Crazier, and Crazier.

[DrMike]

Though you say you neither wish to point fingers or throw rocks, your queries leave the impression that is precisely what you are doing. I doubt that I will be able to satisfy your curiosity; it appears you are more eager to stir the pot, as it were, than to effect a dialogue. Nevertheless, I contend that "the church" (whatever you mean by the term) performs more charity by accident than government ever did on purpose. Whilst it is true that few of us would lay claim to following the Master with the dedication He deserves, there are not a few who bear His Name who seek to honour Him through caring for the poor. May I remind you, however, that it was the Master Himself who cautioned His disciples when they were protesting wasting wealth on anointing Him for His burial, "You always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them." It was "the church" that implemented public education, and not "the government." It was "the church" that instituted hospitals, and not "the government." The first orphanages and homes for the destitute were not built by government, but by "the church." In fact, there is not a charitable institution that can lay claim to government for its origin. The thought that the primary responsibility of "the church" is to do something for "the poor people" finds scant warrant in the Scriptures. However, it is the natural outworking of a life that has been transformed by the Living Saviour to be concerned for the whole of mankind. It is governmental intervention that seeks to ensure that everything is done to proper standards that shuts down missions to the poor. Mirrors that are a quarter inch too low, or dining rooms without adequate lighting draw the attention of governmental regulators that aren't caring for the needy; and their actions ensure that these missions must reduce their services or shut down entirely. Governmental regulations that charitable institutions must choose between their religious convictions or cease operation ensure that religiously supported hospitals and schools must close, or more likely, be taken over by government agencies. Government regulations ensure that charitable adoption agencies will either compromise their doctrinal positions or cease to operate.

Now, to answer your question, "Would Jesus be a liberal?" The answer is assuredly, "No.!" Neither would He necessarily align Himself with any political institution. Within the society in which He walked, neither the liberals (Sadducees) nor the conservatives (Pharisees) were particularly enamoured of Him. To be certain, many of the religious leaders of this day would be uncomfortable in the presence of Jesus (as is apparent from their refusal to accept what He said). However, the progressives would be equally uncomfortable, much as Hilary and Bill were uncomfortable in the presence of Mother Teresa. It is a grave mistake for any politician to attempt to co-opt the Son of God. However, it would be a mark of wisdom for any individual to know what He demanded of all people and to boldly align themselves with Him on those few things.

Jesus would not condone stealing, nor would He approve of redistributing wealth. He would encourage changing the heart; and no government can effect that change. He would encourage those who laid claim to His Name to walk honourably before God, to be humble in their bearing and to trust Him fully in every endeavour.

 

[JD338]

Just to make myself clear, I do not think of Jesus as a liberal.

JD338

 

[DrMike]

But, my question was, "Would Jesus have been considered a liberal?"

Your question appeared out of nowhere. Are you seeking an answer to some life crisis? Do you wish to pursue a religious vocation? Or do you see liberalism as a form of religion and yourself as a preacher for the cause? Have you been probing around on dead-end streets and the realisation compel you to attempt to change the discussion? I'd be intrigued to know what prompted your question? And I'd be interested to know why you believe an answer to your question is important?

 

[Oldtrader3]

Not by the Pharisees, he would not be considered Liberal!

 

[aka Hunter]

Your question appeared out of nowhere. See A. Are you seeking an answer to some life crisis? See B. Do you wish to pursue a religious vocation? See C. Or do you see liberalism as a form of religion and yourself as a preacher for the cause? See D. Have you been probing around on dead-end streets and the realisation compel you to attempt to change the discussion? See E. I'd be intrigued to know what prompted your question? See A. And I'd be interested to know why you believe an answer to your question is important? See F.

A. There have been several references to "Christian" and "liberals" on this forum, and many folks here likely think of themselves as Christian and "non-liberal" thus, the question may not have been "out of nowhere."

B. Always seeking answers to, or contemplating, the mysteries of life.

C. No.

D. No.

E. Given the comment in A above, I just walked through the door opened by the previous poster.

F. The answer is not particularly important (in fact, it's no more important than answers to most questions I ask); however, the question may be important as we contemplate life.

 

[aka Hunter]

I doubt that I will be able to satisfy your curiosity; it appears you are more eager to stir the pot, as it were, than to effect a dialogue.

Actually, I was asking a rhetorical question; however, I'll share some more comments to effect a dialogue.

I contend that "the church" (whatever you mean by the term) performs more charity by accident than government ever did on purpose....It was "the church" that implemented public education, and not "the government." It was "the church" that instituted hospitals, and not "the government." The first orphanages and homes for the destitute were not built by government, but by "the church." In fact, there is not a charitable institution that can lay claim to government for its origin.

I don’t have, and I doubt that you do either, the facts to support an argument about whether more charity has been performed by the church or by gov’t; nevertheless, that’s not my point. As for whether the church or gov’t created various charitable institutions, that‘s not my point either. My point is that the church has failed the poor -- and gov’t had to step in to fill the gap. I’m not aware that the poverty, or near-poverty, conditions of untold numbers of out-of-work people during the depression years, for example, were improved to any significant degree by the church -- they were improved by various gov’t programs (including work programs). In more current times, I’m not aware that the church has made any great strides in improving, to any significant degree, the dismal conditions of many out-of-work or low-paid people; and whatever strides it has made in that direction, I suspect the positive results of various gov't programs far exceed those of the church.

Now to answer your question, "Would Jesus be a liberal?" The answer is assuredly, "No.!" ...

Jesus would not ... approve of redistributing wealth.

Let’s assume that we’ve followed all the laws for all of our lives, that we’ve worked hard and have been pretty successful; in fact, we have plenty of money. Now, some guy who has no material wealth comes along and tells us that we need to change, and that we need to sell all of our stuff and give the proceeds to the poor; furthermore, he tells us not to worry about food or shelter. I’d say that guy wants us to redistribute our wealth; in fact, I'd say he sounds like a liberal.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Hunter, how has the church failed the poor? Our church does everything that it can to feed the poor and support their needs without any strings attached. The only thing required is to sit through grace at dinner time. Now, one small church with 200 parishoners can not meet all the needs of even the 50 families a week that they do supply meals and other Christian inspired fiscal support to. It is not fair to think that they can do more than they do in this economy where most are struggling families trying to get by.

In a country with 45 million people below the poverty line, normal church charity by twice that number of Christians in this country is not nearly enough to meet the needs of the poor, even for food and shelter but you know that! Without institutional and goverment support of the poor, their needs can not nearly be met by Christian charities. Besides the 45 million people below the poverty line does not include many millions more who are living one part-time paycheck from disaster.

Hey, you are a lawyer and already know all of this, so why the rhetorical questions unless you are about to dump on Christianity and charity in general. How much do you contribute to charity? You needn't answer because that is private information but I bet the most churches do better than the general secular public does with contributions to the poor, just guessing?

 

[RiverRider]

I suspect the positive results of various gov't programs far exceed those of the church.

The federal government nurtures and cultivates poverty. The so-called "war on poverty" was a dismal failure. Even what the federal government did during the Depression---which has traditionally been regarded as beneficial---prolonged the Depression. The welfare state has wrecked the family and destroyed the potential of countless individuals...all in the name of "compassion." Liberal "compassion" is a ruse.

Let’s assume that we’ve followed all the laws for all of our lives, that we’ve worked hard and have been pretty successful; in fact, we have plenty of money. Now, some guy who has no material wealth comes along and tells us that we need to change, and that we need to sell all of our stuff and give the proceeds to the poor; furthermore, he tells us not to worry about food or shelter. I’d say that guy wants us to redistribute our wealth; in fact, I'd say he sounds like a liberal.

If you think Jesus might have considered using the force of government to make people comply, then you have the privilege of being correct in your own mind.

There are many references to private property in the Bible and it is an institution endorsed by the Creator. Contemporary liberals do not believe in private property and are therefore in conflict with what God endorsed.

The liberal effort to co-opt faith over the last decade or so has and will continue to fail because the truth is not with the liberal side of the argument.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Jesus never in the recorded books of the Bible, coopted government by either local kings (i.e. Herod) or the Romans to support the poor with public charity. Even slavery was supported by God in the times of the Old Testement as being a natural activity of men at that time in their history.

The Old Testement even described Sloth as one of the Seven Deadly Sins. So why would Christ subsidise sloth? Christ did instruct his disciples to go forth and take care of the spiritual needs and whatever physical requirements of their followers in any manner that they could. There is nothing in the bible about providing for everyone, particularly those who would oppose, vilify Christianity and worship craven idols.

I think that we who are Christians, need to be particularly careful about reading between the lines of scripture and ascribing what we consider as human virtues to God and the Trinity.

 

[aka Hunter]

Even what the federal government did during the Depression---which has traditionally been regarded as beneficial---prolonged the Depression.

I don't know enough to respond to your statement quoted above; however, I'd be glad to spend some time reading the source which supports it, if you'll point me in the right direction. Nevertheless, what were those poverty-striken, out-of-work people to do during those times? Look to the church? The church was there -- but, they were still poverty-striken.

If you think Jesus might have considered using the force of government to make people comply, then you have the privilege of being correct in your own mind.

But, He did say, "Render unto Ceasar"; so, if the gov't decides that it needs to redistribute our money to help the poor, I suspect He would have approved of that.

Jesus never in the recorded books of the Bible, coopted government by either local kings (i.e. Herod) or the Romans to support the poor with public charity....There is nothing in the bible about providing for everyone.

But, He did tell the rich to sell all they have and give to the poor.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Ceasar was not about redistributing his wealth to anyone but Ceasar. There was no unemployment insurance, Medicare, distribution of wealth to anyone but maybe to Herod for local protection of local Roman Legions and his share of taxes. Roman citizens received rights, help and protection by Ceasar and his legions but not many regular people from Palestine.

People were taxed, conscripted into Ceasar's armies and were often crucified by the thousands for all sorts of relatively minor infractions of Roman law or through local politics. I have read histories of the Jews being particularly hard to subjegate and 1000's of them being crucified together along the road to Jeruselem.

 

[RiverRider]

Jesus never in the recorded books of the Bible, coopted government by either local kings (i.e. Herod) or the Romans to support the poor with public charity. Even slavery was supported by God in the times of the Old Testement as being a natural activity of men at that time in their history.

The Old Testement even described Sloth as one of the Seven Deadly Sins. So why would Christ subsidise sloth? Christ did instruct his disciples to go forth and take care of the spiritual needs and whatever physical requirements of their followers in any manner that they could. There is nothing in the bible about providing for everyone, particularly those who would oppose, vilify Christianity and worship craven idols.

I think that we who are Christians, need to be particularly careful about reading between the lines of scripture and ascribing what we consider as human virtues to God and the Trinity.

OT, of you are addressing me I think you've misunderstood what I said.

 

[Oldtrader3]

RR, I was addressing AKA Hunter's response to you. I agree with you once I read what you said.

 

[Oldtrader3]

The thoughts of LeCompte, regarding Christianity and being a Humanitarian. They are not the same thing!

Now think back. Can you ever recall hearing a nominal
Christian object to being called Humanitarian? Yet a
Humanitarian is one who denies Christianity . A Christian cannot
be a Humanitarian. If thinking in six generations has
become so confused that even Christian ministers allow
themselves to be called Humanitarians and are willing to
study sociology as a required part of their training, Comte has
indeed come a long way without making too many waves .
When you find individuals claiming to be both Humanitarian
and Christian; collectivist and individualist; against war and
in favor of coercing everyone into a collectivist 'society' ;
scientifically-minded, yet blind to individual differences - you
must know something serious has happened to their thought
processes or their means of communication. They are not talking
sense.

 

[aka Hunter]

Ot3 - I'm not sure how the above post relates to my question, "Would Jesus have been considered a liberal?" -- maybe it doesn't, so I won't try to resond to it. However, I have been thinking about the following statement you made in a post on the previous page here:

Even slavery was supported by God in the times of the Old Testement as being a natural activity of men at that time in their history.

Based on that statement, are we to infer that slavery was supported by God in the pre-Civil War era as being a natural activity of men at that time? :shock:

 

[Oldtrader3]

I do not speak for God and am not going to do so, ever! However, I think that you answered your own question.

What LaCompte is talking about is important and is germain to modern thinking on the socialization of man to accept socially driven norms being more important than morally or religious driven norms. What LaCompte is saying is that religion and God's will have been surplanted in the American young people in modern civilization. This with ideas which have no basis in religion and therefore are not able to be compared to what God or Christ may think or do under the same circumstances. They are mutually exclusive because it is all socially and not morally derived. Therefore Christ was not a Humanitarian or Liberal in the modern sense!

Read it again, Hunter, maybe you will understand this time.

 

[aka Hunter]

I do not speak for God and am not going to do so, ever! ...

What LaCompte is saying is that religion and God's will have been surplanted in the American young people in modern civilization. This with ideas which have no basis in religion and therefore are not able to be compared to what God or Christ may think or do under the same circumstances.

Read it again, Hunter, maybe you will understand this time.

Ot3 -- You're confusing me; first you say that "slavery was supported by God," then you say you "do not speak for God" -- now, you seem willing to accept what your man LaCompte says about what God thinks. :shock:

 

[RiverRider]

Question for you, Hunter: are you genuinely seeking understanding or do you just want to argue the assertion that Jesus would endorse liberalism?

 

[aka Hunter]

Question for you, Hunter: are you genuinely seeking understanding or do you just want to argue the assertion that Jesus would endorse liberalism?

I'm not suggesting that He would endorse all facets of liberalism; however, I'm not sure that's a requirement to be considered a liberal. I asked a question, got responses, and engaged in follow-up comments to most of those responses. I haven't seen any rebuttals that lead me to believe that Jesus would not have been considered a liberal.

 

[Oldtrader3]

God is Christ and is the Holy Spirit. Personally, I have never read anything which leaves me believing that the Trinity meets the definition of the modern Liberal. However, I guess that we are all entitled to our own opinion and God is the only one who really knows the answer. Just be careful of commiting apostacy when attributing human traits to the almighty being.