[dwashbur]

Yes, there was no theory to go along with liberalism in the ancient world.More accurately, there was no social contract theory. Such things as, moral sense, behaviouralism and scientific naturalism did not appear until Hobbes and Locke came along. Even then the idea was subject to constant revision and change over hundreds of years. A process which is still going on today.

I guess the only political theory that existed at the time of Jesus was the theory of,' do as Rome says or pay the consequences'.

As far as Jesus and everyone else was concerned they had very few political options to choose from.

Tut

Within Judaism the same was more or less true religiously, which is what the question was about. The two major factions were the Pharisees, who used the entire Old Testament, believed in a resurrection and that sort of thing, and the Sadducees, who only used the Torah and denied resurrection of the body. Which was liberal and which was conservative? It depends on who you talk to. Jesus basically rejected them both and said HE was the fulfillment of the law and the only way to God. Was that a liberal idea, or a return to a more conservative Judaic idea that emphasized repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation to God? Again, I don't think we can apply either label to him. Radical? Definitely. A departure from the status quo? To be sure. Liberal? In some ways. Conservative? In some ways. Unique? Now we're getting somewhere.

[TUT317]

Within Judaism the same was more or less true religiously, which is what the question was about. The two major factions were the Pharisees, who used the entire Old Testament, believed in a resurrection and that sort of thing, and the Sadducees, who only used the Torah and denied resurrection of the body. Which was liberal and which was conservative? It depends on who you talk to. Jesus basically rejected them both and said HE was the fulfillment of the law and the only way to God. Was that a liberal idea, or a return to a more conservative Judaic idea that emphasized repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation to God? Again, I don't think we can apply either label to him. Radical? Definitely. A departure from the status quo? To be sure. Liberal? In some ways. Conservative? In some ways. Unique? Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, I think these labels don't really stick all that well. 'Uniqueness' sounds like a better starting point to me.


Tut

[JoeT777]

I don’t know that I could agree with dwashbur's statement that Christ “rejected” both conservatism and liberalism – to be frank, I don’t see it. I think it’s safe to say that when Christ says ‘woe unto you,’ it’s not a good thing. Look at what is ‘WOE’ed and see if we can pick up any patterns. I’ve assumed that those ‘woes’ made by the Apostle carry the same weight as if spoken by Christ.


‘Woes’ found in New Testament verses of the Douay Reims (excluding the Apocalypse)

• Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13 (to of towns and communities that refused to recognize the Messiah)
• Matthew 18:7; Luke 17:1 (to the world because of scandals, and the scandalous)
• Matthew 23:13 (to hypocrites who misguide the faithful)
• Matthew 23:14 (to Pharisees and hypocrites who mistreat widows, and presumably the poor in general)
• Matthew 23:15 (to scribes Pharisees, hypocrites who proselytize)
• Matthew 23:16; Luke 11:43 (to guides who don’t know the way – those who misguide the faithful)
• Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42; Luke 11:43 (to scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites who circumvent their responsibilities to God.)
• Matthew 23:25 (to scribe, Pharisees, hypocrites who give the appearance of cleanliness, yet are filled with vice.)
• Matthew 23:27; Luke 11:44 (to scribe, Pharisees, hypocrites who give the appearance of holiness, yet are unclean.)
• Matthew 23:29; Luke 11:47 (to scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites who presume holiness through by falsely honoring the Saints.)
• Matthew 26:24: Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22 (to the man who betrayes God.)
• Luke 6:24 (to the rich for materialism.)
• Luke 6:26 (to those failing their neighbor’s need.)
• Luke 11:46 (to you lawyers for burdening men they cannot bear without contributing to the community.)
• Luke 11:52 (to you lawyers befuddle knowledge)
• Corinthians 9:16 (to those charged with but don’t preach not the gospel.)
• Jude 1:11 (to them that go in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam)

I don’t see any pattern with respect to liberals or conservatives except for hypocrites and those who scandalize, do you?

JoeT

[arcura]

NeedKarma ,
It is the being a PERFECT Jew that triggered the thought...
No deviation from what a Jew is supposed to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

JoeT,
Perhaps then that those who say Jesus was a liberal at times, and a conservative at times, and probably a progressive are on to something.
Unique MIGHT cover ir but that word does not explain what the uniqueness is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[classyT]

All,

Jesus was (is) perfect. When he was living as a man on this earth, when mercy and grace was needed in a situation... He GAVE it. When someone needed to be reprimanded.. HE DID IT. He knew the hearts of men. He knew how to deal with each person exactly the right way.

I don't see how we could label anything he did with what we consider these terms to be today. (conservative, or liberal)

He isn't a democrat and he isn't a republican... politcally speaking either.

AND incidentally to PROVE it... When he does come back and sets his foot on the mount of Olivies and splits it into and walks in and takes his rightful place as King of Kings and Lord of Lords... there won't even BE a vote. When HE comes back... he is NOT coming as the LAMB he is coming as the LION.

Liberals and conservatives will be the thing of the past. Because there is only going to be PERFECTION.

[arcura]

classyT,
Thanks much for your thoughts on that.
But I do think that we can label Jesus with our modern words to some extent, but not fully.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

JoeT,
Perhaps then that those who say Jesus was a liberal at times, and a conservative at times, and probably a progressive are on to something.
Unique MIGHT cover ir but that word does not explain what the uniqueness is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred:

I’m not sure where you’re headed with your inquiry.

The terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ used in context with politics are related more towards ideologies. In a democratic society such as ours citizens are obligated (but not required) to vote. It’s an act of good citizenship. The importance for Catholics is to vote considering their Catholic morals and ethics. Catholics are encouraged, to vote a ‘formed conscience’. Catholicism extends an obligation to faithfully receive and act on the Church’s teaching whether it relates to the political act of voting or any other issue in which we are given the opportunity to shape. “We bring a consistent moral framework—drawn from basic human reason that is illuminated by Scripture and the teaching of the Church—for assessing issues, political platforms, and campaigns. We also bring broad experience in serving those in need—educating the young, caring for the sick, sheltering the homeless, helping women who face difficult pregnancies, feeding the hungry, welcoming [legal] immigrants and refugees, reaching out in global solidarity, and pursuing peace.” This is where I get the mantra ‘vote Catholic’. (I inserted the word ‘legal’ given the current situation on our nations southern border because I can’t imagine Catholic Bishops suggesting illegal activity such as smuggling or other similar illegal activity in a sovereign democratic nation whose rights and obligations are to control its borders.)

Liberalism, in context of faith or politics, is a shared conscience based on a narrow-minded assertion of the individual’s unconditional right to absolute independence from society, social norms, and authority – authority of any type. These intellectual giants postulate “their” truth, free of the restraints formed principles or ethics; after all there are no respected authorities, so why should they be constrained. Liberalism usually includes principled elements of positive law being self determined from within, progressivism that includes or demands equality of outcome, large controlling government, a majority consensus outweighs Christian moral and ethics, the greatest error of liberalism in my estimation is that mankind is capable of bringing utopia to the world – by hook or crook.

The dilemma for liberalism is that those who think as they please will do as they please. Such dysfunctional logic in our culture results in a malfunctioning society. The liberal press unwittingly reports the results of a malformed society in its reports; e.g. murderers freed because they weren’t properly informed of their rights, child rapist set free because they had an unfortunate childhood, women have the ‘right’ to kill children before their born so they can be ‘liberated’ from child rearing – I can only assume they’re being liberated from the consequence of the act of liberalism.

A humorous absurdity comes to mind; with such logical intellect one wonders how long it will be before liberals ban or imprison god – after all, any ultimate-authority outside themselves is constraining and must be illegal. Just imagine the silly vision of President Obama trying to stuff this indescribable, unknowable, blob of un-authority called “god” into a cell. Without a creator we find liberals truly absent of one human emotion; humor.

The liberal is compelled to control all matters of our society that have not come from himself; (this includes excessive cholesterol from that cheeseburger you’re eating) what he can’t control he regulates, what he can’t regulate he taxes, what he can’t tax he bans. Lastly the liberal feels that he alone has the freedom to pass judgment over politics, morals, science or religion and in doing so demands the unrestrained use of the press. Any press not willing to cooperate with the liberal is repressed.

A more concise view of a liberal person is one who holds that there are no absolute truths. “What’s true for you may not be true for me” is the usual refrain. Since there are no absolutes in truth, the liberal becomes the sole arbiter of what is true and what isn't. As illogical as this might be, a liberal can hold two contrary beliefs at the same time. However, since the liberal is the arbiter of what is and isn’t truth we often find ourselves face to face with absurdity, both truths can be true. The reason is that all truth relative to the liberal, thus truth is whatever the liberal asserts it to be.

Proclaiming a truth outside himself is to acknowledge an authority, acknowledging an authority means that he no longer passes judgment (judgments are passed by the authority), having no authority means that he no longer can control, regulate, or tax. Finally, he can no longer assert his independence – obviously a full circle of ruin for the liberal – i.e. a really bad hair day.

Rationalism is the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned by the state and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, a liberal government or religion is a SECULAR government, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life; sucha s society is a veritable atheism society.

I can’t visualize Christ has being ‘Liberal’ when defined this way.

Conservatism as we define it today is nearly the moral and ethical opposite of liberalism. I don’t have the time to elaborate, I’ll do it later. (I’ll try to expand this later).

Considering both conservatism and liberalism I find myself leaning heavily towards conservatism, yet within a group that ‘right reasoning’ (no pun intended). You see, I’m neither conservative nor liberal, but orthodox; that is I try to reason within a conscience formed by the Church:

It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4)

That is to say, I vote Catholic. I don't have a clue where Christ would fit in all this.

Resources: http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizen...CStatement.pdf

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT,
I must disagree with you UNLESS you use the word ultra radical for such liberals as you described.
Most that I know do think that feeding the hungry, curing the sick, caring for others is a necessity as do I as did Jesus.
Personally I a former Democrat and now an independent who dislikes the ultra radical on both sides. They are extremist.
Getting back to what Jesus was like, I have explained somewhat of what I was looking for, not a political point of view for Him.
Was He a conservative for being a perfect Jew?
Was He a liberal because he healed the sick and lame and blind and wanted people to be fed?
Was He a progressive in that He started a new Jewish religion?
That is the way I was thinking... No politics.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[kp2171]

I wouldn't call Jesus a liberal or conservative. I would call him a "hell raising" lover of real social justice. Somehow I don't think "liberal" or "conservative" embody this crude definition of mine... as my old math teacher might say, there is overlap in the domains, but one is not equal to the other.

at the very core, maybe reduced to His most literal self, Christ was a "radical" who was clearly disgusted with the oppressive power structure and who saw confrontive nonviolence as the only means by which to truly change the world... a notion that would play out over and over in the past century. South africa. India. The US south. etc...

I don't want to hijack this thread... but I have a question that I think I can run into this without getting off topic...

a couple of years ago I read an interpretation of the sermon on the mount that cast a new angle (for me) on the "turn the other cheek, give up your cloak, and go the extra mile" points.

now... please forgive me here. I'm not particularly well read. I'm certainly not willing to battle in the religious boards... it gets a little too hot in here for my taste and my abilities to spar intellectually... but I love the discussion generally...

this interpretation focused on the consistent theme of Christ challenging those in power, or those benefiting from an unjust power structure...

to present the other cheek after being struck always seemed to represent a willingness to simply be injured in doing the right thing. But id read where in His time a strike upon the right cheek is more than just a simple blow.

that the laws of the time dictated what was acceptable and what was not... and a strike to the left cheek of a servant or wife or child would be considered a reprimand... not a blow to injure. A hit to put one back in one's place.

but in this reading it talked about the use of the right hand versus the left. That the blow with the right hand to the left cheek would be an open hand blow. A slap.

that the use of the left hand in this reprimand was... I don't know if "unclean" is the right word... lets say not proper?

so... you reprimand a servant with an open hand blow on the left cheek. They turn and present the other cheek. What next?

well... you could again hit with your right in a backhand, but that just shows the futility of the gesture. Power is lost. Or at least you are now an equal to the hitter...

you could hit with your left hand but there's issues with social customs of the time? So basically it isn't just be willing to take a strike... its be brave enough to show the oppressor the futility of his actions.

same with giving your cloak if one is to sue you for your tunic. That if you owed a debt, but were poor, and the creditor was callous enough to strip you of your tunic... well, why not shame him and all in the court by stripping naked and giving everything you had on your body?

and going the "extra mile"... tied to the roman custom of allowing soldiers to consign local people to help them carry their load for a set distance, but not beyond that... so a person who refused to stop, who continued and possibly made the oppressor face penalties or reprimand for not following the roman laws/customs would basically shame the soldier... make him beg you to stop carrying him load.

so... all that said and I guess my point is I LOVE that interpretation. Anybody else read this or heard of this?

to me... this resounds through the gospel... Christ, if nothing else, was a hater of oppression and injustice... and responded to that injustice in "unconventional" ways...

in ways that are sometimes hard to trust in, ways that don't always act as fast as we would like (many nonviolent changes in justice took decades, even generations), and in ways that challenge what we value the most.

I just don't think I can look at the words liberal or conservative and find enough overlap.

so HWJV?

(how would Jesus vote?)

I'm thinking He'd be putting on his steel toed sandals...

sorry if this was too far off topic... love some feedback.

Christ is the ultimate rebel and sh!tkicker, near as I can tell... and I just don't see conservative or liberal and being adequate descriptions of what he said and did.

[TUT317]

Fred:

Rationalism is the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned by the state and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, a liberal government or religion is a SECULAR government, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life; sucha s society is a veritable atheism society.


JoeT

Hi Joe,

I've worked out the problem. You are using the term, 'rationalism' in the medieval understanding of the word. Later, when the empirical sciences developed (liberalism being one) there was a need to redefine the meaning. Before empiricism rationalism was a suitable epistemology.

Today it is not suitable because empiricism doesn't fit anywhere in a rationalist world view. To lump empirical knowledge into the rationalist basket is totally incorrect and inaccurate.

If you are going to talk about rationalism then you need to understand how the meaning has changed.

I am not saying that liberalism is the way to go, but if we are going to talk about it you at least need to have an understanding of it.

Regards

Tut

[classyT]

Kp,

I agree with some of your thoughts on the Lord Jesus. He was RADICAL for his time and He put all the hypocrites in their places. I believe the religious Jewish political leaders thought he was too dangerous to even live. He was turning everything upside down and showing people who THEY really were and who HE really was. They HATED him for it. He was merciful when the situation called for mercy and he called a spade a spade when he was reprimanding the hypocritcal religious pharasee's HE was and still is AWESOME.

[kp2171]

So..

I was at an engagement last night involving a local group of "religious do-gooders"... people who focus on work with the poor and the hungry for the most part... "gospely-type" peeps. I've been slowly absorbed into their mix over the last couple of years.

And during this engagement we had a speaker who had several great stories to tell... but ill relate just one here, and I promise to tie it into the thread. If anyone here ever reads my writings on other boards they are well aware of my talent for rambling and my love of ellipses and hate for all things capitalized... but I digress...

So... the man speaking has been a deacon in the catholic church for 20 years. Done his best to be good and do good in spite of himself. His third of three stories opens with anticipation of mother theresas arriving for a brief time at his parish.

Apparently when mother theresa would come to visit it was worse than the cable guy.

That is, she would be there sometime between Thursday and early Monday. Be ready.

This was to discourage the media campouts... all the noise and fuss that had nothing to do with her works whatsoever.

So the parish is thrilled. A chance of a lifetime. All are anticipating and anxiously awaiting all day Thursday.

And Friday.

Then comes Saturday.

Tick. Tick. Tick.

To make matters worse, there are women in blue cloth fluttering about throughout the week... not mother theresa, but they are about, distracting and tricking all into thinking she is here.

Nada.

Surely she would come for Sunday service, right?

So... no sign of mother theresa. Service is over and the deacon speaking is helping a congregational member out. The member in question is very, very sick. Emaciated. Old. Sick with aids. Seizures are common. The two men helping him have a hundres lbs on him on each side. The man steps in inches... not even a shuffle... but he insists on walking. It takes 30 minutes to help the man take ten "regular" strides.

But they help. They talk to him. They help him. And he suddenly has a seizure.

One that throws him to the ground. One that stikes his body to the floor.

The deacon speaking says that there is a surreal moment at a time like this... when you are standing over someone in need of help and you don't know what to do and you don't even understand what is happening. Its maybe just a few seconds of wondering, standing over the man, looking for an answer for "what next?"

And then he sees a flash of blue come across the hall.

And suddenly she is under the man. His head in her lap. Her hand stroking his hair. And his seizure stops.

And mother theresa looks up to the deacons and says, without being scornful, "my brothers... you love Jesus from down here, not from up there"...

...

...

So... I cannot apply "liberal" or "conservative" to an act that in mere seconds plays out the entire gospel at its sacred core.

Christ gave His life tearing down barriers... so why label Him?

Does it glorify Christ? Promote the Kingdom?

[arcura]

kp2171,
Thank you for your interesting thoughts on this subject.
I found them to be enlightening and I understand what you think about Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[InfoJunkie4Life]

I suppose it really doesn't matter...

Christ tore down many beliefs of the time and upheld the conservative ideals presented in the OT prophesies. He can be considered liberal for going against the crowd, or conservative for holding on to truths of old. Either way you look at it, he just did what he had to regardless of the political swing.

[JoeT777]

I suppose it really doesn't matter...

Christ tore down many beliefs of the time and upheld the conservative ideals presented in the OT prophesies. He can be considered liberal for going against the crowd, or conservative for holding on to truths of old. Either way you look at it, he just did what he had to regardless of the political swing.

No he didn't, where did you get a notion like that? He built up the Law, the prophet and the Church. (Cf. Matt 5:17)

JoeT.

[dwashbur]

No he didn't, where did you get a notion like that? He built up the Law, the prophet and the Church. (Cf. Matt 5:17)

JoeT.

What notion are you asking about?

[InfoJunkie4Life]

No he didn't, where did you get a notion like that? He built up the Law, the prophet and the Church. (Cf. Matt 5:17)

JoeT.

I said He tore down beliefs of the time for instance Matt 5:43 (Golden Rule) He says "You have been taught, but..." How many times did He condemn the religious leaders of the time, do you think that the way they were acting was common? At this time in history the Jews weren't always as faithful as they were at other times. Christ would have gone against many of the social norms and customs. For instance, look at the good Samaritan. The Samaritans and Jews didn't exactly get along, Christ didn't care what the people thought, He just did what is right and (as you said) upheld the law, which would make Him a clash with many of the beliefs of the time.

[JoeT777]

Hi Joe,

I've worked out the problem. You are using the term, 'rationalism' in the medieval understanding of the word. Later, when the empirical sciences developed (liberalism being one) there was a need to redefine the meaning. Before empiricism rationalism was a suitable epistemology.

Today it is not suitable because empiricism doesn't fit anywhere in a rationalist world view. To lump empirical knowledge into the rationalist basket is totally incorrect and inaccurate.

If you are going to talk about rationalism then you need to understand how the meaning has changed.

I am not saying that liberalism is the way to go, but if we are going to talk about it you at least need to have an understanding of it.

Regards

Tut

Paraphrasing A. R. Lacey's definition; “any view appealing to reason as [the sole] source of knowledge or justification” is an extreme form of rationalism. The mirror of rationalism is empiricism, from the Greek school of empiric, you might say the source of knowledge is experience or measure. The former looks to define the cosmos from the interior intellect, the latter looks to define the cosmos through the measure of nature. God's Truth cannot be found or deduced from an interior intellect, nor can a Divine omniscient truth be measured. Thus, Divine Truth can only be known through God's revelation – this is knowledge of 'Truth'. (Cf. JoeT, may 2010)

Liberalism is defined best during the French Revolution; "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself;" this is relativism. The nature of a liberal truth is determined solely in the interior.

No, I don't think I need to change my understanding.


JoeT

[JoeT777]

What notion are you asking about?

The notion that Christ tore down beliefs (presumably of Judaism, i.e. God's Kingdom)

JoeT