Jesus Christ

[Socrates]

I've seen liberals state in various other debates here that Jesus was a liberal (or even a socialist/Communist), or would've been such today.

I'd like to challenge them to give any solid evidence for this.
(Concrete evidence only please. Vague and nebulous statements like "Jesus loved everybody" won't cut it!)

[OLAM Dad]

I, for one, am just glad to see that you've found liberals who admit that Jesus existed.

To properly enter into this debate you have to first define what 'liberal' means. Don't try to do anything until you first agree on what liberal means and then you can contest their arguments one issue at a time.

I must warn you though, arguing with liberals is like arguing with idiots. It is a bad idea. They first drag you down to their level and then they beat you with experience.

Good Luck

p.s. - You can start with the abortion issue. Most everybody agrees that liberals believe in 'choice'. Scripture is clear on its objection to abortion.

[OLAM Dad]

Heh, I just realized that your user name is Socrates and I advocated using a socratic method of debate. Funny

[Tata126]

I would just like to point out that I am not a liberal, so if I'm one of the ones you're referring to, you've got me wrong. I don't think Jesus was a liberal; I think he can't be classified, and that means that I don't think he was a conservative either. My point in talking about his treatment of women was to point out that Light and Truth's point shouldn't be thrown off so lightly, and to indicate that your offhand disparagment of liberals was uncalled for and a little bit offensive.

That said, I think this is a stupid discussion because Jesus obviously didn't live in the political environment in which we live, so our modern political categories don't fit him at all. He also was careful to keep from getting on one side or the other of the political categories of his time, c.f. the discussion about "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."

[Socrates]

[quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Jan 8 2006, 04:05 PM']I, for one, am just glad to see that you've found liberals who admit that Jesus existed.

To properly enter into this debate you have to first define what 'liberal' means.  Don't try to do anything until you first agree on what liberal means and then you can contest their arguments one issue at a time.

I must warn you though, arguing with liberals is like arguing with idiots.  It is a bad idea.  They first drag you down to their level and then they beat you with experience.

Good Luck

p.s. - You can start with the abortion issue.  Most everybody agrees that liberals believe in 'choice'.  Scripture is clear on its objection to abortion.
[right][snapback]849729[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've been on these boards a while, and am familiar with arguing with liberals. (They do exist on phatmass, believe it or not.)

I'd prefer to let the liberals who assert that Jesus was a liberal first explain what they mean by this, and then give evidence to back up their position.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Tata126' date='Jan 8 2006, 04:11 PM']I would just like to point out that I am not a liberal, so if I'm one of the ones you're referring to, you've got me wrong.  I don't think Jesus was a liberal; I think he can't be classified, and that means that I don't think he was a conservative either.  My point in talking about his treatment of women was to point out that Light and Truth's point shouldn't be thrown off so lightly, and to indicate that your offhand disparagment of liberals was uncalled for and a little bit offensive. 

That said, I think this is a stupid discussion because Jesus obviously didn't live in the political environment in which we live, so our modern political categories don't fit him at all.  He also was careful to keep from getting on one side or the other of the political categories of his time, c.f. the discussion about "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."
[right][snapback]849733[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You are not the primary reason I made this thread. This issue has come up in a number of places.
It is a common assertion among Lefty types that Jesus was some sort of proto-Marxist revolutionary, or was a socialist, or was an activist for economic or social egalitarianism.
I agree, these kinds of statements are anachronistic and stupid, but this doesn't mean they aren't made.

I've even seen a few imply that Jesus would have supported "gay marriage" and such.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Check out this website:
[url="http://www.cafepress.com/turn_left"]http://www.cafepress.com/turn_left[/url]

[Ziggamafu]

Peter Kreeft wrote something along the lines of a refutation against referring to Christ as a "conservative" or "liberal". And a seminary professor of a friend of mine thinks Jesus would have taken offense to such labels.

According to Kreeft, Christ escaped being a liberal by confronting sin and acknowledging it as such and escaped being a conservative by not projecting a hatred for sin upon the sinner as condemnation. Instead, he fulfilled the Law in higher ways - by forgiveness.

Forgiveness acknowledges the severity of sin and the need for justice while all at once proclaiming mercy and compassion for the sinner.

Christ was orthodox to himself - not conservative or liberal. He couldn't be "liberal" because that would mean abandoning the Law. He couldn't be "conservative" because that would mean he's bound to it (as if it's higher than him).

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Jan 8 2006, 06:28 PM']Peter Kreeft wrote something along the lines of a refutation against referring to Christ as a "conservative" or "liberal". And a seminary professor of a friend of mine thinks Jesus would have taken offense to such labels.

According to Kreeft, Christ escaped being a liberal by confronting sin and acknowledging it as such and escaped being a conservative by not projecting a hatred for sin upon the sinner as condemnation. Instead, he fulfilled the Law in higher ways - by forgiveness.

Forgiveness acknowledges the severity of sin and the need for justice while all at once proclaiming mercy and compassion for the sinner.

Christ was orthodox to himself - not conservative or liberal. He couldn't be "liberal" because that would mean abandoning the Law. He couldn't be "conservative" because that would mean he's bound to it (as if it's higher than him).
[right][snapback]849771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well said.

Quoting Kreeft always gets high marks in my book. I'm currently reading [u]A Refutation of Moral Relativism[/u], have you read it yet? It's quite good.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Jan 8 2006, 05:37 PM']Well said.

Quoting Kreeft always gets high marks in my book.  I'm currently reading [u]A Refutation of Moral Relativism[/u], have you read it yet?  It's quite good.
[right][snapback]849775[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not yet. = )

I love listening to his lectures (you can get them off his [url="http://www.peterkreeft.com"]website[/url]) and one of them was a summary of that book, I believe. The only two books of his that I've read are [i]Fundamentals of the Faith [/i]and [i]Catholic Christianity. [/i]I'm currently reading his [i]Handbook of Christian Apologetics[/i]. He's a brilliant logician.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Tata126' date='Jan 8 2006, 05:11 PM']I would just like to point out that I am not a liberal, so if I'm one of the ones you're referring to, you've got me wrong.  I don't think Jesus was a liberal; I think he can't be classified, and that means that I don't think he was a conservative either.  My point in talking about his treatment of women was to point out that Light and Truth's point shouldn't be thrown off so lightly, and to indicate that your offhand disparagment of liberals was uncalled for and a little bit offensive. 

That said, I think this is a stupid discussion because Jesus obviously didn't live in the political environment in which we live, so our modern political categories don't fit him at all.  He also was careful to keep from getting on one side or the other of the political categories of his time, c.f. the discussion about "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."
[right][snapback]849733[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I might disagree with you.

See, I have an inclination to classify Him as "perfect."

:

J/K!

PS Do not hit me the next time I see you!

[rkwright]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Jan 8 2006, 04:44 PM']Not yet. = )

I love listening to his lectures (you can get them off his [url="http://www.peterkreeft.com"]website[/url]) and one of them was a summary of that book, I believe. The only two books of his that I've read are [i]Fundamentals of the Faith [/i]and [i]Catholic Christianity. [/i]I'm currently reading his [i]Handbook of Christian Apologetics[/i]. He's a brilliant logician.
[right][snapback]849777[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ooo I didn't know he had a website and lecutures there. Will have to check it out!! I have his Summa of the summa and the footnotes he provides.

I also highly agree with your first post. We shouldn't try to conform Jesus to our standards or labels. Its like the pharisees questioning him, well are you an orthodox jew or what? eating with the sinners, preaching to the gentiles, He is truly revolutionary.

Isn't it also some sort of fallacy to use something as a referent? I've forgotten the name of it, but when you appeal to a name or something? ie Hitler did that :. we shouldn't or Jesus was a liberal :. you should be. Whats the name of it??

[rkwright]

btw what is up with sooo many political threads these days???

[qfnol31]

I started mine to get a background on people in here.

Otherwise, I think one sparked them all.

[rkwright]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 8 2006, 05:37 PM']I started mine to get a background on people in here.

Otherwise, I think one sparked them all. 
[right][snapback]849807[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

a background eh...you working for the government??

time to go in hiding!

[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?