and I most certainly believe in the value of each individual person. I cannot for the life of me see how that would make me a liberal. I occasionaly watch some blabber TV with Conservatives and Liberals hacking away at each other and I can honestly say I don't believe I've ever heard a liberal slant on any issue that I don't sit there wondering what the H - E - double hockey sticks they've been drinking/smoking or whatever.

Because I don't personally care that much about money certainly should not be interpretted in any way that I don't believe in the free market system. The rewards of a free market system have fostered creativity and ingenuity beyond anything imagined by those not quite so free.

And if wealth is the criteria for being a liberal or conservative then the list of the wealthiest Senators would provide a whole new definition to the word conservative. John Kerry - Conservative - NOT ... wealthy? Beyond imagination!

As for the importance of the person -- one word -- abortion.

You have fallen victim to the mainstream medias attempt at demonizing the opposition and that is that conservatives are cold hearted money grubbers. The truth is, no more than liberals. Money and success is just a tool used by the left to create class warfare/envy. It is a lie but a great political strategy. There are many more people of modest means than are wealthy and making a class warfare issue out of it hooks the left up to the larger voting block. Of course the idiots that fall for that BS have never really looked at the bank accounts of those that are espousing such garbage.

You know, Teddy Kennedy, the little guy! .....whatever. They've just found an angle to buy votes, with your money, by the way.

By the way, Bill Gates will never be identified as a conservative.

 

[Wingnut]

<font color=blue>By the way, Bill Gates will never be identified as a conservative. </font color=blue>
It seems to me that the easier one makes money, the less conservative one is.
How many conservatives are there in Hollywood (or is that Hollyweird?). Is there a bigger - or more annoying - liberal than Baldwin? And he's a pretty good/bad example of what we can expect from liberals .... I notice that, even though GW was elected, Baldwin has NOT given up his citizenship nor moved out of the country.

Conservatives are money-grubbers? .... hmmm .... sure sounds like a liberal paid advertisement to me.
All those limo-libs vote (and lobby) to use tax dollars for their psycho schemes .... in other words, using other peoples money. If they truly believed, they'd use THEIR money to finance all the feel-good stuff. Always seems to see the rich liberals with their hands out oinstead of their wallets out.

I'm rather more of a goat than a sheep ... and the only way to really get me in with a group headed somewhere is to lead. In other words, you want to show me the value of some program, thne show me the leaders that support the ideals by living them. I have yet to see a liberal doing that ... all mouth, no legs!

 

[rocky2]

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

CNN, MSNBC and the other "mainstream" media blare about Jeb's daughters problems, can't wait to spread any type of dirt about brother Neils divorce filing, still beat up about the twins having a college beer...anybody other than the Drudge report mention...

Albert Gore III, the 19-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore, was arrested near the Pentagon last week by U.S. military police from Fort Myer and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, and possession of alcohol by a minor.
Jano Cabrera, spokesman for the former vice president, confirmed yesterday that the younger Gore was "pulled over for a DWI" during the early-morning hours of Sept. 5. The arrest was made outside of the base, which is near the Pentagon.
Media bias ?...naw.

 

[Boone]

you want to show me the value of some program, thne show me the leaders that support the ideals by living them. I have yet to see a liberal doing that ... all mouth, no legs!
------------------------------------------

Jimmy Carter with a hammer in his hand.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

<font color=blue>Media bias ?...naw.</font color=blue>

Actually it's a lot less about bias and more about interest.

Think about that.

You might come up with the realization that no one cares about what Al's kid is or is not doing. Mostly because no one cares about what Al's doing.

You see contrary to some folks wishes Bill and Al are no longer part of the inner circle. We have a new group in the inner circle and it's what they and their kids do that is of interest to most of us./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

Harv,

Nope.

If what you said were true then we would be hearing more about Chelsea than we would the Bush girls.

Chelsea Clinton has been in a drunken stupor for the last 2 years and everytime her dad comments on anything Jennings/Rather/Brokaw/et al make it their lead story at night. The Clintons are the media darlings, we all know why, and if Bill or Hillary so much as belch we hear about. To which it would follow that we'd hear about their offspring's problems, if it were only because of "interest" and not bias. Keep in mind Chelsea was stumbling around while they were still in office and it wasn't near the story that the Bush girls is.

The reason we don't hear about Chelsea is BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT LOOK GOOD FOR THE CLINTONS.

The reason we don't hear about Gore jr. is BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT LOOK GOOD FOR THE GORES.

There is a huge liberal media bias in this country and the only people that can't see it are the liberals. The Gore/Chelsea/Bush girls is only one small example.

You could go to the Media Research Center (www.mediaresearch.org) website and check out the QUOTES yourself but then you probably wouldn't believe them.