Why can't you be both a Christian and a liberal? A thread for Conservative Christians to defend themselves.

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ann Coulter the Christian

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Heh I can't believe it took so long for someone to drag that one one I was with her, until she started sounded like a 1600's conquistador!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility.

No it isn't

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility.

No it isn't

Yes it is.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility.

No it isn't

Yes it is.

Sayeth the blindman in a room full of deaf people

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility.

No it isn't

Yes it is.

Sayeth the blindman in a room full of deaf people

Sayeth the mental patient to the warden.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

Says you.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

I see. So you judge Liberals as Satanists or Evil or just plain Unchristian.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

I see. So you judge Liberals as Satanists or Evil or just plain Unchristian.

Neither as Satanists or Evil, but, yes, as unchristian. I'm referring to people who are actually Christians and not people who go to church and call themselves one. You cannot justify defending abortion as a Christian and I've met very few liberals who are against abortion.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

I see. So you judge Liberals as Satanists or Evil or just plain Unchristian.

Neither as Satanists or Evil, but, yes, as unchristian. I'm referring to people who are actually Christians and not people who go to church and call themselves one. You cannot justify defending abortion as a Christian and I've met very few liberals who are against abortion.

So Liberals Are Unchristian, Becasuse they SIN? Ok Guess what. You just sinned also.

Apparantly, you have never read that whole part of the bible that tells chritians not to Judge.


Let someone else with a little bit more knowledge on the subject DECIDE whether a particular person is a true Christian or not.

control Yor Hate .

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

I see. So you judge Liberals as Satanists or Evil or just plain Unchristian.

Neither as Satanists or Evil, but, yes, as unchristian. I'm referring to people who are actually Christians and not people who go to church and call themselves one. You cannot justify defending abortion as a Christian and I've met very few liberals who are against abortion.

You don't have to agree with everything liberal to be liberal. I'm liberal, for instance, based upon all the descriptions of being liberal as defined earlier in this thread.

My personal definition of liberal is that which goes against conservative trends of the time. If you compare the quotes from the Bible to how conservatives act today, Jesus was a liberal. As far as abortion is concerned, I'm pro-life.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

Go easy on the drugs. They kill brain cells. You cannot afford to lose many more.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

I see. So you judge Liberals as Satanists or Evil or just plain Unchristian.

Neither as Satanists or Evil, but, yes, as unchristian. I'm referring to people who are actually Christians and not people who go to church and call themselves one. You cannot justify defending abortion as a Christian and I've met very few liberals who are against abortion.

So Liberals Are Unchristian, Becasuse they SIN? Ok Guess what. You just sinned also.

Apparantly, you have never read that whole part of the bible that tells chritians not to Judge.


Let someone else with a little bit more knowledge on the subject DECIDE whether a particular person is a true Christian or not.

We all sin. The difference is that Christians try not to sin and ask forgiveness when they do. Deciding to vote in support of murder isn't sinning...it's supporting sin itself which no Christian can do and still be considered a Christian.

control Yor Hate .

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

I see. So you judge Liberals as Satanists or Evil or just plain Unchristian.

Neither as Satanists or Evil, but, yes, as unchristian. I'm referring to people who are actually Christians and not people who go to church and call themselves one. You cannot justify defending abortion as a Christian and I've met very few liberals who are against abortion.

So Liberals Are Unchristian, Becasuse they SIN? Ok Guess what. You just sinned also.

Apparantly, you have never read that whole part of the bible that tells chritians not to Judge.


Let someone else with a little bit more knowledge on the subject DECIDE whether a particular person is a true Christian or not.

We all sin. The difference is that Christians try not to sin and ask forgiveness when they do. Deciding to vote in support of murder isn't sinning...it's supporting sin itself which no Christian can do and still be considered a Christian.

control Yor Hate .

By that definition isn't the death penalty murder....thou shalt not kill and all. I see "conservatives" pushing that all the time.

 

[daniel1113]

Actually, the proper translation is "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference between killing and murder, my friend.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, the proper translation is "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference between killing and murder, my friend.

Bs


king james Bible.


Its

Exodus 20.13

Thou shalt not kill

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, the proper translation is "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference between killing and murder, my friend.

Bs


king james Bible.


Its

Exodus 20.13

Thou shalt not kill

King James isn't the proper translation. But I'm sure you knew that.

 

[daniel1113]

NIV:

"You shall not murder."

Not to mention, the direct translation of the original Hebrew is "murder", not "kill."

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
NIV:

"You shall not murder."

Not to mention, the direct translation of the original Hebrew is "murder", not "kill."

Not exactly correct. The word "Ratsach" which appears a few times in the OT as in that passage is translated by many modern folks into "murder". However, the closest original translation is something like manslaughter, kill in anger, or kill in a premeditated fashion if I remember my lessons right from long ago. Not murder precisely.

 

[Dudd]

Of course, anyone could point out that your stereotypical conservative would be against, say, lots of aid for poor countries, which would in theory result in the deaths of thousands of malnurished children, and would therefore not be a Christian. To form an opinion based on one issue is moronic.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

Interesting. The Phariscees, by any definition were "Conservative", bring an Adulterous woman before Jesus. According to Mosaic Law, she should be stoned to death. Jesus then says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", one-by-one the accusers walk away. Does Jesus not believe in Personal Responsibility? How could he let a Guilty Party escape from "Justice"?

This doesn't mean Jesus was a Liberal, but it certainly doesn't make him a Conservative either(we'll ignore the whole Beattitudes which fly in the face of Modern "Conservatism" in an even more dramatic fashion). The sentiment of Jesus as "Conservative" by Contemporary Christians is more of an excuse to be "Conservative", it allows heartless Phariscees to allay their guilt.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

Interesting. The Phariscees, by any definition were "Conservative", bring an Adulterous woman before Jesus. According to Mosaic Law, she should be stoned to death. Jesus then says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", one-by-one the accusers walk away. Does Jesus not believe in Personal Responsibility? How could he let a Guilty Party escape from "Justice"?

Jesus in the stone throwing example, wasn't saying it was okay to be an adulterer, he was saying that it wasn't our place to condemn her when we also sin ourselves. We do receive guidance to treat other people the way we would want to be treated and to forgive them, but that doesn't mean there's no punishment for sin. The Bible states that the wages of sin is death. That adulterer would have had her reckoning if not by Law then before God in judgement. Liberalism, with it's lack or morality, would simply state that she was acting under her natual impulses and shouldn't be blamed nor held accountable for what she did nor given any cause to think what she'd done was wrong.

This is why you can't look at one verse and draw conclusions.

This doesn't mean Jesus was a Liberal, but it certainly doesn't make him a Conservative either.

Agreed...neither classification can be applied to Him. Supposing that believing the Bible is Truth is a requirement for a Christian, there's no way any pro-choice person could be a Christian, so that should exclude 98% of liberals and probably a sizeable chunk of conservatives as well.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: xochi

Originally posted by: alchemize
You can be a liberal and a Christian, you'd just have to be a hypocrite

While I agree with this mostly in principle, in reality it doesn't work very well. Example:

I believe abortion is morally wrong (conservative viewpoint), however I don't believe I need to make the decision for others (i.e. make it against the law) (liberal viewpoint), except in certain cases (i.e. minors get parental consent, conservative viewpoint).

I still want to see the article!

I read somewhere that the majority of Catholics, about 60%, vote democrat. I for one am Catholic, Liberal and proud of it.

When you look at what the Catholic Church recent stances you find out that it is against the Iraq War, against the Death Penalty, against Abortion, and Pro-Immigration.

Note we said Christian, not Catholic (another thread altogether there...)

Catholic's are Christians.

no theyre not.



This is all your opinion.

They believe in intermediaries between themselves and God with which to confess their sins. Christians confess their sins to God directly. Not only that, but Christian denominations [the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc...] DO NOT pray to the Mother Mary, and do not believe in her having any significance other than that of bringing Jesus into the world.

Saying Catholics are Christians is like saying Mormons are Christians.

Fact: Protestants broke away from the original Christian church i.e the Catholic church. Martin Luther left because of corruption and the King of England left because he wanted a divorce from his wife and did not want the church leaders in Rome getting in his way. As for "intermediaries" this has been a tradition in the Christian religion that predated the Protestant break-away from the Church.

You're like a Sunni saying that Shiite's are not Muslim because one believes that the Khalif ( aka head of the Muslim world ) must be appointed from Muhammad's blood line and the other is saying that they should be elected instead. You are just splitting hairs here on traditions of one sect that was the orginal one versus another one which broke away for whatever reason from the main religon that founded both.

ugh, theres to many posts here trying to refute what i have said, but ill just reply to this one for now, then when i get back from physical therapy, ill reply to the others.

yes, I do know so well of the Protestant break from the Catholic church, i read a lot of history. Protestants are Christians, but Protestants are not Catholic. So, if you to play it that way, no, Catholics are not Christians.

Again you are confusing the name of religious doctrines,Catholicism and
Protestantism which deals on how each sect views, and performs the practicing of the teachings of Christ. Again you are wrong and need to think about this a little more. One can easily point out the differences in terms of how each denominations of the Protestant faith practices their particular view of Christianity and disqualify each and every one of them if you only look at one particular standard of worshiping. Again for example Shiites and Sunnis each have different views and practices for the same faith ( Islam ) yet both are clearly muslims.

or here's another example:

Catholicism = A more orthodox view of the Christian faith ( in Western Europe ) in terms of it's leadership structure and what religious text and practices they adhere too. Of course the Eastern Orthodox church is even more orthodox then the Catholic church in several areas which are closer to the orginal teachings of Christ and his early followers.

Protestantism = a reformist view of the Christian faith and it's leadership structure which expanded on the original texts to justify their breaking away from the more orthodox Catholic church in the West and to clear up the rough edges left un-answered or which contradicted itself in previous older religious text used by the Catholic church.

So basically Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church all evolved from the same Christian seed that grew into a tree but they are different because they are branches that followed their own paths. Yet they are branches connected to the same trunk of core teachings and roots of the same beliefs systems that fed the tree known as Christianty.

no, i dont believe that im confused on the names of the doctrines and how they carry out their beliefs. that [to me anyway] is what seperates them. its all the ridiculous ceremony and ritual practices [and in the case of Mormons, what they've added to the religion] that seperates Catholics and Protestants [Christians] and Mormons. Sure, they all share a smiliar belief, but because Catholics decide they need an intermediary to confess their sins, they are no longer Christian [Protestant]. Sure, Mormons believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, but because they believe that he also traveled to N. America to preach disqualifies them being considered Christian [Protestant] as well.

So, yes Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church [Catholics] all derive their teachings and such from the same place, but in that case [to a lesser extent], so do Messianic Jews.

You, sir, are clueless... not even deserving of conversation with the intelligent members of this forum.

I see. And judging by your post, you have a greater clue to what is being discussed than I do? Please, enlighten me since you're privy to knowledge that I am not.

Or you could easily say "because Protestants easily decided to not use an intermediary", etc... Again you are injecting your own opinions rather then looking at the facts and history. This is a classic example of why I don't care for religion and especially Christianity as a whole. People become so en-trenched in their own perceptions and religious doctrine that you can't possibly rationally explain things to them. Oh yeah Messianic Jews may accept Christ as the Messiah but they are still Jews because they have not abandoned their Jewish traditions and forms of worship like Christians have. Of course you can argue that they are stuck in the middle of the religious evolutionary process that formed Christianity and separated it from Judaism, a glimpse of the past of some early Christians who were also mostly Jews in the beginning.

lol, Christians not using an intermediary to confess their sins is not opinion! that is FACT. its my opinion that Catholics arent Christian [and Mormons arent Christian], and believe me, that opinion is far from doctrine. And what is this classic example of why do you dont like religion? Because we present facts and then opinions based on those facts that disagree with your beliefs [or opinions]? I think you've become confused in your thinking [or at least in your interpretation of arguments presented], but thats also my opinion.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

Interesting. The Phariscees, by any definition were "Conservative", bring an Adulterous woman before Jesus. According to Mosaic Law, she should be stoned to death. Jesus then says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", one-by-one the accusers walk away. Does Jesus not believe in Personal Responsibility? How could he let a Guilty Party escape from "Justice"?

Jesus in the stone throwing example, wasn't saying it was okay to be an adulterer, he was saying that it wasn't our place to condemn her when we also sin ourselves. We do receive guidance to treat other people the way we would want to be treated and to forgive them, but that doesn't mean there's no punishment for sin. The Bible states that the wages of sin is death. That adulterer would have had her reckoning if not by Law then before God in judgement. Liberalism, with it's lack or morality, would simply state that she was acting under her natual impulses and shouldn't be blamed nor held accountable for what she did nor given any cause to think what she'd done was wrong.

This is why you can't look at one verse and draw conclusions.

This doesn't mean Jesus was a Liberal, but it certainly doesn't make him a Conservative either.

Agreed...neither classification can be applied to Him. Supposing that believing the Bible is Truth is a requirement for a Christian, there's no way any pro-choice person could be a Christian, so that should exclude 98% of liberals and probably a sizeable chunk of conservatives as well.

I'm not saying he was saying that it was "ok to be an adulterer". You seem to confuse Liberalism with a lack of Morality. Liberals may not agree with your Morality, but that does not make them Immoral. In fact, by your use of the Moral Arguement, Liberals adhere to the Morality of Jesus better than you. Modern Christianity has a ncie little dittie, WWJD? Think about it.

As for Pro-Choice, what is Immoral about that? How does that contradict anything in the Bible? You assume that "Pro-Choice" means "Pro-Abortion", it does not, it merely allows a person their God given right to choose(free-will).

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

Interesting. The Phariscees, by any definition were "Conservative", bring an Adulterous woman before Jesus. According to Mosaic Law, she should be stoned to death. Jesus then says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", one-by-one the accusers walk away. Does Jesus not believe in Personal Responsibility? How could he let a Guilty Party escape from "Justice"?

Jesus in the stone throwing example, wasn't saying it was okay to be an adulterer, he was saying that it wasn't our place to condemn her when we also sin ourselves. We do receive guidance to treat other people the way we would want to be treated and to forgive them, but that doesn't mean there's no punishment for sin. The Bible states that the wages of sin is death. That adulterer would have had her reckoning if not by Law then before God in judgement. Liberalism, with it's lack or morality, would simply state that she was acting under her natual impulses and shouldn't be blamed nor held accountable for what she did nor given any cause to think what she'd done was wrong.

This is why you can't look at one verse and draw conclusions.

This doesn't mean Jesus was a Liberal, but it certainly doesn't make him a Conservative either.

Agreed...neither classification can be applied to Him. Supposing that believing the Bible is Truth is a requirement for a Christian, there's no way any pro-choice person could be a Christian, so that should exclude 98% of liberals and probably a sizeable chunk of conservatives as well.

I'm not saying he was saying that it was "ok to be an adulterer". You seem to confuse Liberalism with a lack of Morality. Liberals may not agree with your Morality, but that does not make them Immoral. In fact, by your use of the Moral Arguement, Liberals adhere to the Morality of Jesus better than you. Modern Christianity has a ncie little dittie, WWJD? Think about it.

No Christian, or anybody else for that matter, in their right mind wants to force morality on people...that goes against free will. But by having laws that hold people accountable for their decisions (which almost all of ours do) you encourage morality, because people, once forced to live with the consequences of their actions, will generally do the moral thing. It's when you begin giving people ways of escaping consequence that you begin essentially encouraging immorality. Imagine if you stopped punishing people for stealing...theft would increase dramatically. That's not a big deal in 99.99999% of cases (I don't agree with giving welfare bums a free ride, but I'm not going to flip out about it), but in the case of abortion, avoiding the consequence means murdering a child and this is where a law condones a blatantly immoral act.

As for Pro-Choice, what is Immoral about that? How does that contradict anything in the Bible? You assume that "Pro-Choice" means "Pro-Abortion", it does not, it merely allows a person their God given right to choose(free-will).

I'm at work so I can't find the exact quote, but the Bible says that God knew you before you were formed in the whom. That unequivically pronounces that your soul exists, at the latest, at the moment of conception. To then declare someone free to choose to kill that person is condoning murder (sin).