How do Christians define LIBERAL?

[coolbluehair]

How do Christians define LIBERAL?

[McCulloch]

Is the cure for cancer sought in shades of grey?

Actually, yes. While an absolute cure is being sought, much research is going into extending the lives of cancer victims without necessarily eradicating the cancer. I have friends who are glad that cancer researchers can think in terms of various shades of grey.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Is the cure for cancer sought in shades of grey?
Actually, yes. While an absolute cure is being sought, much research is going into extending the lives of cancer victims without necessarily eradicating the cancer. I have friends who are glad that cancer researchers can think in terms of various shades of grey.

McCulloch,

It is not like you to grasp at straws.

Cancer is not a joke.

[ENIGMA]

1John2_26 wrote:
Is the cure for cancer sought in shades of grey?
Actually, yes. While an absolute cure is being sought, much research is going into extending the lives of cancer victims without necessarily eradicating the cancer. I have friends who are glad that cancer researchers can think in terms of various shades of grey.

McCulloch,

It is not like you to grasp at straws.

Cancer is not a joke.

Yet, if we were to follow a similar rationale as yours for the War on Drugs, John, the solution would be simple.

After all, we already have a 100% effective cure for cancer.

It is called a blowtorch. Point at needed areas, set for maximum intensity, and fire. Even cancer can't withstand several hundred degrees of propane being continuously applied for a minute.

The obvious problem is that this kills/gravely wounds the patient as well. But, if all we are concerned with is the status of the cancer, it works.

Likewise, even if one contends that the criminalization of drugs ("War on Drugs") is an effective cure for drug addiction, which has not been established, then it also suffers from large scale negative side effects.

Such as full prisons, a black market that benefits criminal elements, a huge amount of resources from law enforcement, a massive lack of rehab facilities for drug users, etc.

If drugs were to be legalized and properly regulated:

Any foriegn economy supported primarily on drug exports to the US would significantly weaken or possibly even collapse overnight.

Current criminal drug pushers would likely be forced out of business by market forces as they have to compete with legitimate companies

Rehabilitation facilities could far more readily develop, acquiring stocks of the drug to make it easier to wean addicted customers off of it.

Law enforcement has resources freed up to deal with more important matters, such as violent crime and terrorism

etc.


But no, obviously the blowtorch is the best method.

[McCulloch]

Is the cure for cancer sought in shades of grey?

Actually, yes. While an absolute cure is being sought, much research is going into extending the lives of cancer victims without necessarily eradicating the cancer. I have friends who are glad that cancer researchers can think in terms of various shades of grey.

McCulloch,
It is not like you to grasp at straws.
Cancer is not a joke.

I was not joking. My friends who are cancer survivors are quite thankful that the cancer researchers are not holding out for an all or nothing cure. Secondly, I have found that outside of the movies, black and white thinking is usually somewhat short of the truth.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Is the cure for cancer sought in shades of grey?
McCulloch wrote:
Actually, yes. While an absolute cure is being sought, much research is going into extending the lives of cancer victims without necessarily eradicating the cancer. I have friends who are glad that cancer researchers can think in terms of various shades of grey.
1John2_26 wrote:
McCulloch,
It is not like you to grasp at straws.
Cancer is not a joke.

I was not joking. My friends who are cancer survivors are quite thankful that the cancer researchers are not holding out for an all or nothing cure. Secondly, I have found that outside of the movies, black and white thinking is usually somewhat short of the truth.

Ask those that die the day after it happens if black and white does not exist? Survivor and non-survivor. Very black and white.

I'll bet not one cancer patient is happy about being almost cured. I am praying for them to live very long and happy lives. I am also praying that science finds the "absolute" cure.

But I will support your position and those of the scientists seeking the "absolute cure" for cancer in the grey right now. Let us hope that the "absolute" will happen someday. Since that is the "only" thing that will "wipeout completely" the "only thing" cancer researchers are "hoping" for.

[OccamsRazor]

Ask those that die the day after it happens if black and white does not exist? Survivor and non-survivor. Very black and white.

What about suvrivor, survived long enough to say goodbye to her family, survived long enough to see her kids graduate, survived long enough to see her kids graduate, survived for the rest of her life? Please assign black to one of these and white to the other and we can forget about the others as they are unwanted byproducts.

I'll bet not one cancer patient is happy about being almost cured.

A friend of mine was very happy that her mum's life was extended by just a few months. She survived to spend her last Christmas with her family. My friend told me that it was the best Christmas present that she ever had.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Ask those that die the day after it happens if black and white does not exist? Survivor and non-survivor. Very black and white.

What about suvrivor, survived long enough to say goodbye to her family, survived long enough to see her kids graduate, survived long enough to see her kids graduate, survived for the rest of her life? Please assign black to one of these and white to the other and we can forget about the others as they are unwanted byproducts.

That is the story of my mother. She is absolutely not alive anymore. I absolutely still love her. The doctors wish that they had an absolute cure for cancer. I asked them.

1John2_26 wrote:
I'll bet not one cancer patient is happy about being almost cured.

A friend of mine was very happy that her mum's life was extended by just a few months. She survived to spend her last Christmas with her family. My friend told me that it was the best Christmas present that she ever had.

"Absolutely" the best Christmas present she ever had? I am very ahppy about the story you conveyed. Absolutely happy.

I can prove in black and white that there were really black and white movies and TV shows. I'll bet many kids today will not believe that. But there is always the proof, if they will only see it.

But back on topic.

coolbluehair

How do Christians define LIBERAL?

Anti-Christ.

[micatala]

Instead of reinventing words and hurling inflammatory insults, why don't we actually consult the definition.

Liberal


1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Describes Jesus and early Christians very well. Jesus was all about reform. He was reacting against the conservatives of his day, the Pharisees, and sought to replace their legalistic religious framework with a doctrine of love, an emphasis on the heart, and a desire to help his fellow human beings. He was tolerant of all sorts of people, notably people the Pharisees were not tolerant of. He encouraged his followers to be open to new and, at that time especially, extremely radical ideas for human progress. He came so that we might have life and have it abundantly.

Jesus was clearly free form bigotry. He had no qualms about pointing out the bigotry of others as well. He cared little for orthodoxy or the authoritarian tactics of the Pharisees. If he was intolerant of anything, it was exactly the status quo power structures of his society.



Jesus, the prototypical liberal. We should include his picture next to the definition, I think.

[1John2_26]

Instead of reinventing words and hurling inflammatory insults, why don't we actually consult the definition.

How is anti-Christ an insult?

micatala in another thread wrote:

the dictionary wrote:

Liberal

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Describes Jesus and early Christians very well. Jesus was all about reform.

Yet He said He did not change one word of scripture. Not one jot or tittle.

He was reacting against the conservatives of his day, the Pharisees, and sought to replace their legalistic religious framework with a doctrine of love, an emphasis on the heart, and a desire to help his fellow human beings.

The Sanhedrin Jesus was debating and opposing were priests put into political power by King Herod. There is history here.

He was tolerant of all sorts of people, notably people the Pharisees were not tolerant of. He encouraged his followers to be open to new and, at that time especially, extremely radical ideas for human progress. He came so that we might have life and have it abundantly.

Probably why He opposed divorce and "reiterated" that marriage was a man and a woman exclusively. Literally exclusively.

Jesus was clearly free form bigotry. He had no qualms about pointing out the bigotry of others as well. He cared little for orthodoxy or the authoritarian tactics of the Pharisees. If he was intolerant of anything, it was exactly the status quo power structures of his society

Bingo. Now new laws have been invented to silence Christians the way Herod's priests silenced Christ Jesus. Literally the same way by using secular laws!!!

Oh yeah . . .

Why is "anti-Christ" an inflammatory insult? Do not the people that oppose Christians and Christianity think Jesus is a myth? The whole story a joke? A fairy tale?

I doubt tooth fairy opposition feels insulted by indignant parents that tell their children the regs of procuring money from the winged benefactor.

Let's see though, if "anti-Christ" fits my use. And, I'll leave off the infidels.orgish rants. I'm glad I keep this stuff handy.

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

A Bishop Speaks
John Shelby Spong


The Right Man for a New World
The new Archbishop of Canterbury must get rid of the Jesus who "died for our sins."

In late February the Church of England, the mother church of Anglicanism, will install a new leader. He is an interesting man and, in my opinion, the best of all possible choices to head the third largest group of Christians in the world. His name is Rowan Williams.

In many ways it was a daring appointment, and in this choice the entire Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church in the United States is a part, has decided to join the modern world. It represented a specific decision to reverse the dreadful and misguided reign of his predecessor, George Carey. Carey had positioned Anglicanism in the right-wing evangelical camp of Bible quoters. Rowan Williams is only 52 and could serve in this position for almost two decades, giving him time to put his stamp upon the Church. He is a product of England's middle-class who has developed his intellectual skills at both Oxford and Cambridge. He was a theology professor at Oxford prior to being elected a bishop in Wales only a few years ago. Shortly thereafter his fellow bishops in Wales chose him to head the entire Anglican Church in Wales.

Williams has the academic skills to engage changing ideas in our culture. One hopes he will use these gifts to hammer out a Christianity that is both relevant and believable. Christianity desperately needs to escape the language of antiquity that has portrayed sacrifice and shed blood as signs of salvation.

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.

Liberals. Anti-Christ. Compare their Jesus to the one in the New Testament.

The One said to be the same "today, tomorrow and forever."

[micatala]

How is anti-Christ an insult?

It might be considered an insult to a Christian to be called anti-Christ. WOuld you not be insulted or upset if I proclaimed long and loud that you are an anti-Christ?

Now new laws have been invented to silence Christians the way Herod's priests silenced Christ Jesus. Literally the same way by using secular laws!!!

You have yet to present evidence that any laws have been enacted, at least in the U.S., specifically to silence Christians.

You have yet to present evidence that CHristians free speech rights have been infringed upon in any even trifling way.

Describes Jesus and early Christians very well. Jesus was all about reform.

Yet He said He did not change one word of scripture. Not one jot or tittle.

True enough. As I have noted, liberal and conservative are not necessarily mutually exclusive notions. Jesus did have respect for Jewish tradition. However, he was not a slave to it. He was willing to put aside even Mosaic law for a higher purpose (e.g. the Mosaic law on divorce).

I did not mean to imply that Jesus never acted in a 'conservative manner', only that much of his actions, teachings, and outlook are quite consistent with the definition of liberal offered by Occam.


I am not sure why you keep quoting Spong, except in an effort to make him a straw man spokesperson for all liberal Christians so you have an easier time bashing them.



You have in no way refuted any of the points I made showing how Jesus could be considered in many ways a prototypical liberal.