What Is Liberalism?

[[email protected]]

Apparently you can always tell a modern liberal.....

but you can't tell him or her much.

--------------

Once upon a time liberalism meant the support of civil liberties, broad mindedness and tolerance.
Once upon a time liberalism was honorable and worthy of support by men of good character.

Today true liberalism has died, along with its hallmark of compassion.

Today liberalism is a militant form of tyranny which suppresses the expression of religion, individualism, science, history and truth itself.

Lies are its foundation, intolerance its banner and socialist communism its goal.

Its end is slavery and death and anyone who holds to its tenants is an enemy of the common man, not its champion.

Jesus was a Christian and a Conservative.

He is neither.

Study the Bible and not historical revisionists and you'll learn the truth.

 

[aspen]

Well, it sounds like you have all the answers Foreign - I'll let you take it from here

Peace

 

[Foreigner]

Tell Bill I said hi, Aspen

 

[religusnut]

Well, we all work with crazy people, I just get paid to do it

Most of the time I do it volunteer. I don't get paid. I just do it because there needs to be somebody that cares and I do.

 

[religusnut]

One definition I would give for a liberal is "one that sees wrong as right and right as wrong."
Possibly another definition could be one that does not have ears to hear nor eyes to see.
Possibly another could be one that does not have a clue but knows all.

Normally the only thing more confusing than an atheist that is a liberal is a liberal that tries to pass themselves off as a Christian. It is amazing what they can take the Bible and say that it teaches. Just like the devil when he tempted Jesus they will take the scripture and present a partial truth and try to pass it off as the truth.

Actually a partial truth is a whole lie, everytime.

 

[pgfinest2002]

One tidbit I'd add to the idea of liberal v. conservative has to do with Christianity and not politics.

It deals with liberal v. conservative theologians/scholars who deal with the Bible.

Conservative theologians hold more to the idea that books such as 2 Timothy, Titus, and a couple of other NT epistles were written by Paul. They also hold to Jesus being God and that it was the belief of the church in the First Century. As well as other traditional beliefs.

However, liberal theologians claim things like "Jesus never claimed to be God," "Certain books in the NT attributed to Paul were not written by Paul" and that the book of John is not an "actual narrative of actual events", but John using symbology, etc. to tell the story about Jesus.

Didn't mean to take the thread into a whole new direction. Only wanted to point out that the liberal v. conservative debate goes outside of politics and into Christendom. And I consider liberal theologians even more dangerous than I do liberal politicians, because liberal theologians/scholars tell people there is no reason to believe in Jesus Christ, thereby dooming the eternal souls of people.

 

[veteran]

One tidbit I'd add to the idea of liberal v. conservative has to do with Christianity and not politics.

It deals with liberal v. conservative theologians/scholars who deal with the Bible.

Conservative theologians hold more to the idea that books such as 2 Timothy, Titus, and a couple of other NT epistles were written by Paul. They also hold to Jesus being God and that it was the belief of the church in the First Century. As well as other traditional beliefs.

However, liberal theologians claim things like "Jesus never claimed to be God," "Certain books in the NT attributed to Paul were not written by Paul" and that the book of John is not an "actual narrative of actual events", but John using symbology, etc. to tell the story about Jesus.

Didn't mean to take the thread into a whole new direction. Only wanted to point out that the liberal v. conservative debate goes outside of politics and into Christendom. And I consider liberal theologians even more dangerous than I do liberal politicians, because liberal theologians/scholars tell people there is no reason to believe in Jesus Christ, thereby dooming the eternal souls of people.

That's why it makes the prophecy in Isaiah 32 so amazing, because it fits perfectly in pointing to today's movement called liberalism.

The movement of liberalism today is closely aligned with the movements of world socialism, anarchy, and Marxism. That's why it's principles are so against ideas of capitalism and the if you don't work you don't eat principle from God's Word.

The original meaning of liberal in the positive sense applied to nobility. It especially applied to the divine reign of kings and princes in righteousness. That's why Isaiah 32 starts out pointing to that type of reign by Christ as King. It was originally about monarchy and those who worked under the monarchy in ruling over the people with righteous judgments.

Who has it been through history that has wanted to end the reign of monarchs, especially Christian monarchs? Weishaupt's Illuminati order in Bavaria had the secret plan to overthrow all the Christian monarchs of 18th century Europe. Per John Robison and the Abbe Barruel, the French monarchs were behead by the revolutionists that fomented the French Revolution, which both authors linked to the Jacobin clubs among continental Masonry. In 1917 Marxists murdered Czar Nicholas II and Alexandria. At the end of WWII per agreement with FDR and Churchill, Joseph Stalin was handed countries in middle Europe that caused Christian monarchs in those nations to flee.

Our Heavenly Father warned Israel about wanting to have flesh kings like the nations around them. He foretold Israel of the bondage it could bring, for God has always been Israel's and our true King. Thus there's never been a perfect flesh monarch, nor ever will be, for Christ Jesus will always be our true Monarch. Yet when God setup a righteous king of the people, like king David, a man after His own heart, righteous judgments reigned among the people. Likewise with Solomon, until Solomon disobeyed God in allowing his many wives and concubines of the nations to bring their idols into Israel.

 

[aspen]

Liberal theologians can certainly go far beyond orthodoxy - Bishop Spong is living proof

Conservative theologian can go too far in the other direction, promoting anti-intellectual ideas in place of scholarship.

Dogmatism is alive and well on both sides of the spectrum, but if we fall into the trap of believing one side is right and the other is wrong, we are going to fall into error.

 

[bigape]

A liberal is someone who sees the bad things in this world and tries to change them.
(And this is good.)

Now what makes me different from a liberal, is although I also see the bad things in this world and try to change them, I have correctly identified the true source of “bad things”.
--------------------------------------------------
A liberal sees the source of bad things, to be “bad people”.
If your politically liberal, than the bad people are those Republicans:
And if your Spiritually liberal, than the bad people are those conservatives.

But in reality, the true source of bad things, is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, but a rejection of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
Liberals(both kinds), are too simplistic in their assessment of evil.
They are looking at evil, from a shallow view point.

But when a person looks a little deeper, they realize that all that is wrong with this world, is it rejects Christ.

Being born again, will fix everything.
The Gospel, is the cure for this worlds evils.

 

[pgfinest2002]

Liberal theologians can certainly go far beyond orthodoxy - Bishop Spong is living proof

Conservative theologian can go too far in the other direction, promoting anti-intellectual ideas in place of scholarship.

Dogmatism is alive and well on both sides of the spectrum, but if we fall into the trap of believing one side is right and the other is wrong, we are going to fall into error.

Good points aspen. I don't know of Bishop Spong, but I'll look him up.

 

[Martin W.]

One definition I would give for a liberal is "one that sees wrong as right and right as wrong."
Possibly another definition could be one that does not have ears to hear nor eyes to see.
Possibly another could be one that does not have a clue but knows all.

Normally the only thing more confusing than an atheist that is a liberal is a liberal that tries to pass themselves off as a Christian. It is amazing what they can take the Bible and say that it teaches. Just like the devil when he tempted Jesus they will take the scripture and present a partial truth and try to pass it off as the truth.

Actually a partial truth is a whole lie, everytime.

This is one of the best descriptions I have seen.

Martin

 

[aspen]

One definition I would give for a liberal is "one that sees wrong as right and right as wrong."
Possibly another definition could be one that does not have ears to hear nor eyes to see.
Possibly another could be one that does not have a clue but knows all.

Normally the only thing more confusing than an atheist that is a liberal is a liberal that tries to pass themselves off as a Christian. It is amazing what they can take the Bible and say that it teaches. Just like the devil when he tempted Jesus they will take the scripture and present a partial truth and try to pass it off as the truth.

Actually a partial truth is a whole lie, everytime.

I think this is a good description of people who are so entrenched in their own far right ideas or far left ideas that they think middle ground is the extreme. I think both extremist are idealistic in different ways. Liberals want to move forward to a world that can never be; conservatives want to go back to a world that never existed.

Liberals are terrible at learning from the mistakes of history. Conservatives are paralyzed - afraid to move forward because they might lose something they have. The guy who buried his treasure was a conservative.

 

[Foreigner]

"I think this is a good description of people who are so entrenched in their own far right ideas or far left ideas that they think middle ground is the extreme." - aspen

-- I would agree.

I was on Huffingtonpost the other day and one of the people there was talking about Obama and his "center-right policies."

I actually laughed outloud when I read that.

When you take positions on healthcare, immigration, etc. that 65-70% of Americans oppose, it is very difficult to call them center-right policies.......at least with a straight face.

 

[aspen]

"I think this is a good description of people who are so entrenched in their own far right ideas or far left ideas that they think middle ground is the extreme." - aspen

-- I would agree.

I was on Huffingtonpost the other day and one of the people there was talking about Obama and his "center-right policies."

I actually laughed outloud when I read that.

When you take positions on healthcare, immigration, etc. that 65-70% of Americans oppose, it is very difficult to call them center-right policies.......at least with a straight face.

The Huffington Post is a great example of far left

 

[Martin W.]

I think this is a good description of people who are so entrenched in their own far right ideas or far left ideas that they think middle ground is the extreme. I think both extremist are idealistic in different ways. Liberals want to move forward to a world that can never be; conservatives want to go back to a world that never existed.

Liberals are terrible at learning from the mistakes of history. Conservatives are paralyzed - afraid to move forward because they might lose something they have. The guy who buried his treasure was a conservative.

I differ in that I feel middle ground is the the most dangerous. A fractional change of direction can veer off in any direction. To take a middle of the road approach is to take no stand at all , in my opinion.

This whole discussion is difficult because we are using the political words "Liberal" and "Conservative" within a religious discussion. At first it may seem inappropriate until we consider that "Left" and "right" were at one time used to differentiate those of Christian values (Conservative right) and those who had secular values(Liberal Left). It is the politicians who have stolen our words and muddied the waters and created the "middle of the road agenda".

As Christians thinking strictly in absolute terms we must ask ourselves what road we will choose. God tells us his sheep go on his right and the goats go on his left at judgment. Never once have I read about a middle road. It does not exist. Only mention is a narrow road with few on it and a broad road with many on it.

Here is hoping we are all sheep .

Martin.

 

[aspen]

A liberal is someone who sees the bad things in this world and tries to change them.
(And this is good.)

Now what makes me different from a liberal, is although I also see the bad things in this world and try to change them, I have correctly identified the true source of “bad things”.
--------------------------------------------------
A liberal sees the source of bad things, to be “bad people”.
If your politically liberal, than the bad people are those Republicans:
And if your Spiritually liberal, than the bad people are those conservatives.

But in reality, the true source of bad things, is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, but a rejection of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
Liberals(both kinds), are too simplistic in their assessment of evil.
They are looking at evil, from a shallow view point.

But when a person looks a little deeper, they realize that all that is wrong with this world, is it rejects Christ.

Being born again, will fix everything.
The Gospel, is the cure for this worlds evils.

Sound like you believe being born again will even cure liberalism...

What about liberals who see bad things in the world, want to change them - realize that blaming the devil will change nothing unless we are willing to change our own behavior - and look to God to right the wrongs in people's hearts, rather than trying to legislate it?

 

[aspen]

I differ in that I feel middle ground is the the most dangerous. A fractional change of direction can veer off in any direction. To take a middle of the road approach is to take no stand at all , in my opinion.


I used to believe the same thing - for me, it was because I misinterpreted the verse about Jesus spitting out the lukewarm Christians. I now believe the middle ground is the place to be because it moves us to a place of less ego. Strong liberals and conservatives are extremely arrogant - so arrogant that they can only see the arrogance in their radical counterparts. Keith Oberman is a great example of this - he is so arrogant that he cannot see that he is the counterpart to Sean Hannity and vice versa. My opinions consider other people before my ideology.

This whole discussion is difficult because we are using the political words "Liberal" and "Conservative" within a religious discussion. At first it may seem inappropriate until we consider that "Left" and "right" were at one time used to differentiate those of Christian values (Conservative right) and those who had secular values(Liberal Left). It is the politicians who have stolen our words and muddied the waters and created the "middle of the road agenda".


So true - I would like to discuss conservative and liberal approaches to theology as well

As Christians thinking strictly in absolute terms we must ask ourselves what road we will choose. God tells us his sheep go on his right and the goats go on his left at judgment. Never once have I read about a middle road. It does not exist. Only mention is a narrow road with few on it and a broad road with many on it.


The middle road is the narrow road. Reality exists in the middle of liberal and conservative ideals. Jesus preached to the people - he hung out with the people - if He was interested in ideals, he would of reformed the House of Ideals - the Pharisee lead Jewish Temple.

I just finished watching the British version of "The Monastery" on youtube. It was a great show - 5 guys went to live in a Benedictine Monastery for 6 weeks and all experienced profound spiritual growth in their lives - most continued to go back for retreats after the show. After watching the show, I realized that after the many years I have spent being a Benedictine oblate - my approach to the gospel, witnessing, and spiritual formation has really been shaped according to the Rule of St. Benedict, I think it is also why my ideas seem so foreign here.


Peace

 

[bigape]

Sound like you believe being born again will even cure liberalism...

What about liberals who see bad things in the world, want to change them - realize that blaming the devil will change nothing unless we are willing to change our own behavior - and look to God to right the wrongs in people's hearts, rather than trying to legislate it?

Sounds good to me. You can’t legislate morality!

 

[Martin W.]

I just finished watching the British version of "The Monastery" on youtube. It was a great show - 5 guys went to live in a Benedictine Monastery for 6 weeks and all experienced profound spiritual growth in their lives - most continued to go back for retreats after the show. After watching the show, I realized that after the many years I have spent being a Benedictine oblate - my approach to the gospel, witnessing, and spiritual formation has really been shaped according to the Rule of St. Benedict, I think it is also why my ideas seem so foreign here.

Peace

I am curious what is "the Rule of St. Benedict" and how does it "spiritually form" a person ? A breif explaination would be helpful (at least for me). Thanks.


Also , I am not able to watch "The Monastery" here but would be curious to know what the 5 guys consider "profound spiritual growth" . It could mean many things.

Thanks

Martin.

 

[aspen]

I am curious what is "the Rule of St. Benedict" and how does it "spiritually form" a person ? A breif explaination would be helpful (at least for me). Thanks.


Also , I am not able to watch "The Monastery" here but would be curious to know what the 5 guys consider "profound spiritual growth" . It could mean many things.

Thanks

Martin.

The Rule of Saint Benedict (Regula Benedicti) is a book of precepts written by St. Benedict of Nursia for monks living communally under the authority of an abbot. Since about the 7th century it has also been adopted by communities of women. During the 1500 years of its existence, it has become the leading guide in Western Christianity for monastic living in community.

The spirit of St Benedict's Rule is summed up in the motto of the Benedictine Confederation: pax ("peace") and the traditional ora et labora ("pray and work").

Compared to other precepts, the Rule provides a moderate path between individual zeal and formulaic institutionalism; because of this middle ground it has been widely popular. Benedict's concerns were the needs of monks in a community environment: namely, to establish due order, to foster an understanding of the relational nature of human beings, and to provide a spiritual father to support and strengthen the individual's ascetic effort and the spiritual growth that is required for the fulfillment of the human vocation, theosis.




You can read more on wikipedia if you are interested.




A Buddhist man discovered that Jesus is the Son of God

A Atheist man who worked in adult entertainment quit his job and started pursuing the Christian life (he was hostile to all religion before the show)

A man who was caught in his own ego as a cover for early trauma started exploring his emotions and began a new life pursuing Christ

A man who was from Ireland and jailed for being an Orangeman and blowing up a Catholic center, realized that her was a slave to his emotions and desires and started a practice of regular prayer and meditation

A man who was a poet and teacher remained skeptical of organized religion, but accepted the doctrine of the Trinity and made peace with church related trauma in his past