Jesus Christ

[qfnol31]

:

[sraf]

Perhaps I should add my two cents to the debate.
[quote]I've even seen a few imply that Jesus would have supported "gay marriage" and such.[/quote]
The quote you have in mind might be,
[quote name='E.T.B']According to the Gospels, Jesus did not devote any serious time or effort denouncing either "abortion" or "homosexuality" though he did devote serious time and effort denouncing the "rich" along with self-righteous religious hypocrites.[/quote]
As you see, it's rather open-ended.
Of all the things that Jesus was (and is), a political revolutionary is certain on that list. Is that the same thing as being 'liberal'? Well, let's see.
I have come to understand that many people on phatmass understand liberal to mean 'one who wants to remove all religion from life.' That's one level of the word's meaning. But words have many levels. Another level is simply advocating progressive thought, movement forward. One quote from a British, I think, politician says, "A conservative wants to keep the current problems, while a liberal wants to create new ones."
Another use of liberal is just as a byword for Democrat or left-wing speaker. And the terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' come from the French revolution's aftermath, when Right-Wingers (on the extreme side) would say either "Stop change! Everything's just fine the way the way it is, what with the weekly riots and the upheavals and violence and starving poor! It's just peachy!" or "Bring back the King! Sure he was a self-centered despot who lived only for his own amusement, but things were peaceful then!" On the other hand, the Left-Wing speakers would say, "We need more things changed! Less aristocracy! More power and money to the poor people! Change, change, change!" Sometimes to the point of ridiculous new measures, true, but the point is that these were the folks who called for change, asking to change the wrong things with the world. I generally use the word 'liberal' in this sense.

One certainly cannot argue that Jesus did call for change and speak for the poor. He called the Pharisees hypocrites (which could cost you your head in thsoe days) and presented radical new concepts: that a blind man was not blind because of any sin, but because his blindness pointed to a greater good. He said that the honorable poor was better than the hypocritical rich and, rather than have an adulteress stoned to death, turned the accuser's argument against themselves. This was radical. This was rather anti-establishment and progressive, wouldn't you say?
Now if you're going to use the word 'liberal,' literally relating to the word 'free,' as a person who wants to eradicate religion from life, then no, Jesus really wasn't a liberal. But as a person who encourages change and openly points out the problems with the current system, then yes, Jesus was a liberal.

[journeyman]

so we're back to do we define "liberal" with its 1700s meaning or its 1990s meaning . . . or do we assert that the word "has" or "has not" changed in meaning over time, merely its usage?

[Socrates]

[quote name='sraf' date='Jan 8 2006, 07:20 PM']Perhaps I should add my two cents to the debate.

The quote you have in mind might be,
[quote name='E.T.B']According to the Gospels, Jesus did not devote any serious time or effort denouncing either "abortion" or "homosexuality" though he did devote serious time and effort denouncing the "rich" along with self-righteous religious hypocrites.[/quote]
As you see, it's rather open-ended.[/quote]
I actually don't remember that particular quote, but that does fall into the category of the kind of comments I was referring to. (There have been a number such statements made here over time.)
[quote]Of all the things that Jesus was (and is), a political revolutionary is certain on that list.  Is that the same thing as being 'liberal'? Well, let's see.[/quote]
I would disagree with that particular statement. Jesus was most certainly not a [b]political[/b] revolutionary. A someone else noted here, he said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," and while He did not deny He was the Messiah, his Kingdom was not of this world. Note that in the Gospels, Christ nowhere calls for a political uprising against the Romans. This idea is based in liberal revisionist myth, rather than in the Truth of the Gospels.

[quote]I have come to understand that many people on phatmass understand liberal to mean 'one who wants to remove all religion from life.' That's one level of the word's meaning. But words have many levels. Another level is simply advocating progressive thought, movement forward.  One quote from a British, I think, politician says, "A conservative wants to keep the current problems, while a liberal wants to create new ones." [/quote]
I've noted elsewhere that terms like "conservative" and "liberal" are often rather vague and nebulous. What I am speaking against here is mostly the idea that Jesus is (or would be) a "liberal" or socialist in the usual modern sense. That's why I asked people to clearly define what they mean by saying "Jesus was a liberal." This is usually stated with the implication that Christ would have favored the current political Left.

[quote]Another use of liberal is just as a byword for Democrat or left-wing speaker.  And the terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' come from the French revolution's aftermath, when Right-Wingers (on the extreme side) would say either "Stop change! Everything's just fine the way the way it is, what with the weekly riots and the upheavals and violence and starving poor! It's just peachy!" or "Bring back the King! Sure he was a self-centered despot who lived only for his own amusement, but things were peaceful then!" On the other hand, the Left-Wing speakers would say, "We need more things changed! Less aristocracy! More power and money to the poor people! Change, change, change!" Sometimes to the point of ridiculous new measures, true, but the point is that these were the folks who called for change, asking to change the wrong things with the world.  I generally use the word 'liberal' in this sense.[/quote]
I'm aware where these terms came from. I have taken a class on the history of the French Revolution, and know that Revolution was largely Satanically evil. (Contrary to common belief.) There were indeed problems at the time (which were not for the most part the fault of the monarchs then reigning), but their predecessors. However, the Revolution was a bloodthirsty and profoundly anti-Catholic orgy of evil. I'd recommend the book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093188845X/qid=1136778125/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2323353-4496057?s=books&v=glance&n=283155"]The Guillotine and the Cross, by Warren H. Carroll[/url] for an excellent and entertaining Catholic perspective on this topic. (But I realize I'm getting off-topic here.)

[quote]One certainly cannot argue that Jesus did call for change and speak for the poor.  He called the Pharisees hypocrites (which could cost you your head in thsoe days) and presented radical new concepts: that a blind man was not blind because of any sin, but because his blindness pointed to a greater good.  He said that the honorable poor was better than the hypocritical rich and, rather than have an adulteress stoned to death, turned the accuser's argument against themselves.  This was radical.  This was rather anti-establishment and progressive, wouldn't you say?
Now if you're going to use the word 'liberal,' literally relating to the word 'free,' as a person who wants to eradicate religion from life, then no, Jesus really wasn't a liberal.  But as a person who encourages change and openly points out the problems with the current system, then yes, Jesus was a liberal.
[right][snapback]849848[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
While Christ did indeed show charity toward the poor, note that this was personal charity. Nowhere did he actually call for more government spending, or a change in economic structure. (Whether such should be called for is another debate.) The point is that portraying Jesus as a socialistic political revolutionary is unbiblical and anachronistic - Left-wing propaganda rather than Gospel Truth.

Christ said "The poor you will always have with you" when Judas criticized Mary Magdalen for pouring out incense on Christ which "could have been used to feed the poor."

As for those that use Christ's forgiveness of the woman stoned in adultery as proof that Christ would be in favor of "tolerating" immorality, note that Christ told her to "go and sin no more." He in no way condoned or supported her sin, but told her to change.

And regarding Christ's "silence" on abortion and homosexuality, etc., we must keep in mind that He was preaching to the Jews, who already regarded these things as horrible abominations. Such "preaching to the choir" would've been unnecessary. His silence can safely be taken to mean consent. (It was not as though there was a major push for the acceptance of such things in 1st Century Judea.)
St. Paul, preaching to the Gentiles, did condemn homosexuality and other vices committed by pagans.

And furthermore, with regards to the "religious revolutionary" arguments, it must be remembered that Christ is indeed God, and his changes showed His divine authority.
Modern religious liberalism seeks to overturn the authority of God (and Christ's Church), putting in its place the authority of man and human whim.

Change itself can never be preached as a good in itself, but it must be evaluated whether the change is good or will accomplish good.
So to argue that simply because Christ called for some changes, it means He would generally approve any and all changes to "the establishment", is silly. (Also, in many cases, liberals now are "the establishment," and rigidly resist any "right-wing" opposition.)

[rkwright]

[quote]I'm aware where these terms came from.  I have taken a class on the history of the French Revolution, and know that Revolution was largely Satanically evil.  (Contrary to common belief.)  There were indeed problems at the time (which were not for the most part the fault of the monarchs then reigning), but their predecessors.  I'd recommend the book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093188845X/qid=1136778125/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2323353-4496057?s=books&v=glance&n=283155"]The Guillotine and the Cross, by Warren H. Carroll[/url] for an excellent and entertaining Catholic perspective on this topic.  (But I realize I'm getting off-topic here.)
[/quote]

yea yea its off topic, but you've got my attention.. and I've already got 4-5 books on my list (along with a new semester coming up)... and I'm pretty interested! care to educate us in an aside?? especially the satanically evil claim?

[journeyman]

How about - Jesus was an apolitical liberal

I thoroughly agree that his were not "political" statements - not only did he say "render unto Ceasar" but he also said if a Roman made you carry his gear one mile, you should carry it for two

a. common practice in society was to (for lack of a better term) leave women in their place . . . not to teach them, not to talk to them, sit on a different side of the temple/synagogue etc etc . . . a real glass ceiling . . . Jesus taught, associated with, allowed himself to be touched by ritually unclean . . . all things that were on any pharisee's list of "no-no"s

while he did say that he did not come to destroy the law, he held it up against a different standard - and holders of different standards are often called "free thinkers" and often viewed as liberal . . . and/or revolutionary

b. further alienating the scribes and pharisees (who might have welcomed Him for his mental agility) was his choice of companions - fisherman from Galillee (which was too close to Samaria for any "devout/orthodox" Jew to be sure if you were "kosher"; tax collectors (gentiles or turncoats); prostitutes; those possessed by demons, etc etc

the parables about finding lost things was probably totally wasted on the pharisees and scribes . . . who made Paul Simon's "50 ways" look like a summary

The "judging" of the woman charged with adultery was an application of mercy, rather than of the law . . . mercy is not always popular . . . and thus also leads to the revolutionary label . . . but is an example of what is a linchpin of American justice today . . . inherited from the Judaic tradition . . . you need evidence (corroborating witnesses) to convict . . . in the story, there were none


So while I think we hold similar views, Jesus could be defined as falling with the class known as "liberal" by the 1700s definition of the term

[ruso]

Jesus was a liberal, mainly in his time, he criticize the acquired badly wealth, hipocresia of the influential groups of its time ( fariseos and saduceos), and it gave to the woman a site when its situation was equal
that in the Afganistan of talibanes.
But communist, tapeworm rich and poor friends, he arrive to save us to all.

[Akalyte]

Jesus Christ is infinitely above Politics. I cant stand the fact that people call him a liberal. Liberalism is on the left (ecclesiastes 10:2) Christ is the Wiseman and the Righteous man, not a fool and a sinner.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Akalyte

[Akalyte]

How dare anyone put our God and Savior on such a level.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 8 2006, 09:08 PM']yea yea its off topic, but you've got my attention.. and I've already got 4-5 books on my list (along with a new semester coming up)... and I'm pretty interested!  care to educate us in an aside?? especially the satanically evil claim? 
[right][snapback]849954[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Dang - I thought I had the book with me, but I don't. (it had some great quotes - I'll have to get a hold of it again!) I'd recommend ordering and reading it to get all the facts. The book is actually not long at all, and quite readable.

Many thousands of innocent people were killed by the Guillotine during the reign of terror, including many of the original revolutionaries themselves. Many priests, nuns and other Catholics were martyred for their Faith by the vehemently anti-Catholic revolutionaries.

The revolutionaries sought to completely wipe out the Church in France, and replace it with a religion worshipping "Reason."

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jan 8 2006, 10:06 PM']How about - Jesus was an apolitical liberal

I thoroughly agree that his were not "political" statements - not only did he say "render unto Ceasar" but he also said if a Roman made you carry his gear one mile, you should carry it for two

a.  common practice in society was to (for lack of a better term) leave women in their place . . . not to teach them, not to talk to them, sit on a different side of the temple/synagogue  etc etc . . . a real glass ceiling . . . Jesus taught, associated with, allowed himself to be touched by ritually unclean . . . all things that were on any pharisee's list of "no-no"s[/quote]
I am not aware that women were not allowed to be talked to - would've made communication with the opposite sex somewhat difficult!
Still none of this really provides much evidence that Christ would have given any approval to liberalism (a movement which did not really exist in any form until the late 17th century).

[quote]while he did say that he did not come to destroy the law, he held it up against a different standard - and holders of different standards are often called "free thinkers" and often viewed as liberal . . . and/or revolutionary[/quote]
Christ held the law against the standard of the Divine Law, which, being the Son of God, He had authority to speak on.
This is a HUGE difference from liberalism, which seeks to take God out of law entirely, and base it entirely upon the whims of man.
"Free thinker" is a term usually used to describe atheists/agnostics or those who reject the tenents of organized religion (particularly Christianity) entirely. Obviously, this is not what Christ was about. To compare Christ to those who are opposed to Christian Faith is bizarre to say the least.

[quote]b.  further alienating the scribes and pharisees (who might have welcomed Him for his mental agility) was his choice of companions - fisherman from Galillee (which was too close to Samaria for any "devout/orthodox" Jew to be sure if you were "kosher"; tax collectors (gentiles or turncoats); prostitutes; those possessed by demons, etc etc[/quote]
Again, this is a far cry from the "tolerance" preached by liberals. Christ called sinners so that they would repent and change their ways to follow Him, and expelled Demons (He didn't engage in "meaningful dialogue" with the fallen angels.)
When Christians today call sinners to turn from their sin and follow Christ, they are called intolerant bigots by the liberals.


[quote]the parables about finding lost things was probably totally wasted on the pharisees and scribes . . . who made Paul Simon's "50 ways" look like a summary

The "judging" of the woman charged with adultery was an application of mercy, rather than of the law . . . mercy is not always popular . . . and thus also leads to the revolutionary label . . . but is an example of what is a linchpin of American justice today . . . inherited from the Judaic tradition . . . you need evidence (corroborating witnesses) to convict . . . in the story, there were none
So while I think we hold similar views, Jesus could be defined as falling with the class known as "liberal" by the 1700s definition of the term
[right][snapback]850036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Again, Christ told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more." He did not give approval or blessing to her sin, but forgave her on condition of her repentence, showing His divine authority.

I would disagree that Jesus would be liberal even by 1700s definitions. Liberals of the 18th century were notorious for their "Enlightenment" rejection of all religious authority.

The mere fact that Jesus acted contrary to some of the established ways of His age does not at all mean He would be a supporter of the liberal agenda.

If merely being contrary to the customs and spirit of an age is enough to qualify one as "liberal," then true conservatives today must also be called "liberal."

[Socrates]

[quote name='ruso' date='Jan 9 2006, 03:45 PM']Jesus was a liberal, mainly in his time, he criticize the acquired badly wealth, hipocresia of the influential groups of its time ( fariseos and saduceos), and it gave to the woman a site when its situation was equal
that in the Afganistan of talibanes.
But communist, tapeworm rich and poor friends, he arrive to save us to all.
[right][snapback]850872[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Jesus said nothing about how people aquired wealth.

Christ did speak about the spiritual dangers of wealth and attachment to material things. He recommended voluntary giving up of one's wealth to follow Christ. He was speaking of voluntary actions for spiritual reasons here.
He said nothing calling for socialistic government-enforced redistribution of wealth.
[b]Voluntary[/b] poverty is one of the evangelical counsels. Government-enforced poverty has no merit in itself.

And speaking against hypocrisy of influencial people does not automatically qualify one as a liberal. I've read plenty of conservatives doing the same thing.

I've still seen zippo evidence given on this thread that Christ supported anything on the liberal agenda.

[Jaime]

[quote]I would disagree with that particular statement. Jesus was most certainly not a political revolutionary. A someone else noted here, he said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," and while He did not deny He was the Messiah, his Kingdom was not of this world. Note that in the Gospels, Christ nowhere calls for a political uprising against the Romans. This idea is based in liberal revisionist myth, rather than in the Truth of the Gospels.[/quote]

That's exactly what made Christ a revolutionary. The Jews were expecting a Christ that would be political. To set them free from oppression. His fullfillment of the OT was radically different from what the Jews were expecting.

[quote] lib·er·al  Audio pronunciation of "liberal" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

  1.
        1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.[/quote]

Was Christ's teaching that all could be saved against the orthodox belief of the Jews?

Did Christ fulfill the law in a completely different sense than what tradition had taught>

Did he stand up to and challenge authoritarian attitudes?


Did he liberate mankind from original sin?

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 9 2006, 08:17 PM']That's exactly what made Christ a revolutionary.  The Jews were expecting a Christ that would be political.  To set them free from oppression.  His fullfillment of the OT was radically different from what the Jews were expecting.[/quote]
And likewise radically different from the modern Leftist "liberation theology" version of Jesus, which tries to portray Him as a kind of proto-Marxist socialist political revolutionary.

[quote]Was Christ's teaching that all could be saved against the orthodox belief of the Jews? 

Did Christ fulfill the law in a completely different sense than what tradition had taught>

Did he stand up to and challenge authoritarian attitudes?
Did he liberate mankind from original sin?
[right][snapback]851126[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Christ did not completely contradict tradition, but fulfilled it. The traditions had become corrupted by men. Christ is the Divine Lawgiver.
Liberals try to teach the law in a completely different sense than what Christ taught, and seek to deny the Tradition He established.

Christ did not try to change "authoritarian attitudes, " but taught with His own authority. He taught that He alone was the Way, the Truth and the Life.
He wasn't some hippy flower child who taught His followers to simply defy authority and do their own thing!

Christ liberated mankind from original sin, and to bear the gentle yoke of Christ, not to be "free" to engage in licentiousness.

Sure, if you play around with words enough, you can always find some sense in which Christ was "liberal."

However, usually when liberals make this assertion, it is meant to imply that Christ would support the modern liberal agenda. The evidence is all against this. Why would Christ support something opposed to Himself?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:17 PM']That's exactly what made Christ a revolutionary.  The Jews were expecting a Christ that would be political.  To set them free from oppression.  His fullfillment of the OT was radically different from what the Jews were expecting. 
Was Christ's teaching that all could be saved against the orthodox belief of the Jews? 

Did Christ fulfill the law in a completely different sense than what tradition had taught>

Did he stand up to and challenge authoritarian attitudes?
Did he liberate mankind from original sin?
[right][snapback]851126[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you defending the ancient definition or arguing against the modern one (of "liberal") implied in this thread?