How do Christians define LIBERAL?

[coolbluehair]

How do Christians define LIBERAL?

[otseng]

Yeah, that's why I put it in parenthesis. I believe in supporting the underprivileged, but not in using socialism to achieve it. It's another example of how a label is not easy to fix on people.

When the topic got buried I didn't get a chance to ask about this. I am interesting in knowing what methods you propose.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see real contradictions in your philosophy. How are you going to help the underprivileged while sticking to a tightly balanced budget? Looks like you are all for individual freedom in some areas and not in others. This could be contradictory, in principle.

Let's take a pragmatic example. Several times last year, our family volunteered at a homeless shelter. When we fed them, zero dollars were from the government. The food, drinks, and utensils were all donated by various people. The people who served the food were all volunteers. We were able to help the underprivileged without any governmental support.

Thus, my personal philosophy is that I believe in helping the underprivileged without using governmental socialism. On a societal level, this philosophy can only be carried out if there are sufficient people who share the same philosophy. But, unfortunately, I think not many people do.

I am opposed to the idea of taking another person's money without their consent for whatever purpose, even noble ones. This is what I feel socialism does. But, perhaps this should be for another thread...

[Dilettante]

otseng wrote:

my personal philosophy is that I believe in helping the underprivileged without using governmental socialism. On a societal level, this philosophy can only be carried out if there are sufficient people who share the same philosophy. But, unfortunately, I think not many people do.

OK, now I understand. Thanks for the example! Your approach sounds good to me, if slightly utopian considering the present circumstances. And I see you're aware of the practical difficulties involved, like not enough people being willing to be as generous as you are. For that reason (and others) I think the state is still necessary. I don't see how volunteers could achieve a sufficient level of organization to build something like the Grand Coulee Dam or a huge freeway network. The state, in my view, should guarantee a basic education for all and basic health care to avoid pockets of ignorance or disease within a country. But many of the functions assumed by the state could be fulfilled by private initiatives if enough people were willing to cooperate. Then there's the issue of individual freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you probably would be in favor of privatizing marriage, so same sex marriage would not be an issue with you. I am assuming you are opposed to abortion also. In a context of semi-libertarianism, how would you persuade people not to have abortions? Would you go as far as a Murray Rothbard or would you impose some limits to individual freedom? To most libertarians, any consensual acts between adults cannot be limited by law. Where do you stand exactly? I'll tell you I consider myself liberal but not to the extreme of being libertarian.

[otseng]

And I see you're aware of the practical difficulties involved, like not enough people being willing to be as generous as you are.

Unfortunately, not everyone is generous with their time or money. I also find it irresponsible (and perhaps immoral) for someone to be generous with someone else's money.

For that reason (and others) I think the state is still necessary.

I also believe the state is necessary, though at a far less size than what most are at.

I don't see how volunteers could achieve a sufficient level of organization to build something like the Grand Coulee Dam or a huge freeway network.

Caring for the underprivileged is not the same as public works projects. I am supportive of the government creating infrastructures such as transportation, information superhighway, etc.

The state, in my view, should guarantee a basic education for all and basic health care to avoid pockets of ignorance or disease within a country.

Definitely another area for debate.

But many of the functions assumed by the state could be fulfilled by private initiatives if enough people were willing to cooperate.

Precisely.

Then there's the issue of individual freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you probably would be in favor of privatizing marriage, so same sex marriage would not be an issue with you.

I am in favor of the government pulling out of the marriage business.

I am assuming you are opposed to abortion also. In a context of semi-libertarianism, how would you persuade people not to have abortions?

I believe an unborn child is a human. As a human, it has the full rights of a human being as do all others that have been born. I have stated my position here .

Would you go as far as a Murray Rothbard or would you impose some limits to individual freedom? To most libertarians, any consensual acts between adults cannot be limited by law. Where do you stand exactly? I'll tell you I consider myself liberal but not to the extreme of being libertarian.

I am not familiar with Rothbard's position on ethics. But, I am a free market capitalist that believes the government should not interfere with the economy.

As to consensual acts between adults, I believe they are free to do whatever they want as long as no one else is harmed by it.

[Dilettante]

otseng wrote:

Unfortunately, not everyone is generous with their time or money. I also find it irresponsible (and perhaps immoral) for someone to be generous with someone else's money.

I see we are generally in agreement, with some areas where we could perhaps engage in debate. The problem with the above is that we need to define "someone else's money", i. e., we need to define whether there should be limits to property or, in other words, if compulsory taxation is acceptable. Perhaps it should always be voluntary. Perhaps a flat rate would be a good thing. However, someone not usually considered a radical, Thomas Aquinas, wrote:

"Now, according to the natural order instituted by divine providence, material goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs. Therefore, the division and appropriation of property, which proceeds from human law, must not hinder the satisfaction of man's necessity from such goods. Equally, whatever a man has in super-abundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance. So Ambrosius says, and it is also to be found in the Decretum Gratiani: The bread that you withhold belongs to the hungry; the clothing you shut away, to the naked; and the money you bury in the earth is the redemption and freedom of the penniless."

[otseng]

I see we are generally in agreement, with some areas where we could perhaps engage in debate.

I would welcome further discussion. But, since they might not be directly relevant to religious issues, we can continue in Random Ramblings.

[micatala]

Given the discussion in the Why is being called liberal an insult?, perhaps we should discuss again what it means to be a liberal or a liberal Christian.

On the one hand, we could just define liberal, especially if we mean in a political context, and ask Christians to accept the same definition that everybody else uses.

If we want to define 'liberal Christian', I tend to generally agree with the somewhat ambiguous description given by Magus Yanam above. Liberal Christians tend to be less concerned with 'strict adherence to orthodox theology and biblical tradition' and more concerned with the practical application of the teachings, practices and attitudes of Jesus in today's world.

I don't personally like to get into whether 'conservative' or 'liberals' are more Christian, as I think it is possible for each view to be legitimately held to and practiced by sincere Christians. As Paul says, what counts is faith, and if one can honestly and in good conscience and in a reasonably consistent way adhere to 'liberal' or 'conservative' Christianity, then I would not question the validity of the given viewpoint.

[1John2_26]

Given the discussion in the Why is being called liberal an insult?, perhaps we should discuss again what it means to be a liberal or a liberal Christian.

Liberals change truth for convenience. Conservatives do not change the meanings of words. "Pro-choice." What a sickening neologism that is. Just watch an abortion. That any "human being" can look at an ultra sound of an unborn and fully formed human body inside "his or her" mother's womb and say it is just a mass of cells is something other than just insane or mean.

They are a liberal.

If anyone can see a strung-out drug addict suffering every day of their life and not feel that locking them up and forcing them to be sober is the decent and compassionate thing to do is not a caring human being. They are a liberal human being. Who also, wants to legalize drugs.

On the one hand, we could just define liberal, especially if we mean in a political context, and ask Christians to accept the same definition that everybody else uses.

A Christian would label much of what liberals believe and implement as satanic. Revising marriage to be people of the same-sexes for example. No where from Genesis to Revelation is there any support for that except in the "mind" of a liberal.

If we want to define 'liberal Christian', I tend to generally agree with the somewhat ambiguous description given by Magus Yanam above. Liberal Christians tend to be less concerned with 'strict adherence to orthodox theology and biblical tradition' and more concerned with the practical application of the teachings, practices and attitudes of Jesus in today's world.

By inventing a different Jesus, liberals exit Christianity. Is this the "liberal Jesus" or the real Jesus as presented in the authentic Gospel?

The Jesus who "died for our sins" has simply got to go in our post-Darwinian world. Christianity must move beyond a rescuing Jesus, who overcame a fall that never happened, even metaphorically, to restore human life to a status it has never had, even mythologically. Williams' task is nothing less than to articulate a new Christianity for a new world.

I think the Apostles would say that this was a satanic version of the Gospel account of what Jesus is.

I don't personally like to get into whether 'conservative' or 'liberals' are more Christian, as I think it is possible for each view to be legitimately held to and practiced by sincere Christians.

Please read again the above quote from an Anglican Bishop. Then read Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles Christianity.

As Paul says, what counts is faith, and if one can honestly and in good conscience and in a reasonably consistent way adhere to 'liberal' or 'conservative' Christianity, then I would not question the validity of the given viewpoint.

Paul said "If Christ be not raised . . ."

Resurrection Essential to the Faith

12 Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, "There is no resurrection of the dead"? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is without foundation, and so is your faith. 15 In addition, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified about God that He raised up Christ—whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Therefore those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. 19 If we have placed our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone.


Christ's Resurrection Guarantees Ours
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

[OccamsRazor]

Liberals change truth for convenience.

Liberals do not change truth, rather they accept that there does not exists objective truth. Liberals see in shades of grey rather than black and white.

"Pro-choice." What a sickening neologism that is.

You seem to use the term 'neologism' as a dirty word. Is "Pro-life" not merely a contrary neologism?

That any "human being" can look at an ultra sound of an unborn and fully formed human body inside "his or her" mother's womb and say it is just a mass of cells is something other than just insane or mean.

My wife is currently 15 weeks pregnant. We have seen the first scan of the feotus that we have concieved. I still assert that this is a mass of cells (as am I and my wife).

If anyone can see a strung-out drug addict suffering every day of their life and not feel that locking them up and forcing them to be sober is the decent and compassionate thing to do is not a caring human being. They are a liberal human being. Who also, wants to legalize drugs.

Do you know any drug addicts? Where would you lock them up to prevent their access to drug? I don't think that you cannot profess to know the best way to deal with drug addiction until you understand and empathise with the cause and effect.

I think that again you are starying away from the OP and are stepping toward the suggestion that liberalism is something to be despised rather than defining it in objective terms.

I think that your point may be better made on Why is being called a liberal an insult?

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Liberals change truth for convenience.
Liberals do not change truth, rather they accept that there does not exists objective truth. Liberals see in shades of grey rather than black and white.

Is the cure for cancer sought in shades of grey?

1John2_26 wrote:
"Pro-choice." What a sickening neologism that is.
You seem to use the term 'neologism' as a dirty word. Is "Pro-life" not merely a contrary neologism?

Is murdering children ever a "Pro-Choice?" The ONLY "Pro" choice is life. That is why so many athiests and Christians are altruistic.

1John2_26 wrote:
That any "human being" can look at an ultra sound of an unborn and fully formed human body inside "his or her" mother's womb and say it is just a mass of cells is something other than just insane or mean.

My wife is currently 15 weeks pregnant. We have seen the first scan of the feotus that we have concieved. I still assert that this is a mass of cells (as am I and my wife).

What time is it where you live? Sand or yellow? If you can look at your formed child a post what you did then it is Root beer O'Clock. I'm sorry I cannot grasp absurdity. Not anymore.

1John2_26 wrote:
If anyone can see a strung-out drug addict suffering every day of their life and not feel that locking them up and forcing them to be sober is the decent and compassionate thing to do is not a caring human being. They are a liberal human being. Who also, wants to legalize drugs.

Do you know any drug addicts? Where would you lock them up to prevent their access to drug? I don't think that you cannot profess to know the best way to deal with drug addiction until you understand and empathise with the cause and effect.

What rhymes with duck chew? Dick Cheney had had enough of liars and perverts taking the mantle of what was once a noble cause. Now even the Black community is realizing they are not "liberals." Call the Reverend James Meeks in Chicago. He is leading the largest congragation in Chicago. He is running for governor because he has had enough of "liberals."I have intensely personal experience with drug addicts. Personally and professionally? Anyone that supports legalizing drugs is the enemy of mankind. And usually they are drug dealers or liberals.

I think that again you are starying away from the OP and are stepping toward the suggestion that liberalism is something to be despised rather than defining it in objective terms.

I have come to realize that there are some people that deserve to be despised. It is a matter of fact.

I think that your point may be better made on Why is being called a liberal an insult?

The ACLU represnting NAMBLA may have some weight on the empiricism of what "liberal" has become. Same-sex marriage, killing children for convenience, socialism replacing Democrat politics, chaos is OK, outlawing the Christian faith while supporting others yada, yada. Liberal is a bad thing. NOW.

[OccamsRazor]

Is the cure for cancer sought in shades of grey?

Sorry, this does not make any logical sense, this is a medical condition, not a political debate.
I may also ask, what is the black and white answer to the Kashmir conflict?

Is murdering children ever a "Pro-Choice"

You seem to have avoided my question. Is "pro-life" not a neologism?

You also use the word murder, the point of the debate is that the "pro-choice" position is that it is not murder. As my comments on another thread the pro-life/pro-choice argument is best left to another debate.

What time is it where you live? Sand or yellow? If you can look at your formed child a post what you did then it is Root beer O'Clock. I'm sorry I cannot grasp absurdity. Not anymore.

1John, you simply can't just say that because your opinion and mine disagree then my point is terminological absurdity.

What rhymes with duck chew?

I'm sorry???

Anyone that supports legalizing drugs is the enemy of mankind.

I turn your attention to the policy of the Netherlands here. The Netherlands has legalised psychedelic psilocybin mushrooms and cannabis, they now have the lowest rate of drug-related deaths per capita and the highest average age of drug-addicts (at 38).

I do not profess to know about the ACLU or NAMBLA (I have never heard of them until now).

outlawing the Christian faith while supporting others

You seem to misunderstand the term "liberal". It means quite the opposite of outlawing a faith, this sounds more like conservativism.