NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: I am using 'conservative' and 'liberal' in their modern definitions of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing', not the classic ones.

Recently during a political debate, I looked up 'liberal' in a dictionary. Among the answers it gave were 'generous; promoting equality; providing welfare'. And that got me thinking. Jesus taught, for example, that one must help the poor (welfare) and be generous to others (generosity). He befriended tax collectors (taxes) and women (social equality). All of these seem like pretty liberal ideas. Therefore, why are so many Christian fundamentalists conservative if the founding base of their ideas is in liberal politics?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Note: I am using 'conservative' and 'liberal' in their modern definitions of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing', not the classic ones.

Recently during a political debate, I looked up 'liberal' in a dictionary. Among the answers it gave were 'generous; promoting equality; providing welfare'. And that got me thinking. Jesus taught, for example, that one must help the poor (welfare) and be generous to others (generosity). He befriended tax collectors (taxes) and women (social equality). All of these seem like pretty liberal ideas. Therefore, why are so many Christian fundamentalists conservative if the founding base of their ideas is in liberal politics?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Because of interpretations of their "bible" which say that homosexuality is wrong, this or that race is inferior, women are meant to be used, etc.

Because of interpretations of their "bible" which say that homosexuality is wrong, this or that race is inferior, women are meant to be used, etc.How did they come to those conclusions? And why don't they pay any attention to the other ones I mentioned earlier, then? :confused:

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Because of interpretations of their "bible" which say that homosexuality is wrong, this or that race is inferior, women are meant to be used, etc


Homosexuality in the bible isn't up to interpretation...it's condemned enough for any reasonable person to know there's no way around it. Also, if the bible were racist then I'm sure someone else would have said something by now ;)
And, as a woman, I can tell you that last statement is false.

Homosexuality in the bible isn't up to interpretation...it's condemned enough for any reasonable person to know there's no way around it. Also, if the bible were racist then I'm sure someone else would have said something by now ;)
And, as a woman, I can tell you that last statement is false.*whispers* Zotona is also female, I think...


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Jesus said that his followers and the church should be generous and help the poor directly. Nowhere did he espouse being a lazy ass and having the government forcibly take everyone's money and redistribute it to the poor. Remember that he forcibly ejected the moneychangers (roughly tax collectors that worked for the Temple) from the Temple.

Jesus wanted us to give of ourselves to help the poor directly, not blithely give money to some governmental power so that we wouldn't have to dirty our hands in helping the poor.

Because of interpretations of their "bible" which say that homosexuality is wrong, this or that race is inferior, women are meant to be used, etc.
While it does say that the act of homosexual sex is wrong, it nowhere states that any race is superior or inferior, nor does it state that women are meant to be used. In fact, the Bible openly states that women are to be cherished and loved.

Nowhere did he espouse being a lazy ass and having the government forcibly take everyone's money and redistribute it to the poor. Bible also forbids slandering! That includes socialists! :p

But do you agree that helping the poor actually have a chance rather than be stuck poor from birth is a Christian idea? No, I don't mean stealing everyone's money.

But do you agree that helping the poor actually have a chance rather than be stuck poor from birth is a Christian idea?
Yes, I fully agree it is a Christian ideal...partially. The FULL Christian ideal is:Jesus wanted us to give of ourselves to help the poor directly, not blithely give money to some governmental power so that we wouldn't have to dirty our hands in helping the poor.You can't just take part of it and call it Christian, or you're no better than Fucktard Phelps or those idiot snake-handlers.

Well, if we're dealing in Christianity, shouldn't we look at the Bible?

Deu 15:14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

Pro 11:25 The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

Isa 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.

Isa 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

2Co 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


I rest my case. :D

Well, if we're dealing in Christianity, shouldn't we look at the Bible?

Deu 15:14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

Pro 11:25 The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

Isa 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.

Isa 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

2Co 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


I rest my case. :D
http://www.dasmusik.net/forums/images/smilies/squint.gif

Homosexuality in the bible isn't up to interpretation...it's condemned enough for any reasonable person to know there's no way around it. Also, if the bible were racist then I'm sure someone else would have said something by now ;)
And, as a woman, I can tell you that last statement is false.
Those are your opinions, but I still stand by mine. Here are some examples of extremely anti-feminist passages in the bible (bolding mine):
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
These are just a few. The bible says women are to be used as any other piece of property.

*whispers* Zotona is also female, I think...


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
*Sarcasm* I am? I am! Well, gee, I didn't know that! :p

Well, if we're dealing in Christianity, shouldn't we look at the Bible?

Deu 15:14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

Pro 11:25 The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

Isa 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.

Isa 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

2Co 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


I rest my case. :DYou list sources! Now we'll respect you more than Spaam! :D


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

*Sarcasm* I am? I am! Well, gee, I didn't know that! :pI was just letting everyone know... I know you knew that :rolleyes:

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I was just letting everyone know... I know you knew that :rolleyes:

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
I know you know I know. I was just adding my bit of sarcasm, and I meant to launch it in all directions as opposed to your specific area. :D

I know you know I know. I was just adding my bit of sarcasm, and I meant to launch it in all directions as opposed to your specific area. :DSarcasm is a thing to be used for only specific purposes, not general things like this. It's like using too many swear words: they lose all their effect if you overuse them.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Sarcasm is a thing to be used for only specific purposes, not general things like this. It's like using too many swear words: they lose all their effect if you overuse them.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
But I was raised on sarcasm! I really can't help it! :p

Zotona. You quote genesis. Well and good for Jews but Jesus' teachings take precedence where there is conflict.

<<Nowhere did he espouse being a lazy ass and having the government forcibly take everyone's money and redistribute it to the poor. Remember that he forcibly ejected the moneychangers (roughly tax collectors that worked for the Temple) from the Temple.>>

He said tax was fine (Give unto Caesar...) the moneychangers were not tax collectors, more accurately they 'lent at interest' which is forbidden. Actually they pretty much ran an exchange-rate scam but it's close enough to moneylending.

He also was fine with eople putting cash into the 'poor box' at the temples. He did prefer that you went out and did it personally though.

He also was fine with eople putting cash into the 'poor box' at the temples. He did prefer that you went out and did it personally though.Charity is voluntary welfare, so to speak. They're not equivalent though.

But I was raised on sarcasm! I can't help it! :p I wasn't raised on it but I still use it all the time. You can do the reverse.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Originally Posted by Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.


That's referring to animals, not humans.




Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


It did not say any thing else that is thy neighbour's...so you can't really say that those were counted as possessions, merely that the last statement was an addition to the things listed, not the sum of things listed. Also, under marriage, we can refer to the spouse as her husband or his wife. When married, the two become one so technically you can say that your spouse is yours as he/she is a part of you :D




I'm late for church so I can't deal with the first one you posed :(

To speak to the moneychangers thing -- that had very little to do with their occupation (though He disapproved of that, as well), but everything to do with the fact that it was in the temple -- house of prayer/den of thieves thing, I don't have a Bible close to hand to give the exact quote.

Jesus -- the Biblical liberal and feminist. Yay for Him :)

Note: I am using 'conservative' and 'liberal' in their modern definitions of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing', not the classic ones.

Recently during a political debate, I looked up 'liberal' in a dictionary. Among the answers it gave were 'generous; promoting equality; providing welfare'. And that got me thinking. Jesus taught, for example, that one must help the poor (welfare) and be generous to others (generosity). He befriended tax collectors (taxes) and women (social equality). All of these seem like pretty liberal ideas. Therefore, why are so many Christian fundamentalists conservative if the founding base of their ideas is in liberal politics?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Liberals want the government to give to the poor; conservatives want individuals to give to the poor. Jesus would likely favor the latter since it is far more personal... a person may decide to give to the poor directly, whereas the government route is arbitrary and impersonal.

Jesus favored work; some liberals don't seem to care about work ethic.

As for generosity, go into any prison and ask the inmates what political persuasion they are... some of the most generous people in the world are protestant christians. so i disagree entirely that "generosity" is owned by liberals.

Zotona. You quote genesis. Well and good for Jews but Jesus' teachings take precedence where there is conflict.

<<Nowhere did he espouse being a lazy ass and having the government forcibly take everyone's money and redistribute it to the poor. Remember that he forcibly ejected the moneychangers (roughly tax collectors that worked for the Temple) from the Temple.>>

He said tax was fine (Give unto Caesar...) the moneychangers were not tax collectors, more accurately they 'lent at interest' which is forbidden. Actually they pretty much ran an exchange-rate scam but it's close enough to moneylending.

He also was fine with eople putting cash into the 'poor box' at the temples. He did prefer that you went out and did it personally though.
Excuse me, I'm not Christian, I have no clue what parts of your "bible" you will believe to be valid, and really, how am I to know?

He said tax was fine (Give unto Caesar...) the moneychangers were not tax collectors, more accurately they 'lent at interest' which is forbidden. Actually they pretty much ran an exchange-rate scam but it's close enough to moneylending.True. They were more or less bankers that worked in the Temple, but they did work as "tax collectors" for the Temple in a sense.Under the Law of Moses every male of Israel twenty years old and upward was required to redeem his soul by giving a half-shekel of gold, when a census was taken of Israel. No man was exempt, even the poor had to pay it.

Source (http://occult-advances.org/nc-rel-moneychangers-temple.shtml) Also:He also was fine with eople putting cash into the 'poor box' at the temples. He did prefer that you went out and did it personally though.Very true. But notice that he wanted individuals and/or the church to deal with the poor. He never said anything about governmental intervention. He did this so that people would be responsible to and for each other.

as for befriending tax collectors, the point was to show others that he had come for everyone... that anyone could follow him. he was not doing it to show that he favored a certain tax scheme. cripes.

he had come for sinners, which means all of us. and by taking in one of the most unliked people in society (tax collector - Matthew), he showed that he meant what he said.

That's referring to animals, not humans.

It did not say any thing else that is thy neighbour's...so you can't really say that those were counted as possessions, merely that the last statement was an addition to the things listed, not the sum of things listed. Also, under marriage, we can refer to the spouse as her husband or his wife. When married, the two become one so technically you can say that your spouse is yours as he/she is a part of you :D

I'm late for church so I can't deal with the first one you posed :(
And referring to female animals as the property of male animals.

Did you actually read the passage? It infers that a woman is just like an ox, ass, or any other possession.

Nowhere in me is the presence of god
Nor do I need him or want him around
What you expect I could never conceive
Kill off your children to fulfill your dream
Give them your name and condemn them to die
Little they know of what you have in mind
Drink to the father and that of the son
I'm not that stupid, just look what they've done

Standing in the flames--fuck the lord's redemption
Cursed is the way of his resurrection
Who will take his place on the crucifixion?
Wipe away our pain with your contradiction
He is the fool that believeth in god
It's for the needy and people who want
I have refused you as you refused me
Helpless emotion is what you foresee
I am one with Satan, cast beyond the night
In his flame of hatred, I provoke the light

Never around when you're all out of hope
He is not there, he is only a ghost
Where is your power to make me redeem
If you're so mighty then why not kill me
Adore the serpent created by god
Once that you do this then you can move on
Making us pure with the death of your son
Rainbows of blood, his endeavor is done

Standing in the flames--fuck the lord's redemption
Cursed is the way of his resurrection
Who will take his place on the crucifixion?
Wipe away our pain with your contradiction
He is the fool that believeth in god
It's for the needy and people who want
I have refused you as you refused me
Helpless emotion is what you foresee
I am one with Satan, cast beyond the night
In his flame of hatred, I provoke the light

-snip-
Nice. A pointless, useless flame that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. :headbang:

Nice. A pointless, useless flame that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. :headbang:
Yeah, at least I remain on topic! (Mostly...) :p

It does.

And referring to female animals as the property of male animals.

Did you actually read the passage? It infers that a woman is just like an ox, ass, or any other possession.
I thought this was a discussion about Christianity and Jesus' teachings...not a discussion on Judaism. The Old Testamest is Judaic and the covenant contained therein was broken by Jesus in order to establish a new covenant with mankind.

If you have a beef with old Judaic law or beliefs, you're in the wrong thread.

I thought this was a discussion about Christianity and Jesus' teachings...not a discussion on Judaism. The Old Testamest is Judaic and the covenant contained therein was broken by Jesus in order to establish a new covenant with mankind.

If you have a beef with old Judaic law or beliefs, you're in the wrong thread.
Anti-feminist bigotted bullshit runs throughout the bible, and many Christians would admit to believing in the inferiority of women due to "original sin" or whatever. I was trying to point this out. What sections of your little bible do YOU believe in?

Anti-feminist bigotted bullshit runs throughout the bible, and many Christians would admit to believing in the inferiority of women due to "original sin" or whatever. I was trying to point this out. What sections of your little bible do YOU believe in?
I believe that the Old Testament is a great historical resource, but I follow Jesus' teachings as contained in the New Testament.

Jesus wanted us to give of ourselves to help the poor directly, not blithely give money to some governmental power so that we wouldn't have to dirty our hands in helping the poor.
But yet according the Christian Right he did approve of using government power to enforce his social ideas such as no abortion, no divorce, no contraception and no gay rights. :rolleyes:

I believe that the Old Testament is a great historical resource, but I follow Jesus' teachings as contained in the New Testament.
Okay. Thank you for sharing. Like I have said, I'm not Christian, and I don't know what each individual group believes about the bible.

And yet, here is bigotry:
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Ooh... here's a doozy. This one is anti-homosexuality AND feminism:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The bolding is mine.

But yet according the Christian Right he did approve of using government power to enforce his social ideas such as no abortion, no divorce, no contraception and no gay rights. :rolleyes:
No. I never said that and I don't believe it, either.

Personally, I believe that (yes, I'm going to be somewhat inflammatory) people should have the right to murder unborn babies, use all the rubbers they want, get married and divorced and sleep around like rutting animals and poke whoever they want in the butt (consentually, of course).

I also believe that God will deal with them when their time comes. ;)

But yet according the Christian Right he did approve of using government power to enforce his social ideas such as no abortion, no divorce, no contraception and no gay rights. :rolleyes:

...all liberal ideals...

No. I never said that and I don't believe it, either.

Personally, I believe that (yes, I'm going to be somewhat inflammatory) people should have the right to murder unborn babies, use all the rubbers they want, get married and divorced and sleep around like rutting animals and poke whoever they want in the butt (consentually, of course).

I also believe that God will deal with them when their time comes. ;)

boo yah. God is the judge...

Jesus favored work; some liberals don't seem to care about work ethic.

As for generosity, go into any prison and ask the inmates what political persuasion they are... some of the most generous people in the world are protestant christians. so i disagree entirely that "generosity" is owned by liberals.
Jesus favoured work? He was a hippie that just went around preaching and attending parties. He didn't work that hard, did he?

Unsubstantiated generalisation. Most liberals, like most conservatives, work just as hard as anyone.

So you think that protestant Christians cannot also be liberal?

No. I never said that and I don't believe it, either.

Personally, I believe that (yes, I'm going to be somewhat inflammatory) people should have the right to murder unborn babies, use all the rubbers they want, get married and divorced and sleep around like rutting animals and poke whoever they want in the butt (consentually, of course).

I also believe that God will deal with them when their time comes. ;)
Alright, I see that you are at least consistent. I had you mistaken for a theocrat.

...all liberal ideals...
Are you saying that liberals think that abortion, divorce, contraception and gay rights should be illegal? Incorrect.

I also made a mistake about Jesus. He never said anything about homosexuality. :)

Okay. Thank you for sharing. Like I have said, I'm not Christian, and I don't know what each individual group believes about the bible.

And yet, here is bigotry:


Ooh... here's a doozy. This one is anti-homosexuality AND feminism:


The bolding is mine.
Nice to take things out of context. :rolleyes:

First of all, both of those passages are from letters that disciples wrote to various churches/groups of Christians. In neither place do is see the phrase "Jesus said". The disciples were human with every human fallibility, including the ability to screw up Jesus' teachings by misinterpreting them. You also forget that the Old Testament covenant was newly broken and EVERYONE has a period of adjustment to go through when changing from one VERY old set of laws/ideals to a completely new law/ideal.

Also, on the second quote, you forget that back then (and even now, by some) homosexual sex was considered unnatural because it did not involve "the natural use of the woman", which was procreation. I see NOWHERE that the Bible says "the only things women are good for are making babies and sucking my dick." :rolleyes:

Nice to take things out of context. :rolleyes:

First of all, both of those passages are from letters that disciples wrote to various churches/groups of Christians. In neither place do is see the phrase "Jesus said". The disciples were human with every human fallibility, including the ability to screw up Jesus' teachings by misinterpreting them. You also forget that the Old Testament covenant was newly broken and EVERYONE has a period of adjustment to go through when changing from one VERY old set of laws/ideals to a completely new law/ideal.

Also, on the second quote, you forget that back then (and even now, by some) homosexual sex was considered unnatural because it did not involve "the natural use of the woman", which was procreation. I see NOWHERE that the Bible says "the only things women are good for are making babies and sucking my dick." :rolleyes:
You miss the point. Your little "bible" says the the "natural use of women" is sexual satisfaction. If you refuse to believe that, good for you, but it's there.

You miss the point. Your little "bible" says the the "natural use of women" is sexual satisfaction. If you refuse to believe that, good for you, but it's there.

Why did God create Eve? To give Adam a partner. She was made to accompany him, and for no other reason.

But aside from that, they are equal. You can take scripture from our "little bible" and morph it into whatever meaning you want, but know this:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Male and female were both made "in his own image", and nowhere is it mentioned "he created man in his image, but woman slightly less so". Mankind of old mistook man's position of responsibility as rank. It wasn't the Bible's doing. They too warped scriptural meaning into what you're trying to put across, that just because it's the male's obligation to oversee the rest of the family he is automatically greater than the others somehow. It's not, and I don't see how others can view it that way without skewing the original intent of its message.

You miss the point. Your little "bible" says the the "natural use of women" is sexual satisfaction. If you refuse to believe that, good for you, but it's there.Ahhh...so you use the convoluted King James Version...the same version that uses "kill" in the 10 Commandments when it's plainly "murder" in the original texts.

Here's a bit clearer (New International) version, for those that don't read Olde English very well:26 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 - In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.I don't see where it says that "the natural use of the woman" is sexual gratification. That phrase (used in the KJV) seems to only mean that heterosexual sex is natural, while homosexual sex is unnatural.

Care to explain your "women are good for nothin' except getting your rocks off" assertion?

Why did God create Eve? To give Adam a partner. She was made to accompany him, and for no other reason.

But aside from that, they are equal. You can take scripture from our "little bible" and morph it into whatever meaning you want, but know this:



Male and female were both made "in his own image", and nowhere is it mentioned "he created man in his image, but woman slightly less so". Mankind of old mistook man's position of responsibility as rank. It wasn't the Bible's doing. They too warped scriptural meaning into what you're trying to put across, that just because it's the male's obligation to oversee the rest of the family he is automatically greater than the others somehow. It's not, and I don't see how others can view it that way without skewing the original intent of its message.
1. My point was that there is unresputable bigotry in the Christian bible, which there is. Obviously conservativism best conveys the views of a "good Christian".
2. Oh, now Genesis is valid? Interesting how that works.

Ahhh...so you use the convoluted King James Version...the same version that uses "kill" in the 10 Commandments when it's plainly "murder" in the original texts.

Here's a bit clearer (New International) version, for those that don't read Olde English very well:I don't see where it says that "the natural use of the woman" is sexual gratification. That phrase (used in the KJV) seems to only mean that heterosexual sex is natural, while homosexual sex is unnatural.

Care to explain your "women are good for nothin' except getting your rocks off" assertion?
Look, I'm tired of restating the passage again and again. I'm glad you don't believe that women and all that bs. Many Christians do, and by their bible, that makes sense. The original poster said that conservatism does not make sense for Christians, which indeed it does.

1. My point was that there is unresputable bigotry in the Christian bible, which there is. Obviously conservativism best conveys the views of a "good Christian".
2. Oh, now Genesis is valid? Interesting how that works.

Genesis was always valid. When the New Covenant was formed with Christ, the old Testament didn't suddenly become obsolete and invalid. God's word is still God's word. When Christ died and rose again, however, certain rituals were no longer needed. Some take it to mean that all of scripture up until then just...doesn't matter. Which is wrong.

God still made the world in seven "days". God still made man. God still made woman. Jesus' resurrection didn't discredit that.

And again, to your first point, the "unresputable bigotry" is an interpretation, and not necessarily the original intent. Until you can give me verifiable evidence I don't see it any other way.

Look, I'm tired of restating the passage again and again. I'm glad you don't believe that women and all that bs. Many Christians do, and by their bible, that makes sense. The original poster said that conservatism does not make sense for Christians, which indeed it does.

So you're equating conservatism with anti-feminism? Joyness. My hope in liberals has been restored. </sarcasm>

So you're equating conservatism with anti-feminism? Joyness. My hope in liberals has been restored. </sarcasm>
Conservatism used to be synonymous with anti-feminism and racism. The fact that these things are taboo in even conservative circles show just how successful we liberals can be when we want to be.

Conservatism used to be synonymous with anti-feminism and racism. The fact that these things are taboo in even conservative circles show just how successful we liberals can be when we want to be.

Only because people who were anti-feminist and racist associated themselves with the conservative label. It has nothing to do with what conservatism stands for--originally and today.

Look, I'm tired of restating the passage again and again. I'm glad you don't believe that women and all that bs. Many Christians do, and by their bible, that makes sense. The original poster said that conservatism does not make sense for Christians, which indeed it does.
No, the original poster was questioning whether or not Jesus' teachings coincided with modern liberal ideals. I provided evidence that they do *not* coincide with modern liberal ideals. Jesus' teachings also do not coincide with a lot of hardcore fundamentalist's interpretation of the Bible, either.

The problem lies in the fact that Jesus' teachings are misinterpreted by BOTH "liberals" AND "conservatives".

To be honest, Jesus would have been a "right-leaning" libertarian if he were alive today...definitely neither a modern liberal nor a modern conservative.

No, the original poster was questioning whether or not Jesus' teachings coincided with modern liberal ideals. I provided evidence that they do *not* coincide with modern liberal ideals. Jesus' teachings also do not coincide with a lot of hardcore fundamentalist's interpretation of the Bible, either.

The problem lies in the fact that Jesus' teachings are misinterpreted by BOTH "liberals" AND "conservatives".

To be honest, Jesus would have been a "right-leaning" libertarian if he were alive today...definitely neither a modern liberal nor a modern conservative.

I agree. He'd probably either shake his head in dismay or laugh himself silly at the way both sides slander each other and proclaim who is the better. Which is why I'm not associated with either major (or any minor) political parties. Both have something to learn from the other and both are wrong in particular aspects.

Conservatism used to be synonymous with anti-feminism and racism. The fact that these things are taboo in even conservative circles show just how successful we liberals can be when we want to be.
Not really. The fact that conservatism/Republicans are often equated with racism is due to a propaganda coup masterfully executed by Democrats/liberals. When you look at the facts, it's obvious that Democrats were the purveyors of racism in the South. Also, a greater percentage of Democrats voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act than did Republicans.

Hell, the whole propaganda coup can be summed up in this quote:"This will have them n*****s voting Democrat for the next 100 years." (as stated when he signed the Civil Rights Act into law)

bounce

To be honest, Jesus would have been a "right-leaning" libertarian if he were alive today...definitely neither a modern liberal nor a modern conservative.A right-leaning libertarian? Can you explain that?

(I know Jesus couldn't have been either a modern liberal or a modern conservative these days, since back then neither one existed. But I'm asking whether his teachings are more similar to the modern liberal or modern conservative ideology.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe