|
Author
|
Topic: Conservatism vs Liberalism
|
freddy05
Advanced Member
Member # 5854
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
It is the liberals who wrought iniquitous changes contrary to God, and continue to support such.
Getting rid of slavery was a liberal idea.
Giving women the right to vote, liberal!
The protestan reformation, very liberal.
You seem very confused about what the words mean. You seem to have been indocrinated by right wing talk radio, foxnews, or right wing internet sites. Not sure specifically which source your understanding of the words came from, but its consistant with all of them.
When you think of the word "conservative", think of the word conserve... you want to conserve values, status quo, policies, etc....
I echo the others, right wing and left wing are much better terms to use.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
I like the calling them "left winger" and "right winger" idea and discussing the various possitions from a christian point of view.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
Sorry i hijacked the thread. Gotta go to work now. Please continue on with liberalism vs Conservatism.
And Shabbat Shalom to all my brethren here on the BBS. I love you all. Be blessed.
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
ahar, apparantly Peter wasn't listening closely enough then (Matt 15:15-Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Explain this parable to us".
Cause after Yeshua's death and resurrection into heaven, he (Peter) has the vision of the "unclean" animals coming down on a sheet and God telling him to "kill and eat"?
And Peter says "Not so Lord! for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth"
And of course he hears Gods voice saying "What God has cleansed you must not call common"
This was not refering to food at all but to the Gentile peoples.
Just some "food" for thought, ha! Be blessed
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by yahsway:
ahar, not to get off subject too much, but the passage of washing of the hands is in Matt 15 and is about cleanliness of the flesh in context.
You're right that the context is of washed hands, but in verse 10...
10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
... Jesus makes a sweeping statement regarding the cleanliness of items of food, whether eated with unwashed hands or because of the source of the meat (e.g. camel).
quote:
Originally posted by yahsway:
The people of His day could have very well said that He was liberal in the sense that He was showing the people that the Pharisees were making it very difficult to obey the Laws of God which were not burdensome in and by themselves. They only became that way because man "Added" to them.
I agree with the rest - just because Jesus was returning to the fundamentals of the bible, doesn't mean the term conservative applies as this was against the widely held views of the time.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
No Andy;
It was the liberals who brought abortion into law in the United States in January, 1973, through the social liberals on the Supreme Court.
We conservatives continue to oppose abortion today just as we did back in 1973.
You are still using the terms as identifiers of a political view point. Today, the mainstream AGREES with abortion - therefore to oppose it is a liberal point of view as you are in favour of change. You're a liberal (i.e. in favour of change), like it or not.
Back in 1973, you favoured the status quo, therefore you were rightly conservatives, but times have changed and we are now in the minority and wanting the change so we are the liberal point of view.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
No Andy;
It was the liberals who brought abortion into law in the United States in January, 1973, through the social liberals on the Supreme Court.
We conservatives continue to oppose abortion today just as we did back in 1973.
It is the liberals who wrought iniquitous changes contrary to God, and continue to support such.
It is the liberal theologians who have denigrated the basic tenents of the Christian faith. The slippery slope of elevating a social gospel over the Gospel of Christ, leads down the path by degrees to a Bishop Spong.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
ahar, not to get off subject too much, but the passage of washing of the hands is in Matt 15 and is about cleanliness of the flesh in context.
The pharisees were debating Yeshua on the "washing of the hands" not food.
Matt 15:2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the traditions (notice it was not a law of God but a tradition of the elders)of the elders?"
For they do not Wash their hands when they eat bread."
Of course then Yeshua blasts back and says "Why do transgress the Commandment of God (Law)because of your traditions?"
The pharisess spoke of traditions while Yeshua spoke of the Law. The pharisees were more concerned about their own man-made standards than that of Gods laws as Yeshua continues on calling them "Hypocrites, making the commandments of God of no effect by their traditions."
The laws of God were to be written on our hearts.
verse 19
"For out of the heart proced evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphamies"
verse 20
"These are things which defile a man, BUT, To eat with UNWASHED HANDS does not defile a man."
The whole of the context is about washing the flesh or the washing of hands, not about food.
Yeshua is saying we need to have Clean hearts, not clean hands.
Yeshua obeyed all the Fathers commandments and was radical in that He blasted the Pharisess for all the "fences" traditions if you will,(oral laws) that they put around those commandments.
The people of His day could have very well said that He was liberal in the sense that He was showing the people that the Pharisees were making it very difficult to obey the Laws of God which were not burdensome in and by themselves. They only became that way because man "Added" to them.
Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
Hi Drew
That is a perfect example of what I was saying with my original post - there is a difference between being a 'liberal theologian', i.e. one who wants to change the prevailing theology and being a 'liberal' i.e. someone who embraces change in general. You can be 'conservative theologian' and be a 'liberal' in general. You are approaching the definition of the words with too narrow a view - because you see error in the views of those that could be called 'liberal theologians', you now associate the word 'liberal' with all people whose views you believe to be in error.
From reading your posts, you could be characterised as a 'conservative theologian', but generally liberal or radical on most other topics because you believe the prevailing situation needs to be changed. By "prevailing", I mean that which is the general view across society, rather than within the Christian community.
On an issue like abortion, you want it to be outlawed (I assume). The orthodoxy in society is now that abortion is okay, and should be allowed. Therefore a conservative would either want to stick with this situation or to change it slowly. You (I presume) would want this situation to change quickly and radically (probably a change in the law to make it illegal?) - this is a liberal, probably more radical view. Therefore you a 'liberal' on this view in the strict definition of the word.
It is not a simple case of calling Jesus a 'consrvative' or a 'liberal'. In general he was a radical, but that is not to say he sought to change anything and everything just for the sake of change. The resurrection and new covenant was a step change in the relationship between God and Man. Jesus also showed the change in the theology of the time. For example, passages in Leviticus clearly state some things to be able to make a man 'unclean' (like camels in Leviticus 11:4) if eaten, yet in Mark 15-23 he stated in essense it is not what you eat, but what you say and do that would make you 'unclean'. As has been mentioned before, Jesus understood divinity perfectly so was not correcting the text of Leviticus, but showing us one of the aspects of the New Covenant.
Conservative? I think not. That must have been an amazing thing to hear - one of the tenents of Judaism is the rules that you live your life by, including what you can and cannot eat. To have someone going around saying that this is not the case is radical!
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Hi Andy;
It is liberal theology which emphasizes a social gospel over the Gospel.
It is liberal theology which has declared the Word of God to be arbitrary instead of absolute.
It is the liberal theologians who deny the most basic tenents of the Christian faith: the divine inspiration of the Word, and the Diety of Christ.
As Linda has said, Jesus was the most conservative of theologians in that He kept God's Law perfectly, and stood against those who sought to CHANGE it.
It is the most conservative of belief to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, your mind, your soul, while being the most liberal of belief to denigrate God's Word and to deny and ridicule the basic tenents of the Christian faith. The letters of Brother Paul are particularly anathema to the liberal schools of higher Biblical criticism.
I offer into evidence Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong, who seeks CHANGE, and casts aside the basic tenents of the Christian faith.
Liberals seek change. The writings of Spong are an example of extreme theological liberalism.
The intrinsic bias can be found in those of the liberal theological foundations who premice their worldview by elevating the second commandment over and above the first commandment of Christ Jesus our Lord.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Spong on Easter
I hear well-meaning but not necessarily well-informed religious leaders say such things as, "If the biblical story of Easter is not literally true, if there is no physical resurrection of Jesus, then Christianity will surely die." They actually quote St. Paul to buttress their claim. However, no creditable New Testament scholar in the world, Protestant or Catholic, will defend those simplistic propositions.
People who employ this line of defense seem to forget that at one time almost all Christians believed that the story of Adam and Eve was literal history. They also asserted that the Christmas narratives of wandering stars, angels singing to hillside shepherds, and virgins who give birth were literally true and that all accounts of miracles attributed to Jesus actually happened. The fact is that the great majority of contemporary biblical scholars have for almost 100 years been moving away from these conclusions. Yet Christianity has survived that transition.
Critics will argue: "Are not Adam and Eve, the Virgin Birth, and even the miracles peripheral to the Christian faith--while the resurrection of Jesus is not? Can Christianity afford to debate its originating moment? Does the possibility of saying 'no' to the physical resurrection of Jesus mean the end of Christianity?" I do not think so, but I anticipate that some will think that is true.
Jesus does not even make a post-crucifixion physical appearance in the original version of Mark, the first gospel to be written. The idea of a bodily resurrection receives its first mention in the ninth-decade writings of Matthew, and it is present in only one episode. However, it becomes full and overt when the later gospels of Luke and John were written, between the years 88 and 96 of the common era. So I state a second reality: While Christianity was certainly born in whatever the "Easter experience" was, around the year 30, it was not interpreted as the physical resuscitation of the body of the deceased Jesus until about 50 years later. Still, its birth was marked with incredible energy and power. Lives were changed. Power was experienced in dramatic ways. Yet the experience of the living Jesus was not described as a physical resurrection for literally decades.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
Liberal Theology
In liberal Christian teaching, man’s reason is stressed and is treated as the final judge. Liberal Christian theologians sought to reconcile Christianity with secular science and “modern thinking.” In doing so, they treat science as “all-knowing” and the Bible as fable-laden and false. Genesis’ early chapters are reduced to poetry or fantasy, having a message, but not to be taken literally (in spite of Jesus’ having spoken of those early chapters in literal terms). Mankind is not seen as totally depraved, and thus liberal theologians had an optimistic view of the future of mankind. The “social gospel” is also emphasized. Whether a person is saved from their sin and its penalty in hell was no longer the issue; the main thing was how man treated his fellow man. “Love” of our fellow man became the defining issue. As a result of this “reasoning” by liberal theologians, the following doctrines are taught by liberal Christianity:
Ah, so when you call me a liberal, you are saying that I am part of the Liberal Theology movement rather than just using it as a general insult?
Or are you just not interested in joining in the discussion?
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Liberal Theology
In liberal Christian teaching, man’s reason is stressed and is treated as the final judge. Liberal Christian theologians sought to reconcile Christianity with secular science and “modern thinking.” In doing so, they treat science as “all-knowing” and the Bible as fable-laden and false. Genesis’ early chapters are reduced to poetry or fantasy, having a message, but not to be taken literally (in spite of Jesus’ having spoken of those early chapters in literal terms). Mankind is not seen as totally depraved, and thus liberal theologians had an optimistic view of the future of mankind. The “social gospel” is also emphasized. Whether a person is saved from their sin and its penalty in hell was no longer the issue; the main thing was how man treated his fellow man. “Love” of our fellow man became the defining issue. As a result of this “reasoning” by liberal theologians, the following doctrines are taught by liberal Christianity:
1) The Bible is not “God-breathed” and has errors. Because of this belief, man (the liberal theologians) must determine which teachings are correct and which are not. To believe that the Bible is “inspired” (in that word’s original meaning) by God is only held by simpletons.
2) The virgin birth of Christ is a mythological false teaching.
3) Jesus did not rise again from the grave in bodily form.
4) Jesus was a good moral teacher, but His followers and their followers have taken liberties with the history of His life as recorded in Scripture (there were no “supernatural” miracles), with the gospels having been written many years later and merely ascribed to the early disciples in order to give greater weight to their teachings.
5) Hell is not real. Man is not lost in sin and is not doomed to some future judgment without a relationship with Christ through faith. Man can help himself; no sacrificial death by Christ is necessary since a loving God would not send people to such a place as hell and since man is not born in sin.
6) Most of the human authors of the Bible are not as traditionally believed. For instance, they believe that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. The Book of Daniel had two authors because there is no way that the detailed “prophecies” of the later chapters could have been known ahead of time; they must have been written after the fact. The same thinking was carried over to the New Testament books as well.
7) The most important thing for man to do is to “love” his neighbor. What is the loving thing to do in any situation is not what the Bible says is good but what the liberal theologians decide is good.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
I have never thought of the meaning of conservativism as being opposed to change. I think for example that there is today tremendous call for change in the church because the church is about as far from being like the apostolic church as you can be, but it is because I hold a conservative and fundamental view of what the church should look like that I see this call for change. But I guess that it was a conservative (change resistant) view that I began with in that I think that it should never have (changed) from that model that the apostles gave us in the first place.
How ironic!
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
HFHS:
This shows the dichotomy of the use of the words liberal and conservative. The terms have been hijacked by certain political groupings, with the consequence that to identify as a 'politcal conservative', that is have particular views on key political issues (e.g. abortion etc), means that we cannot disassociate the particular set of political views with the more general mean of conservative which is not to be in favour of great change. This can mean that a person will start to associate themselves with the position of a conservative, that is to oppose change in general, rather than support it.
As you said in your post, the characterisation of Jesus' potential political viewpoints can also become muddled - the difference is between 'politcal conservatism' and being a conservative. Jesus was a radical, that is a person in favour of fundamental change, with a uncompromising view of this - the pharases could be characterised as 'conservatives', as they were in favour of maintaining the status quo.
Although left and right wing are losing their meaning within the political world, they are probably better terms to use when talking about political viewpoints.
Hence Caretaker, wparr and others - please use the term 'left winger' rather than liberal as an attempted insult in future threads. Then if you want we can discuss whether the views of the left or right wing are closer to the teachings of christ ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Wooh, this is a difficult subject. I have all my life been politically conservative. Meaning that I do not believe that in this country the central government has much resposnibility to its citizens past the protection and denfense of them from foregin invaders. I believe that state's rights in this country should have precedence over those of the federal government. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the government, state or federal to provide for the feeding, clothing, healthcare, or education of its citizens. (Yes, I know this is not reality of how things are, but it is what being politically conservative means to me.)
I struggle because I want to see Christians active in our government and yet I do not know how you can be Christian and stay active in our government without compromising your allegience to God, which is why I am no longer active in politics past the fact that I do still vote.
I dont think that being politically conservative has anything to do with being conservative in your religious views however.
I would say that fundamentalism in our faith is desirous. People try to say that Jesus was a liberal and that is not so. Jesus was a fundamentalist.. he stood on exactly what the will and word of the Father is... not compromising a hair. It is in total error to think that the Pharisee that Jesus rebuked were fundamental in their practices and beliefs.. they were not.. they did not practice that which was set down by GOD in the Torah, but that which was set down by men in the Talmud.. the oral traditions... the opinions of men and not GOD.
We may think that the Pharisee were conservative, but they were far from it. The written word of God must be the standard and if it is contradicted by our beliefs or our culture or our practices then those things are in error and enmity with the word of God.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
quote:
I oppose both, but at least the liberal is more honest.
I totally agree,
in politics the liberals make no pretense of being Christian or being moral at all, while on the other hand the conservatives use Yahweh and His name as a cloak to hide their dishonest deeds.
There is nothing like making people feel they have a choice, when in reality they have no choice.
I wouldn’t give you a penny for any politician conservative, liberal, independent or any other version there might be.
Compromises in any part of Yahweh’s Law are abominable for those that claim salvation through the precious Blood of Yeshua.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
In todays terms, our leaders who claim those titles for themselves, want the same thing. To aquire more power to legislate their morality and to have more control over our lives. They only differ in what ways they want to control us. Both sides, in the end, want to control both the social and economic aspects of all our lives.
However, the general definitions of conservative and liberal as I see it are these:
Conservative: Wants a smaller central government (A lie), wants more economic freedom with less taxes(Another lie), does want to legislate its fundamental christian values (thats true) For personal property rights. (Half true)
Liberal: Wants a larger, central government to allow for persons to economically taken care of and equal.(Pretty true) Wants individuals to have freedom of expression, religion, and thought. (Kinda true) Wants to have a centrally controlled economy. (True) Against property rights. (True)
I oppose both, but at least the liberal is more honest.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
freddy05
Advanced Member
Member # 5854
|
posted
Ahar- Strictly philisophically, and historically speaking, you´ve nailed it.
However... the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have been completely taken over in the American Radio Talk Show market and more recently Fox News.
When Rush Limbaugh first started becoming famous, he defined himself as being "Conservative" and not "Republican" because he had some issues with the Republican party that he wanted to distance himself from.
Many Americans listen to Rush or other conservative talk shows literally hours a day. (As did I in my former life ) I can tell you from experience that the definitions of the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have evolved from their classical meanings to the ones you are seeing on these boards. While historically the words had neutral connotations in regards to good and evil, now "Conservative" = Good and "Liberal" = Evil.
The new definitions have moved from talk radio, to foxnews, into church sermons, and casual American discussion.
Which is why this discussion I fear is doomed to failure. You will be using the words in the philisophical, historical, and intellectual sense... while those who debate you will be using the newer political definitions.
But I see your points! Historically speaking... Conservatives crucified Jesus... Conservatives fed Christians to lions... Conservatives burned heritics at the steak! Of course I understand the words, so I know that has nothing to do with "Conservatives" of today, but its a fun play on words.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
Several people on the board have used the word liberal when referring to my posts, so I thought I would start a thread to discuss how we may see these political positions in relation to christianity. I will use the definition posted by Caretaker in another thread, which differs from that within my dictionary but is close enough. For the purposes of this thread, I don't consider conservative or liberal to reflect a particular political party (especially because the 2nd and 3rd parties within the UK are the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats).
Main Entry: lib•er•al•ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Main Entry: con•ser•va•tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
A conservative is one who favours tradition and social stability, whereas a liberal favours progress. Given the laments that I have read on this board, I would say that most of us here do not favour the current situation with US and UK society and believe that radical change is required. This is not a conservative viewpoint, this is a liberal viewpoint.
Liberalism and conservatism have somehow been linked to particular policies within the political spheres in both the UK and the US. Therefore, a liberal is characterised as someone who is secular, with views such as support for abortion, a pathalogical hate of Israel etc. A conservative is characterised as the opposite - a religious person who has a pathalogical support for Israel and hate of any kind of abortion.
These are false characterisations. Someone can be described as a liberal or conservative on a particular topic or issue, but very few people can be described as conservative on all topics.
Take abortion for example - the majority view and position in law in both the US and the UK is that abortion should be allowed. To be a conservative in the true sense of the word on the topic of abortion is to SUPPORT the status quo and prefer an incremental change - to want a radical change (as I have seen expressed as opinion by many on this board) is a liberal view, that is one of a great level of change.
Can any of us really say we are happy with the situation within society today? Do we want to keep it this way or make changes? If you want to make significant changes and as quickly as possible, read the definition of 'conservative' and ask yourself if that is the best description of your views.
Christianity is a fundamentally radical movement - it doesn't agree with the status quo secular materialism of society. It promotes radical changes both within the individual and within society. Jesus was a radical - his teachings we very different from the othodoxy of the day. He did not preach incremental 'conservative' change within us, getting a little better each day. He preached radical change for each person!
Cast off your preconceptions of liberal and conservative that link to individual positions on political issues - you are not a conservative, you're probably beyond a liberal, you're a radical :
10.a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
