Stargazer Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Take that Nelson! I said "secular". Perhaps you missed it, buried as it were in a massive paragraph. 😄
USU78 Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 57 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: His followers in Acts adopted pure communism as an economic policy, with death the remedy for not adhering. Did they? Or was it still possible in those less cynical times of dying of shame? Seems the gene has been bred out of a whole lot of folks.
stemelbow Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 13 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I said "secular". Perhaps you missed it, buried as it were in a massive paragraph. 😄 It was too many words for me to read.
Maidservant Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 Funny, I read this today, from Richard Rohr. "Precisely because Jesus was a “conservative,” in the true sense of the term, he conserved what was worth conserving and did not let accidentals get in the way, which are the very things false conservatives usually idolize. As a result, he looked quite “progressive,” radical, and even dangerous." Full article here I don't have 'liberal' and 'conservative' categories in my worldview, so.
bluebell Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: His followers in Acts adopted pure communism as an economic policy, with death the remedy for not adhering. Did they? I thought that communism was atheistic, and also all about the overthrow of the state to the benefit of the proletariat? 2
halconero Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 🙄 None of the above. Modern liberalism is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment Era philosophers, being further developed in the 19th century by the addition of economic though by David Ricardo and Adam Smith, with its most recent iteration being the product of political theorist like John Rawls. Modern conservatism was somewhat of a counter reaction spurred by Edmund Burke, with the adoption of free market principles in the Reagan era, and which is now being molded by protectionism and nationalism in both Europe and North America. There's very little to say that Jesus Christ would fit neatly into either of these, either during his mortal ministry, or in the Millennial Period where His government takes the form of a quasi-constitutional absolutist monarchy. 2
halconero Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: Did they? I thought that communism was atheistic, and also all about the overthrow of the state to the benefit of the proletariat? Also central economic planning. 1
provoman Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 5 hours ago, Rivers said: I would argue neither. He was a perfect moderate. He was no moderate. He was Jesus. Politica labels are artificle boxes we put ourselves in. 1
bluebell Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 22 minutes ago, halconero said: Also central economic planning. Yes, but isn't that an aspect of socialism as well?
CV75 Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 5 hours ago, Rivers said: I would argue neither. He was a perfect moderate. I would say He was both (!), but not in a political sense. Under the old system He promised manna in every pot, and then in the Meridian of Time He came up with a "New Deal." In both systems, He defended and preserved agency. 1
USU78 Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 13 minutes ago, CV75 said: I would say He was both (!), but not in a political sense. Under the old system He promised manna in every pot, and then in the Meridian of Time He came up with a "New Deal." In both systems, He defended and preserved agency. Except He didn't take any manna out of anybody else's pot to put in Jacob's children's pots. And He didn't just promise, relying on the compulsory contributions of anybody else to fulfill that promise, but rather delivered in full out of His own generosity. And He made free water into free wine, simply because it was asked of him; He ennobled a farthing joyously and voluntarily given making it worth more than a kingdom; He brought a surfeit of fish to no-luck fishermen, and not by emptying anybody else's nets; and He multiplied a couple of fish sandwiches to feed thousands, and not by raiding anybody else's lunchboxes. Doesn't look like the New Deal to me. 2
JLHPROF Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 Conservative and Liberal are terms based on a starting point. Which Christ was depends on which starting point you are measuring by.
Calm Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, halconero said: where His government takes the form of a quasi-constitutional absolutist monarchy. As far as we can tell from revelation. Might turn out to be dramatically different since in addition to there being mortal beings, we will have immortal ones involved somehow with possible abilities that change social dynamics drastically. Edited March 19, 2019 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: Liberal in the classical sense and conservative in the sense that he wants to return to the perfection of a previous era (back when we lived in God’s presence). In his own time he was radical and extreme but not politically. He seemed politically indifferent. Both the conservatives (Sadducees) and the liberals (Pharisees) hated and feared him and the other zealots (the actual Zealots and other extremist groups) disagreed with him. Yes, and you left out the Hellenizing Jews (who wanted to be like the elite Greeks), Judaizing Christians (who insisted on keeping kosher and being circumcized), the communal, extremist Essenes, the communal Christians, etc. For Jesus it was a matter of focus -- on seeking first the Kingdom of God, loving one's enemies, and paying Caesar his secular dues. Jesus understood the ways of the world all too well, while arguing that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. How does that translate into practical reality? We are still not sure. As for misleading labels such as "conservative" and "liberal," they are a matter of emotional temperament, having only a relativistic meaning based on immediate context, i.e., situational ethics.
Gray Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 (edited) He was liberal when it came to the issue of ritual impurity. Regarding the Law, he was conservative (you've heard it said/but I say) on some issues and liberal (have you not read that David...) on others. On the whole though he was much more conservative on the law than were his followers 2-3 generations later. Regarding social justice (particularly around wealth and poverty), radically liberal. Regarding the Roman occupiers and their enablers - not sure, he was definitely against them, but I don't know how you qualify that as liberal or conservative. Edited March 19, 2019 by Gray
Gray Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Except He didn't take any manna out of anybody else's pot to put in Jacob's children's pots. And He didn't just promise, relying on the compulsory contributions of anybody else to fulfill that promise, but rather delivered in full out of His own generosity. Jesus promises in the new political Kingdom of God that the wealth will be taken from the rich and given to the poor, to the point that the formerly wealthy will go hungry. Quote “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh." “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep."
let’s roll Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Probably just me, but I find it a bit profane to ascribe terms to the Savior that are these days more often used as indictments than descriptors.
USU78 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 52 minutes ago, Gray said: Jesus promises in the new political Kingdom of God that the wealth will be taken from the rich and given to the poor, to the point that the formerly wealthy will go hungry. "My kingdom is not of this world." What political kingdom are you speaking of? 1
Anijen Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 7 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: The very idea of trying to place Christ on the political spectrum seems silly to me. I think there would be plenty of the left and right who would be very disappointed by His doctrine, truly understood. Would a monarchy fit into a political spectrum? A perfect king ruler, like a monarchy we've never seen before.
carbon dioxide Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) One thing is certain. If Jesus was raised in the vocation of being a carpenter, he would not be driving a Prius or a Tesla. A big Ford or Chevy truck is what he would be driving. Roll the coal baby. Edited March 20, 2019 by carbon dioxide 3
CMZ Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 He is a little of each while also being moderate in just the right ways, and people would do well to follow His example. Seriously, people really need to get over the idea that they have to pick a label of being either liberal or conservative. Nothing says you must pick such a label. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 9 hours ago, stemelbow said: Who truly understands it? It'd be nice to know so we can feel more directed by Him. Now there is a quandary !! Do you have an answer, or are you asking for one? The subject is epistemology.
halconero Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 6 hours ago, bluebell said: Yes, but isn't that an aspect of socialism as well? ¿Porqué no los dos?
halconero Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 4 hours ago, Calm said: As far as we can tell from revelation. Might turn out to be dramatically different since in addition to there being mortal beings, we will have immortal ones involved somehow with possible abilities that change social dynamics drastically. No disagreement here.
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 9 hours ago, stemelbow said: 1. Who has the HG burning within them? Name me one, please. 2. So if a speaker and listener claim to have the Spirit lit at any given speech or communication does that mean the Spirit revealed truth in that instance? 1. Me, and many others I know. 2. (Gollum voice) A tricksy question! Yes, assuming those making the claim are neither lying or mistaken. Now humans are known to sometimes get revelation and run in the wrong direction right afterwards so it is not some stamp of approval for everything they do either. 1
Recommended Posts