Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Congratulations, you are a winner!

 

So now you change your tune. That's improvement.

 

\




Anyone who believes that highschool kids put a man on the moon in the 1950's and 60's probably has this "trophy" in pride of place on their shelf!

 

Don't have to, I know Jeff Immelt was cozy with Obama, so cozy that he was on his economic advisory board.

So blame Obama.

 

Jesus was and remains the world's # 1 Jewish liberal.

 

This is bang on. Your arrow went straight to the bullzeye.

There is a plague in this nation - that plague is "Utilitarianism" and/or "fallacious utilitarianism".

This is a philosophy whereby law is justified on the basis of "increased happiness for the collective". This justification has zero regard for individual rights and freedoms/liberty.

This is a problem in a nation whose founding principle is respect for individual liberty - that individual liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. This justification for law effectively does an end run around the founding principle. It is a communist ideology that lends itself well to totalitarianism and is thus ideal as a tool of Gov'ts to increase (and abuse) power.

For example - "If it saves one life" or "harm reduction" as justification for law.

We hear these arguments all the time from political pundits on both sides of the fence. These arguments are very insidious because they sound good on the surface "Who does not want to save one life" ? / "reduce harm".

The problem is that these are terrible arguments that can be used to justify any abuse of Gov't power and to increase Gov't power.

If "If it saves one life" is valid justification for law - should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? would this not save one life /reduce harm ? What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it. Sky or deep sea diving ? don't make me laugh.

In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

This philosophy is a direct attack on individual liberty at the highest level. In a free society one has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to oneself.

Utilitarianism seeks to take that right away. Many of these arguments are "fallacious utilitarianism" as they do not even make good utilitarian arguments (will not increase happiness of the collective)

 

It has become fashionable over the past 30 years or so for people to say things about my freedom having an effect on them. This goes all the way to being told that if I don't "eat right" or "live right" it affects other people's insurance premiums (forget the influence of genetics). I don't know if that is utilitarianism but it is collectivism, which is not a founding principle if you are an American. When I was a kid we read "Animal Farm" in school, it's lesson was not lost on me.

The problem is, we have gotten so used to it as a culture that most people don't even notice this invasion of privacy and rights.

 

It is Utilitarianism... that is the ideology that you are fighting. The insurance argument is 100% on the basis of "what will increase happiness for the collective" with no regard for individual liberty.

It is also a violation of the rule of law - punishing one for the actions of another. Just because one person abuses alcohol - does not justify punishing me for their abuse by banning alcohol - on the basis that insurance premiums will increase due to alcohol abuse.

As I kid I read 1984 - Its like that book is now used as a textbook by the Establishment.

It is now our "Patriotic Duty" to give up individual liberty. Obama (the Harvard constitutional scholar and civil rights activist) then comes along and changes the name of the "Patriot Act" to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act".

Ben Franklin "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"
Obama - in defense of the head of the NSA lying to congress (felony) about mass spying on US citizens (felony 2) "If we want increased security we have to give a little"

 

In any large society (especially a democracy) individuals will inherently become invisible in the crowd unless they yell loudly. If the "democracy" tips toward totalitarian tendencies this will be highlighted and forwarded by the state. Individuals who do not fit the desired mold are subject to discrimination everywhere regardless and here being overweight or unattractive does not fit the mold. This aspect is simple human nature developed over many thousands of years and evolved characteristics tied to survival of the fittest and breeding competition.
Our ancestors chose for strength and who could get food for family, we choose for beauty, fitness and personality.

 

I agree with this absolutely. Most liberals I've ever known live lives closer to Christ's teachings than most so-called Christians I've known. By far.

 

Things like getting abortions, committing adultery, embezzling government funds, sending nude selfies to minors, leaving cruel and nasty voice mails to your daughter....famous liberals have done all these things. Shall I go on?

 

famous republicans have done them also.........................oops

 

You remind me of those students I had that always needed to be right LOL I didn’t change my tune at all. I guess Trump is your role model

 

The difference is you elect these cheaters and perverts to office...like trump,, Vitter and Sanford for a start. ..knowing what they are !

https://m.ranker.com/list/republican-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

This isn’t a righ left occurrence.,....ITS A MALE THING! We need more women in office. We don’t think with our genitals

 

You change your tune but then wont admit it. That's ok - 2 steps forward, one step back. You are still making progress.

 

Please tell me how I changed my tune

 

With what are you liberal?
If you are liberal with the legal use of force (government) then, no. One can be a Christian and also be liberal with the legal use of force, but one cannot be Christ-like whilst being liberal with the legal use of force.

Today, in the US, "liberal" represents not only a set of goals but the willingness to have those goals pursued via the legal use of force.

All liberals, be they: socialist, communist, fascist or islamist, are addled by the same desire to have their very best intentions for others imposed upon them by force of law. It's the error of the Pharisees. It is the error of mohammad. It is exactly opposite the example of Christ. Barabbas was "liberal"; Jesus was conservative with the use of force, legal or otherwise.

 

I submit that this is a "Human" problem and has nothing to do with political leaning....look in a Conservative mirror.

 

What's interesting about the argument that liberals (in American schools) are brainwashing kids to have liberal values, interesting to me, is that I have experience teaching in 4 different countries outside the US (for 14 years) in international schools. Only one of those schools was in 'liberal' Europe. In all of those schools, social responsibility is part of the school environment, from how to treat each other (anti-bullying) to celebrating and or having events for things like Earth Day, United Nations Day, International Women's Day, World Day for Cultural Diversity, International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, and so on. The atmosphere and priorities in all the international schools I taught in, including those not run by Westerners, is the same as that in the US.

It isn't liberal ideology that is being encouraged: it is a modern world perspective that encourages us to take care of each other, take care of the Earth, and avoid fighting and killing each other (promote world peace). To be decent, civilized human beings.

 

I'm not the one claiming otherwise, I knew it all along, it's one of your fellows claiming that "liberals are better at keeping the teachings of Christ" although in libspeak what that usually means is "I vote for the people who claim to be compassionate".

 

As seems EXTREMELY clear and is easily verified daily in both legislation and discussion Liberal compassion and "Conservative" political lack of it are not merely claims....I heavily doubt you can show otherwise.

 

And I sincerely doubt that you would listen if I did, but I will say that I and many others can do without your brand of "compassion", sooner or later you run out of other people's money, and having made us poor you suddenly run out of compassion. Calling yourself "compassionate" is not enough, you are then expected to be compasionate.

As Jesus once said: "Are you doing anything remarkable if you welcome only your friends? Everyone does that!"

There is nothing "compassionate" about showing up here day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year only to remind us of how much better you think you are than us. Your own words condemn you.

 

Thank you for proving my point...it is appreciated.

 

Is this the "I'm rubber you're glue" argument that has become what passes for reasoned discourse? The only thing you left out was "puerile" and "irony" with a cartoon of a yellow ball with a face writhing on the floor.

I guess I expected too much from you.