jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (30 posts)

wasnt jesus a liberal?

  1. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    what r ur views on this...he was unconventional and liberal..

    1. theliz profile image59
      thelizposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think he liked labels.  But really he seems like more of an independent.  He was for marriage between a man and a woman (primarily he and Mary Magdelene), attended church regularly and also advocated for the rights of the poor and abused even though he himself was from a middle class background.  I think he would be appalled at many liberal viewpoints, just as he would at many conservative ones.

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        interesting comments...

      2. Humdrumconundrum profile image60
        Humdrumconundrumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lower middle class.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      unconventional, yes.
      Liberal?  Maybe.   But not in the sense of modern days' definition of "liberal".
      Jesus called all men to repent.   That's not a liberal view.  It's a view of holding people accountable for the wrongs they do.    And Then he offered a very "liberal" gift to everyone-------salvation upon repentance.   Amen.   
      So, no, I don't think He can be described as "liberal".
      He is, however, the Great Liberator!
      big_smile

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @brenda gift which nobody could prove...anyways he challenged rightist of his era...

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Gift nobody could prove", you say?
          Tell that to the lame people he healed, to the blind people he healed, to Lazarus whom He raised from the dead;  and if you want to say those people aren't around anymore, so what?----tell it to all the people who are around still, whose lives, hearts, minds, bodies, souls, have been saved by Him.   And some of us will tell you that one little ounce of that proof trumps a zillion nay-sayings from people who simply want to label Him as a political activist.




          He challenged everyone, not just "rightist" (whatever you mean by that).
          His challenge was based on this word----REPENT YE, for the KIngdom is at hand!
          We can't overlook what he was doing.  He wasn't just some political activist.  He wasn't just here to challenge the Pharisees.  He came to challenge every person.  He was God in the flesh.  He was/is the Savior of anyone and everyone who will open their ears to repentance.     Calling for repentance and personal responsibility may be a "radical" view, but it's a conservative stance, not a "liberal" one as modern day liberals are defined.   Jesus was radically conservative, intolerant of sin, yet endlessly merciful to anyone who would admit they needed His help.

          1. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @brenda again u talk as if u and jesus lived together...healing  raising from death etc r not uniqure stories...kept happening till people understood world from different perceptive...

            what he could never prove?....heaven , hell and saving concept...it is promise which can never be proved and so none can hold jesus to account....very smart...but actually jesus himself was living on mere faith so he didnt give false promise , he believed in false promise...

    3. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Back in the 1st Century, most of what was considered liberal at the time would be thought pretty conservative, possibly even fascist today. Jesus wasn't concerned with "liberal" or "conservative," so attempts to paint Him as one or the other really miss the point. His primary concern was with man's relationship to God, and that men have the right relationship with God. What many people consider His "liberal" tendencies were pointing the way to how God treats humans and therefor, since we are all made in God's image, how we should treat each other if we really want to be right with God.

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think you missed three quarters of the point of the message. His primary concern was both the relationship with God and your fellow man. But, more about your relationship with your fellow man.

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The relationship with your fellow man is important, but your relationship with your fellow man is a direct reflection of your relationship with God. If you make men more important than God, then you've missed the point entirely.

          To be clear, the relationship with your fellow men is important, but it's not three quarters of the message.

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I disagree. Everything Jesus did showed that all the laws were created to benefit man. He showed that religion had evolved to the detriment of man and was in direct conflict with the point of his message. So, if he was the son of God, or God, the second part carries that much more weight because the entire point was to stop using the premise of loving God as an excuse not to love your fellow man. He put both actions on an equal footing.

            I know I said you only got a quarter of the point and I've now said it was fifty fifty. But the second part has become more important simply because religion insists on ignoring it. It says he is God and then ignores everything he stood for during his time among us.

            I have come to understand why a religion evolved from his teachings. Because it is very easy to love an idea you have, but loving others is difficult.

            1. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I think you make some pretty good points and I'll have to chew on that for a while...

    4. LewSethics profile image60
      LewSethicsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sure, those were brutal times.  Just trying to keep those assholes from stoning prostitutes to death was thinking outside the box.

    5. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus would have little in common with modern liberalism. Jesus believed that we should help the poor ourselves not to vote to have others do it. He would have opposed abortion and gay rights as God had opposed them.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That makes no sense when the bible clearly says matters of the flesh are of no concern. It is the spirit that is of concern.

        So it makes more sense to say the man of flesh opposes these things not God.

        1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
          wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jesus spoke of many matters of righteousness as they applied to daily living. There are many natural issues that have spiritual implications and to depart from God's blueprints expressed in the word of God, separates us from our source of life.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How do you mean natural? As in things of the flesh natural? He was referring to a mind that follows after things of the flesh. To be concerned about Gays and abortion are to be concerned about things of the flesh and not the spirit. It is this concern about things of the flesh that separates (via awareness) one from God. Love one another is the only matter one should be concerned about.

            1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
              wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years ago in reply to this

              By "natural", I mean that actions of everyday life. ie cleaning the house, working hard, being honest in business dealings, honoring our parents ...Now, how we treat these natural things could have spiritual or fleshly implications depending on our heart motives. Loving one another and loving God is our primary purpose but loving God is connected to our obedience to His word. We can't love God and habitually disobey what He says. God says murder (abortion) and a gay lifestyle is wrong, if we promote this we're living apart from God because He's holy.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Its seems then that you have missed why Jesus died in the first place. According to the bible Jesus released man from the OT law. Man was then supposed to serve in the newness of the spirit and not the written law. The only command Jesus gave was this

                A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another

                So what is it you might be obeying except the mind of flesh? The spirit does not care about things of the flesh. If your heart is pure that is all that matters. If your heart is pure you accept people as they are, as Jesus did.

                There is no love when you condemn a person because of their choices pertaining to fleshly matters. If you love them, you will accept them pure and simple.

                1. Disappearinghead profile image87
                  Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You are an inspiration sometimes penny. smile

                2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well said.

  2. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    Jesus was one of the first to realize that the role of librals is to keep conservatives in check. In this day an age, if it wasn't for liberals, this country would be an 18th century church-state.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      interesting tak

  3. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    If the early church is any indication, Jesus advocated a communistic approach. He, and his disciples, lived together and shared all things equally. Except for Mary Magdalene, of course. The early church followed suit.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ya agree to it...

  4. profile image60
    cajunsnakeposted 4 years ago

    Speaking just for me, I can't begin to try and fit Jesus into a politicial "box".  If I did, it would have to be "none of the above".  This last election showed me that people will use God/Jesus to further their own agenda.  "If you don't vote this way, you're going against God, and you'll burn in hell" and so on.  I don't believe that Jesus would, or was, worrying much about politics of his time.  It seems to me, anyway, his concern was for the sick, lame, the whores, and other social outcastes.  Now whether or not the things that He promised, can be proven...we have to die to find out.  I'm just not in that big of a hurry to find out.

    For me, I don't worry about what His politics, if any, were.  He's an example for me to follow the best I can.  I think that's what He wants.

  5. grand old lady profile image91
    grand old ladyposted 4 years ago

    The bible speaks about homosexuality as an abomination, but Jesus himself never said one word about homosexuality. I think King David had a gay relationship with Saul's son. What I'm saying is, what makes homosexuals so bad compared to everybody else? People lie, steal, cheat, but oftentimes they do it unseen. But being gay is something people see so they pounce on it. This bias against gays is a response of man, but Jesus himself never condemned gays.

    Was Jesus a liberal? I would like to think he was a strong individual. Definitely, he wasn't conservative.

  6. teacherjoe52 profile image58
    teacherjoe52posted 4 years ago

    Jesus was not a liberal. Liberals are anti-Christ in their belief, morals and standard of living. They say I don't care about what God wants, I care about what I want.
    Love is not liberal. There are boundaries.
    Grand old lady you need someone to proberly explain the Bible. If David committed adultery with Bathsheba and it was recorded wouldn't it be recorded if he praticipated in the filth with Saul's son. Just because he had an intamite relationship with Sauls son does not make him a queer (look up the definition of queer to see why I call them are queers. It is not intended to be derogatory). I have had many intamite relations with men yet not once were they homosexual.
    You need to understand the Bible better or be careful about pushing the liberal agenda where it does not belong.
    Yes we all sin and when we repent we are acepted and children of God.                                         Just because someone is queer does not give Christians any right to be disrespectful to them any more than it gives queer the right to be disrespectful of Christians

    1. Jean Bakula profile image96
      Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think Jesus would be appalled that a religion sprung up around him, not his intention at all. His message of love and talk on the Sermon on the Mount were very liberal ideas for the time. It has nothing to do with what is considered "liberal" in today's politics. Jesus was concerned with the laws of the spirit, as Penny of Heaven says, and not with the physical world. I don't understand how people can read the Bible and draw some of the conclusions they do.

 
working