Was Jesus a Liberal?

According the Jesus' telling of the parable of talens - the answer is no.

Jesus was a capitalist pig.

God first in all things, that's Jesus.

There is no left/right paradigm that satisfies the path of Christ.

I thought i was a Christian at some point in my life, i was raised a Catholic but i saw the hypocrisy in myself and others. I saw the Catholic church as a religion run by criminals of the highest order. I have worked for and with born again Christians, Pentecostals etc that would make the worst thief look angelic.
Every Christian or follower of an offshoot of Christianity that i know personally is a hypocrite.

Being an hypocrite has nothing to do with accepting Christ as your Saviour, or otherwise.

Hypocrisy is a natural part of the human condition.

I think it is nice that you expect Christians to be better than Human, however, that change is not to take place until another time.

If you meet an Hypocrite Christian, chances are you are seeing a person who is being made better than they were, where without Christ they'd be even worse people.

Christ is for people that need Christ, not people who are awesome on their own.

Well I can tell you what he wasn't.

He wasn't a Fabian Socialist Labor party advocate.

I certainly hope Australians turn their back on Labor and vote Liberal later this year.



The Howard government years were good.
Lets go back to being Liberal.


I'm sick and tired of hearing the word "reform" all the time!!
Julia can take her Fabian Socialist values and jump on the next boat to hell.

But everyone must accept Christ right? "The only way to the lord is through me"

So basically. you're saying if you're already a good, decent person you don't need Christ?

Yeah, totally!

However, nobody is Good but God.

All fall short compared to the perfection and Glory of God.

We cannot make ourselves as Good as god, therefore, a Mediator, a Messiah to cover our shortcomings and Trojan-horse us back in to Heaven and Justify us to God.

That's brilliant!

OK, so if we're gonna try to get to heaven, or where ever god resides these days shouldn't we atleast live by the teaching of his Messiah?

Last Edited by Farrrrrout on 04/09/2013 11:59 AM

The Messiah gave us many teachings that illustrate the difference between living by law and living by faith.

The overall result of living by law is that it's impossible, because even when we outwardly demonstrate our lawfulness, we still break the law in our heart.

Who cares? We should, because the inward world is every bit as real and as important as the external one.

---

When we live in faith, we try to live by the law in the faith that when we fail, we are covered by our faith in the Messiah.

When a Secularist outsider strolls by and sees a Christian failing, he/she assumes that is all a Christian can do.

What the secularist fails to see is the other 9 billion moments where we succeed, and is a personal triumph for us to have done so.

If a Christian punches you in the face and calls your mother a whore, thank Jesus Christ he didn't shoot you in the kneecap and rape your mother.

See the spectrum, here?

And on the far end you have your saints etc.

"If a Christian punches you in the face and calls your mother a whore, thank Jesus Christ he didn't shoot you in the kneecap and rape your mother."

That would not make him/her a Christian then. Not in faith nor law.
You are or you are not. Calling oneself does not one make.

Last Edited by Farrrrrout on 04/09/2013 12:18 PM

Why is a discussion needed to understand what a child knows.

Love NEVER Fails~


Define The Word made flesh by the Word which describes everything He ever did.

I'm using an analogy.

And yes, Christians sin all of the time just like Human Beings do.

You are not the judge of who and what is a Christian, that is between an individual and The Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you think you have the Authority of the Lord?

You are an idiot.

Prostitutes are human beings too and it is the oldest profession known to mankind.

Everyone pays idiot. Most women nowadays in fact that's all they care about is finding a rich guy to support them.

They don't know how to look into the heart they are all consumed with materialism which is exactly what Lucifer wants.
And as for idiots like you, you sound like the typical neocon, just keep on listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Jesus had no political leaning, he had compassion for all.

Only a liberal would try to label God.

Of course Jesus was a liberal!

Who else would promote the following besides a liberal?

Love your neighbor as you love yourself;
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you;
Forgive your enemies;
Help the poor among you.

If you want to see the opposite of what Jesus came to this planet (you got that right, he was a Star Child!) just look at the current Repulican Party.

The Repubs are so obviously against the common man and for the wealthy that they are not even trying to hide it anymore. This is all out in the open.

So the Repubs, knowing they are losing, hired Karl Rove to steal the 2012 election for Romney.

Why do you think Rove pretended to be concerned Fox News (Fox?!) was wrong to give Ohio to Obama? He was stalling for time, needed the cameras to get off him so he could call the operative trying to steal the vote in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (Little did Rove know that Florida was going to Obama too.)

But thanks to the richest man in the world and the efforts of visiting service to other ETs (strictly with permission) those attempts failed.

That is why Rommey and Ryan and the whole lot of them looked so SHOCKED on election night.

That is why so many mouthpieces were pushing that the Repubs could not, just could not, lose the Senate and most importantly the Presidency.

EVERYONE was told it was in the bag, don't worry about the polls or reality.

Why would that be UNLESS the plan was to steal yet another election? (Rove was successful in stealing Ohio for Bush in 2004 so it is understandable why he thought it would work again in 2012).

Mystery of the 2012 Presidential Election solved!

Was Jesus a Liberal?

While I cannot be so arrogant as to know thwe learn from his teachings is that he was embodied with some liberal values.

"It is harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man recieving the kingdom of Heaven." He also said when we feed and clothe the poor, we are feeding and clothing him. I believe he would have supported the social programs of the liberal democrats.

He also said "give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" which tells me he would not have a problem with taxes that support these social programs.He also chased the money changers out of the Temple with a whip, so it's a safe bet he wouldn't be a big fan of televangelists.

As for the modern day topics of abortion, gun control, global warming, and gay marriage, we can guess what position Jesus would hold, but without a direct quote on the matter we are pretty much guessing.

(Note; I know the bible speaks out against homosexuality, but I know of no quotes about the matter from Jesus himself.)

Correction I think it went along the lines of "give to ceaser what is ceaser and give to god what is gods"

He advocated sword ownership. There were no guns available in his day.

The word 'liberal' is a victim of Hegelian Dialectic. So called 'liberalism' is not the biblical definition of 'liberal'. A true 'liberal' fits somewhere in between.

Isa.32
[1] Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
[2] And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
[3] And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.
[4] The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
[5] The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
[6] For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
[7] The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
[8] But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

Not in the sense of liberalism today.

He was definitely for one taking responsibility for one's self and one's family and caring for the less fortunate.

He would have considered welfare and unequal taxes theft from those who pay up.

He did say render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's relative to money so he had no problem with taxes but he would not have supported a system such as ours where some people pay and some people don't. Right now almost 50% of those eligible to be taxed on income pay nothing. Not fair.

Rather than welfare, he would have definitely advocated that the fathers of welfare babies be made to support their kids or incur a debt that could never be cancelled.

He would have been tolerant and forgiving of all sinners but he did say Go and sin no more so his intent was clear as to how the sinner should conduct his or her life in the future.

Lol very true!

Hell no.

True. People are thinking of biblical Jesus. Idiots.