Friday, January 27, 2006
Why I Wouldn't Make a Good Liberal
Humor was found this morning as I opened my comments to this post where chet said, "Put your beliefs into actual practice and you'll make a great liberal." I'm sure he meant it as compliment or at least in the best possible manner; yet, after restraining my laughter and coming to my senses from the lack of oxygen, I thought I'd exposit for him and all the primary reason that I would not make a good liberal.
The significant difference between me and a liberal is that I believe that Bible means what it says and that God, having the authority to tell me how to live my life, does so through the Bible. Liberals hate any authority other than themselves. Their system of ethics is derived completely from their feelings or what they call, "a sense of right and wrong". They have to create systems for belief like the Humanist Manifesto (and when that didn't work another one), which they then use to actively justify abortion and euthanasia; Their "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world" (Col 2:8) becomes their religion.
The Bible's standard is unmoving though its application changes with time. The differences between the conservative and liberal approaches to interpreting the Bible is similar to the difference between an originalists' interpretation of the Constitution and a "living Constitution." Originalists believe the Constitution, the actual words, have a meaning from which everything stems. Living constitutionalists believe that its meaning changes with time and that we can warp its words, forgetting about original intent, and force their interpretation into whatever they choose (ie, the hidden right to privacy = abortion). The hermeneutical approach is very similar.
Through time, the Bible acts as an anchor, external and eternal in its origin, for our faith. It says the same thing today as it did hundreds of years ago. The original intent of the Author remains significant and is the strength for the life of a believer in Jesus Christ.
Related Tags: Hermeneutics, Liberal Christians
The significant difference between me and a liberal is that I believe that Bible means what it says and that God, having the authority to tell me how to live my life, does so through the Bible. Liberals hate any authority other than themselves. Their system of ethics is derived completely from their feelings or what they call, "a sense of right and wrong". They have to create systems for belief like the Humanist Manifesto (and when that didn't work another one), which they then use to actively justify abortion and euthanasia; Their "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world" (Col 2:8) becomes their religion.
The Bible's standard is unmoving though its application changes with time. The differences between the conservative and liberal approaches to interpreting the Bible is similar to the difference between an originalists' interpretation of the Constitution and a "living Constitution." Originalists believe the Constitution, the actual words, have a meaning from which everything stems. Living constitutionalists believe that its meaning changes with time and that we can warp its words, forgetting about original intent, and force their interpretation into whatever they choose (ie, the hidden right to privacy = abortion). The hermeneutical approach is very similar.
Through time, the Bible acts as an anchor, external and eternal in its origin, for our faith. It says the same thing today as it did hundreds of years ago. The original intent of the Author remains significant and is the strength for the life of a believer in Jesus Christ.
Related Tags: Hermeneutics, Liberal Christians
Thoughtful Readers Speak:
<< Home
RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.
You just don't get it. I tried to explain it, but you ignored me. It's not that we hate authority other than ourselves, it's that THERE ISN'T ANY AUTHORITY OTHER THAN OURSELVES. We're not anarchists; we recognize the need for rules and order. Also, liberal is not synonymous with atheist.
I'm a liberal, but I hold down a job and follow the laws. There's two major authorities over myself right there. I'm on great terms with my boss, who's bending over backwards to get me in a better-paying situation, and I have nothing but respect for the cops and lawmakers who make the government work.
"Liberals hate authority"? I don't see it. And "originalism"? No conservative is truly an originalist. As proof look at all the backwards bending to justify Bush's wiretapping, which Bush himself has described as illegal. Suddenly, all of a sudden, the 4th Amendment doesn't actually mean you need a warrant to violate the security of someone's person and effects.
"Liberals hate authority"? I don't see it. And "originalism"? No conservative is truly an originalist. As proof look at all the backwards bending to justify Bush's wiretapping, which Bush himself has described as illegal. Suddenly, all of a sudden, the 4th Amendment doesn't actually mean you need a warrant to violate the security of someone's person and effects.
The right to privacy isn't hidden; it's right there in the 4th Amendment. Of course it doesn't say "privacy", that word didn't exist when the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights. (Language changes a little in 200 years, funnily enough.) So instead, they described exactly what a "right to privacy" means.
Chet says, "'privacy', that word didn't exist when the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights."
Courteousy of the Online Etymology Dictionary:
private (adj.)
c.1380, from L. privatus "set apart, belonging to oneself" (not to the state), used in contrast to publicus, communis; originally pp. stem of privare "to separate, deprive," from privus "one's own, individual," from Old L. pri "before." Replaced O.E. syndrig. Grew popular 17c. as a preferred alternative to the snobbish overtones in common. Meaning "not open to the public" is from 1398. Of persons, "not holding public office" it is recorded from 1432...Privacy is first recorded c.1450. Privatization is attested from 1959; privatize first recorded 1968.
Courteousy of the Online Etymology Dictionary:
private (adj.)
c.1380, from L. privatus "set apart, belonging to oneself" (not to the state), used in contrast to publicus, communis; originally pp. stem of privare "to separate, deprive," from privus "one's own, individual," from Old L. pri "before." Replaced O.E. syndrig. Grew popular 17c. as a preferred alternative to the snobbish overtones in common. Meaning "not open to the public" is from 1398. Of persons, "not holding public office" it is recorded from 1432...Privacy is first recorded c.1450. Privatization is attested from 1959; privatize first recorded 1968.
Pony up your kidney, JR, there are people out there who will die without it. Oh, what's that? You think you have the right to decide which medical procedures you undergo?
JR, I know lots of Liberals and only some of them are how you describe. There are many Bible believing Christians that are considered Liberal.
As a word for a secret government council or meeting, yes, the word existed at the time.
As a word for a person's right to keep their own council, as a right to the security of their person and effects, no, "privacy" did not have that meaning at the time. Your dictionary pretty much proves that.
As a word for a person's right to keep their own council, as a right to the security of their person and effects, no, "privacy" did not have that meaning at the time. Your dictionary pretty much proves that.
so the word DID exist.
chet you're such a joker or you just like to spout off about things you really don't know anything about.
one of the two.
chet you're such a joker or you just like to spout off about things you really don't know anything about.
one of the two.
# posted by 
: 8:10 PM
: 8:10 PM
angel, you're right; there are good christians who are liberal. you certainly don't have to be conservative to be christian.
but what i've found is that their beliefs are inconsistent.
but what i've found is that their beliefs are inconsistent.
# posted by : 8:11 PM
: 8:11 PM
jr, i'm not always on board when you write political things; but you're pretty close about the Bible. keep up the good word regardless of the two hate-monger who troll your site.
why don't you ban them?
why don't you ban them?
# posted by : 8:14 PM
: 8:14 PM
why don't you ban them?
Ban us for what? I'd like to know why he doesn't ban Randy, who does nothing but call my wife names.
Ban us for what? I'd like to know why he doesn't ban Randy, who does nothing but call my wife names.
but what i've found is that their beliefs are inconsistent.
Franklin, I find that to be true for both Liberals and Conservatives.
Franklin, I find that to be true for both Liberals and Conservatives.
Here is the rub in this arguement. The concept in any fashion that a human being have individual rights of any kind does not come out of a vacuum. The intellectual environment that says that each citizen is surrounded by protections that make him/her special, protected and not only every bit as powerful as another but also the source of all government is sourced in the concept that God has endowed us with a cosmic uniqueness. That we first are spiritual beings and that specialness overflows into all of life. This is the primary authority that is credited from Runnymeade to the Constitution. Then and only then does the protections concerning a human being in the Constitution make any fundemental sense.
It is not an accident that civilizations where the individual has no status and the government rules only by group caviat have taken a good long while to move into modern government models. Democracy itself works only when the one person one vote mentality has respect because the individual and their God breathed uniqueness gives foundation to all of the functions of society. We must agree that some truths are self evident. And that there is some authority for that or the seeds of anarchy are sown. In the minds of many who liberated lands, slaves or fought the totalitarian views of Kings or Dictators was the thought that God's work was being done. And that is not an accident.
It is not an accident that civilizations where the individual has no status and the government rules only by group caviat have taken a good long while to move into modern government models. Democracy itself works only when the one person one vote mentality has respect because the individual and their God breathed uniqueness gives foundation to all of the functions of society. We must agree that some truths are self evident. And that there is some authority for that or the seeds of anarchy are sown. In the minds of many who liberated lands, slaves or fought the totalitarian views of Kings or Dictators was the thought that God's work was being done. And that is not an accident.
The intellectual environment that says that each citizen is surrounded by protections that make him/her special, protected and not only every bit as powerful as another but also the source of all government is sourced in the concept that God has endowed us with a cosmic uniqueness.
That's nonsense, and if you can't imagine a secular justification for the same concept, you're simply not trying hard enough. To start with I'd read up on John Rawls' "Original Position" (sometimes referred to as the "Veil of Ignorance."
The Constitution does not mention any spiritual powers nor any creator, contrary to Mark's assertion above.
That's nonsense, and if you can't imagine a secular justification for the same concept, you're simply not trying hard enough. To start with I'd read up on John Rawls' "Original Position" (sometimes referred to as the "Veil of Ignorance."
The Constitution does not mention any spiritual powers nor any creator, contrary to Mark's assertion above.
I'm seriously sick of the whole "there is no morality without a god" argument. It's clearly false. Atheists are obviously capable of acting morally. It's pretty simple, really. Humans need to cooperate to successfully rear young, thus people that can follow the rules most of the time win. There are times when the benefit of breaking the rules outweighs the risk of getting caught, and so people sometimes break the rules. Most social animals operate by similar rules.
chet: the bottom of the Constitution reads, "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America..."
I wonder who that is...our Lord..hmmmm? Any guesses? Clearly your assertion is incorrect.
However, I will cede that this acknowledgement is indeed not to be taken as endorsement of any religion.
I wonder who that is...our Lord..hmmmm? Any guesses? Clearly your assertion is incorrect.
However, I will cede that this acknowledgement is indeed not to be taken as endorsement of any religion.
# posted by : 9:05 AM
: 9:05 AM
erica, no one says that there are not moral things performed by immoral people. But, if your standard for morality is defined by your perception, then murder is not wrong to those who perceive it not to be...unless, there is something external that defines morality.
If we are all animals, as you suggest, then the survival of the fittest reigns. If we have nothing more than instinct, then morality is nonsensical.
But the truth is that no one in the world is amoral; we were created with a sense of right and wrong. across oceans, mountains, ethnicities, and races, similar moral codes exist. this would strike me as odd unless there is a creator who instill this in us.
Post a Comment
If we are all animals, as you suggest, then the survival of the fittest reigns. If we have nothing more than instinct, then morality is nonsensical.
But the truth is that no one in the world is amoral; we were created with a sense of right and wrong. across oceans, mountains, ethnicities, and races, similar moral codes exist. this would strike me as odd unless there is a creator who instill this in us.
# posted by : 9:11 AM
: 9:11 AM<< Home
