Jesus was a liberal

1. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   How is this possible, that the number one most liberal person of his day has followers that are so non-liberal? Is this my imagination working over-time? Tell me what you think! Everybody chime in. I put this in the religious forum so a lot of atheists would show up!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus wanted to provide for people because he cared for them, liberals want to provide for people to enslave them. Read these forums long enough and you will see the liberal slave on display most all of the time.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         This is so hypocrytical coming from you. I cannot remember even one post of yours where you have shown caring or compassion for another. Was it not you, just the other day, that said in a forum "F*** you whitney Housten the day after her death. If you are a model Christian, then God help everyone else.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not Jesus, and yeah that was me that said that. Any other questions? You're not real clear on what a hypocrite is, are you?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No your not Jesus, so how can you justify speaking on his behalf? You even claim to know what his motivation was, despite having no proof that he actually existed. I'm very clear on the actions of a hyprocrite, I just read your posts.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No, you are not clear on what a hypocrite is. And I knew you knew it was me, and I meant it..

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You should have replied with emocions, you would have exposed yourself less. I can still recognise a hypocrite. BTW, believe it or no,t I am sorry about your friend. I lost my father on the same day that a British "celebrity" died.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Repairguy47 seems very much to be a Troll, Hollie, and I get the feeling he has you hooked into an argument - he's loving it!  You will not get very far with him. 
                        
                        You have a good heart, he has a good head.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           it is not a hook, johnnycomelately, tis entertainment. You never get very far with Repairguy47, when he's run out of answers he replies with emocions.

                           replyreport
            2. 60

               Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               BTW, I know it was you who said that, it wasn't a question.

               replyreport
      2. 59

         A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Liberals only enslave people until they give up their first born for sacrificial ritual.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If only it were true.

            replyreport
      3. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You may be right. In that conservatives have no compassion for their fellow man, so to expect them to see the reason behind helping others is impossible. Any program that pulls from the public coffers will be seen as enslavement by a conservative because their money is their god.
         
         Don't get me wrong. I'm fiscally conservative, but I do think the only money well spent by government (beyond the basics of maintaining infrastructure and protection of our borders)  is money spent helping our fellow man.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I thought he was a Capricorn?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It could be argued that he was on the cusp.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus was a republican. No doubt about it.

      replyreport
   4. 58

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Because they all follow the teachings of paul rather than the christ figure they nod to in passing.  The difference is subtle in some respects but ends up changing the message to include bigotry, moralising, elitism, suppression, etc., etc., can you imagine their figure even considering posing for an avatar picture with a gun (or spear in his day I suppose), or foul mouthing gay people, or . . . . . the list of what they do that their professed guide nev er condoned is endless, thanks to that infiltrator paul and the christian church of his day who pulled him into their bible version to justify a hierarchical church.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Excellent answer.
         
         If Jesus was here today, his so-called church would rave at him like Brietbart did to OWS. "Lousy filthy Bum!"

         replyreport
      2. 0

         brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         lol

         replyreport
   5. 61

      mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus was an activist of that period and region so much so, he could be considered a liberal. When Rome got hold of Christianity, is when it became an instrument of control. Jesus's true teachings were probably burned and any evidence that he was against such policies, was probably destroyed as well.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I think it might be an overstatement to classify him as an activist. He was very clear that government and spiritual musings were on separate plains. Never once did he speak on government policy.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            He made mention of the corruption in the temple and threw the money changers out, they were pretty much the local government at the time.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No. They were the religion of his birth.

               replyreport
         2. 58

            recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well once,  "give to Caeser what is Caeser's and . . . . "
            
            also didn't he mention the 1% b@st@rds ???

            replyreport
            1. 82

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Whitened Sepulchers....
               Clean on the outside, dirty underneath.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I thought you were right. I remembered a passage about 'off with their heads' . I googled it and, unfortunately, that was  a quote from The Queen of Hearts.     Just as well, because Christians would insist on misinterpreting it into a passage on what to do with the rest of us.

               replyreport
   6. 59

      Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This Christian says: This is a ludicrous statement as Jesus was motivated by trying to save sinners, and could care less about politics or the political beliefs of those who he talked to or helped

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   It's an ongoing mystery. I'd love to see someone post some sense of it.

   replyreport
3. 81

   parrsterposted 12 years ago

   I suppose we first need to nail down some definitions. What do you mean by liberal? And can you give some examples of this from Jesus's life and teachings?

   replyreport
4. 68

   innersmiffposted 12 years ago

   I don't really see what's so 'liberal' about Jesus. He was an advocate of non-violence, and all 'liberals' want to do nowadays is to enact violence upon people.

   replyreport
5. 57

   christianajohanposted 12 years ago

   Jesus sets us free. This is the truth and will always be till the end of this world.

   replyreport
6. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   Jesus hung with all kinds of socially unacceptable riff-raff ONE. Said that we should not judge others TWO said that we should care for the poor THREE said that we should all share in the bounty that God provides FOUR. said that we should be behind our leaders, because they were chosen by Him also FIVE Was dead against crimes against children naming them the most blessed in all of Heaven...this includes pedophile priests. The current christians obviously have been led far astray from their shepherd, for they know him not...and he knows them not.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      parrsterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Druid. Not sure if this was in response to my comment or not, but I'll take it as such
      
      I think there are problems when we try to label anyone, as labels tend to lean in  the labellers favour, without necessarily presenting accuracy; and the last thing we want is to misrepresent Christ.
      Also, the broader the term used to label, the greater risk of misunderstanding. 'Liberal', for example can mean many things to many people (e.g.: unprejudiced, non-authoritarian, generous, free to excess, low in moral restraint).
      
      To use some of the examples you gave, I think 'liberal' doesn't do justice to Christ's view of life.
      You mention that, “Jesus hung with all kinds of socially unacceptable riff-raff . I agree, but he also  said to the woman caught in adultery, “go, and sin no more” [John 8:11-12].
      I agree that Jesus taught, “that we should not judge others” [Matt 7:1; though we should understand the type of judging he's talking about], but he is also the one who said, “He who rejects me, and does not receive my words, has that which judges him - the words that I have spoken will judge him in the last day...” [John 12:48]
      
      Jesus taught much concerning freedom (and ultimately died to set us free), but he also taught much concerning absolutes that must be trusted and obeyed.
      
      Hypocrisy, today as then, is a practice Jesus strongly opposes. I think there are many claiming association with Jesus, who show no intention/indication of becoming like him, to such, Jesus words from Matt 7:26 apply: “...everyone who hears my words, and does not do them, is like a foolish man..”
      
      However, these words apply not just to hypocritical Christians, but all mankind. To quote again the namesake of this PO:
      
      “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..”

      replyreport
      1. 0

         brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Nice post

         replyreport
      2. 0

         brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Love the lord your God with all your heart, strength and mind is an absolute.

         replyreport
7. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   recommend1 "whose IMAGE is on this coin?" The answer Caesar was the wrong answer. Had they answered correctly , well....imagine this answer to "whose image" God's image. Caesar was God Look it up. All the Caesars were Gods. The bible states clearly that Man, male and female are created in God's image....therefore everyone looks like God. That thing about following your leaders because God saw fit to place them over you does come with caveats though.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's interesting.I thought the point of that was; he was saying the question of whether or not to pay taxes was a pointless question. Not that anyone gave a wrong answer.

      replyreport
8. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   So actually it was a trick question.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   The Emporer was "God" By saying Caesar, whoever answered the question was acknowledging that Caesar was not, ahem, God. So, excuse me, it's not a matter of a wrong answer. Neither is: Is the glass half empty or half full. It's a matter of perspective. In effect, Caesar being the answer, whoever spoke it was in danger...fatal danger by dis acknowledging Caesar as a god.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually the answer given in the bible is the right one and it got the correct response.
      
        Matthew 22:19   Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
        Matthew 22:20   And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
      
      the image was not of God because God has no image, it was clearly caesars image and the superscription clearly said the word caesar.
      
      So really no other answer could be given to directly answer this question. This is the answer that Jesus was going for.
      Yes roman emperors considered themselves gods. We cannot say that all people considered them as gods, but this was the belief we know the emperors had of themselves, however they defined the word god. We certainly know the jewish community did not consider caesar as any kind of god.
      
      caesar means: The name was borne by Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.), the Roman general and statesman who was dictator of the Roman Empire from 49 to 44 B.C. Caesar was subsequently used as the imperial title of the emperor of Rome from Augustus to Hadrian, and for the emperor of the Roman Empire. It later evolved into a vocabulary word for an emperor or dictator.
      
      this:  Θεός (Theos)  means god in greek and where we get the word theology meaning the study of God.

      replyreport
10. 61

    Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

    What I say is not approved christian doctrine, none of what I say is. At least I'm honest. I'm not a christian.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hey, my understanding of Christian doctrine is they use that passage to cheat on their taxes.
       
       But, yours is an interesting theory. I'll have to think about it. I always assumed it meant money was of no consequence in the grand scheme of your life so wasn't worthy of discussion.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I don't know any christian, myself included that cheat on their taxes. Sure there may be some, but, they would have to be low on the scale of christlikeness.
          There really is no passage that one can honestly use to cheat on their taxes.
          And if a christian really believes that God meets all their needs they actually have no reason at all to worry about, inflation, economic ups and downs etc or to worry about taxes enough to cheat on them. Christians that i know enough about to say this give lots of money away and pay tithes of 10% or more and are doing quite well. Many sponsor children in India as well.

          replyreport
11. 59

    Jeramiposted 12 years ago

    Even if Paul was totaly correct in his teachings, we are not suposed to take his teachings as the foundation for our faith, interpret them as we see fit and  THEN see how we can adjust Jesus's teachings so that they conform to that which we think Paul was telling us.
    
      When we do that, a great error has been made.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       come on jerami
       You didn't get sucked in by all that out of context crap did ya?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Did you read the part that said Even if Paul was correct in everything he taught; that has to conform to that which Jesus taught.
          
             Jesus's teachings are the foundation for my belief system.
          
             Forget everything that "EVERY BODY" says!   
            It is almost imposible to do but really try to FORGET every thing everyone else says and learn those things that Jesus taught.
          
             Without changing the meaning of what he said  so that his teachings conform to that which we were taught by somebody else.
          
               I don't know anyone that is doing that!  Or even attempting to!
          
             Jesus said, " ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"  but that isn't what he meant CAUSE somebody e;se said that ".........."  So what Jesus said isn't what he meant.
          
          
             Well, why not reverse that situation and you will come up with some completely different answers. 
            And You KNOW that is a true fact.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             I read the whole thing. It sounded like it was sittin on the fence of being for or against gentile dispensation, so i thought i'd ask ya.
             
             Not everything is going to conform to what jesus taught. I simply cannot conform because the situation is different. Jesus, under the law until his death taught to the jews under the law. After Jesus ascended who is going to teach the gentiles? The gentiles being grafted into the tree are a different situation. The new dispensation starts with Jesus ascension. Who is going to teach that.
             Its different. We can understand what Jesus says about truth and honesty and dig the parables but when it comes to gentile marriage and the gifts of the spirit, that was obviously Paul's jurisdiction.
             As we quite plainly showed in that other thread, Paul's teachings do not conflict, except in areas where there is a definite difference. The gentiles cannot be treated identical to the jews. Thats not even credible.
             
             So what you say i know is a true fact is not a true fact at all, its just lack of insight, understanding and faith that God can put a book together.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Saying it doesn't matter because it is Paul's jurisdiction is hilarious. Why in the world do you call yourself a Christian? Why not just admit that you've kicked Christ out of the picture?

                replyreport
             2. 59

                Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I'm all for gentile dispensation.  But I think that was always the case tp some extent. King Cyrus was a man who listened to the Hebrew God and did his bidding, and gave him all the credit for his acheivments.
                
                - - = =
                
                brotheryochanan wrote
                Not everything is going to conform to what jesus taught. I simply cannot conform because the situation is different. Jesus, under the law until his death taught to the jews under the law. After Jesus ascended who is going to teach the gentiles? The gentiles being grafted into the tree are a different situation. The new dispensation starts with Jesus ascension. Who is going to teach that.
                Its different. We can understand what Jesus says about truth and honesty and dig the parables but when it comes to gentile marriage and the gifts of the spirit, that was obviously Paul's jurisdiction.
                
                - - -  == -
                ME
                
                I completely understand there being a NEW covenant which to my understanding included not only the gentiles but also the Hebrews. The Old covenant was broken with the crucufuxion, being expressed with the temple curtain being ripped in half.
                And many other events.
                
                   568 years earlier the Hebrews were served with a pink slip so to speak, notifying them that they had 70 weeks to quit sinning and anoint the most Holy. They didn't do it, SSoo the old contractual agreement was terminated.
                  Just like the parable of the husbandmen who were not paying the master his due rent payments,  first they killed the messengers and then his son.  The father gave the vinyard to someone else.
                  I got that.  Jesus loves me this I know, and he died for my sins; Got it!
                
                  You know what I'm talking about.
                  Everything that Jesus said concerning the great tribulation, and his coming again etc. etc. being fulfilled in THAT generation.
                   And in 96 AD John receives his vision (C. 13) concerning a religion rising to power which is going to gain almost everyone’s loyalty because it will teach a doctrine which will SEEM to be the real thing. 
                   It will sound really wonderful with all of the haylalouya’s, praise the Lord, and all of the right phrases.  It will even fool many of Gods very elect.
                  They will kill one another and think that they are doing Gods will.
                Etc. etc.
                
                   And approx 240 years later the church that Constantine assembled in 326 came together for their first council after the original meeting.
                
                   By the way, 240 years is a half of a time.
                
                   If this is the religious establishment which John spoke of?  The first and most important thing which they will have to accomplish is to discredit the belief that Jesus meant what he said, concerning his second coming, and the tribulation, and rapture etc.
                   Because if they do not do this, it is immediately apparent exactly how the prophesy are to be played out. And what part they have in the over all plan.
                
                   Prophesy has to become a mystery in order for them to come to fulfillment.
                No one would have bought into it if it had been obvious at the time.
                  Prophesy generally become obvious,  after their fulfillment.
                
                  And they have all been fulfilled except for the seventh trumpet and seventh bowl.
                
                  What part Paul played ...?  I don’t know ?  Don't care, It doesn't really matter. It is our interpretation of these things which matters the most.
                
                  It is kinda like me saying that Super Bowl 50 has not been played yet.
                And 100 years later someone reading what I said,  then professing that Supper Bowl 50 still hasn't happened yet cause Jerami said so.
                
                   Sorry this was so long
                I think I might be about done here.

                replyreport
12. 59

    Jeramiposted 12 years ago

    One more thing about the previous post.
    
      "IF" this concept is true?  it doesn't change one single thing concerning everything that Jesus, Paul or any of the apostles said about salvation, or any other part of the "GOOD News"
    
      It just explains how the mystery of prophesy came to be. And if this is true, there would be no need for private interpretation of Prophesy.  Cause there would be nothing to explain away.

    replyreport