Biblical discussion on judging others

Started by Imperial_Samura6 pages

True. Bill Clinton having a bit of fun with the hired help is not indicative of liberal ideas. Just like a conservative having an affair (which also happens) is not indicative of conservative ideals.

The closest it comes is that generally liberals are seen to support sexual freedom. But it is only the more extreme liberals that advocate affairs as necessary or right.

Originally posted by Alliance
Hah. That stuff is not liberal at all.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True. Bill Clinton having a bit of fun with the hired help is not indicative of liberal ideas. Just like a conservative having an affair (which also happens) is not indicative of conservative ideals.

The closest it comes is that generally liberals are seen to support sexual freedom. But it is only the more extreme liberals that advocate affairs as necessary or right.

I understand this, but, it is seen as liberal. It is the attitude that people in general see, regardless of accuracy. I abhor the term conservative on the same level, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, others, they all cast a horrible shadow on the conservative side that is not better than the examples of liberal I presented.

We'll, if you think Joe and Jane American are intelligent enough to understand politics....

Originally posted by Alliance
We'll, if you think Joe and Jane American are intelligent enough to understand politics....

I don't think people choose properly, they choose the best of two "evils", as it were. I think politics isn't fully understood by many, if any, outside the politicians themselves.

Yes, because fortunately, life does not come in dichotomies.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes, because fortunately, life does not come in dichotomies.

Which makes a two party system an error, imo.

Yes, but unfortunately, that likely won't change in the US.

Originally posted by Regret
Like I said, if people like this exist, I doubt they would judge another.

People like that DO exist...

Originally posted by Regret
I dread the word due to the fact that things like Penthouse, Bill Clinton in the Oval Office with Monica, and other things like this are considered liberal, and I don't want to be lumped in with that type of thing.

Having affairs has nothing to do with Liberalism, as plenty of Conservatives have had affairs as well. 👇

Liberals and Conservatives alike look at things such as Penthouse...the difference is, Liberals have the balls to admit it, while Conservatives deny thier participation in the promotion of these kinds of things. ✅

Originally posted by Regret
Which makes a two party system an error, imo.
I'll probably vote 3rd party next time.............I've learned the lesson.

Oh and many many protestant churches hand out literature for telling you how to vote Republican...........I don't believe Catholic churches do that.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

Having affairs has nothing to do with Liberalism, as plenty of Conservatives have had affairs as well. 👇

Liberals and Conservatives alike look at things such as Penthouse...the difference is, Liberals have the balls to admit it, while Conservatives deny thier participation in the promotion of these kinds of things. ✅

Er you're not saying that because it happens that makes it ok are you?

Well, morality is a relative issue.

Is it?

Yes.

explain it to me then??
How is mortality relative.......hmm?

Because people have different interpetations on what is right and wrong. These interpretations are not endowed they are taught and self edited.

Since there is no ONE correct culture and no ONE correct way of thinking...morality (inexorably intertwined with these concepts) is also relative.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Having affairs has nothing to do with Liberalism, as plenty of Conservatives have had affairs as well. 👇

Liberals and Conservatives alike look at things such as Penthouse...the difference is, Liberals have the balls to admit it, while Conservatives deny thier participation in the promotion of these kinds of things. ✅

The facts mean nothing as far as my aversion to the term. My aversion comes directly from the perception of the term, which is as I stated. Liberal is viewed as being morally grey. Conservative is often viewed as religious fanaticism, or a similar stance. Whether liberals and conservatives really are or are not this way is irrelevant, I do not like the connotation.

Thats really narrowminded. You know those terms do not mean that. Why not use them?...simply out of fear from public opinion?

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats really narrowminded. You know those terms do not mean that. Why not use them?...simply out of fear from public opinion?

No, I don't hold it as such. The reason to avoid the use of the terms is to avoid someone misinterpreting my views based on a preexisting bias or prejudice. Terms that do not hold their meaning among people should be avoided. Thus liberal is not something I would label myself because by doing so, someone could have the wrong impression of me. It isn't fear, it is prudent caution.

But their misinterpretation is not your fault...its theirs. They need to be educated...and you do nothing but perpetuate these pathetic stereotypes by not breaking them.

Originally posted by Alliance
But their misinterpretation is not your fault...its theirs. They need to be educated...and you do nothing but perpetuate these pathetic stereotypes by not breaking them.

Did some research on the use of the term liberal, and here is a statement that I believe better describes what I have been trying to state:

John A. Widtsoe - Evidences and Reconciliations
9. WHAT IS A LIBERAL RELIGION?
The word liberal, correctly used, has a noble meaning. The true liberal hates slavery of every kind. He battles for human freedom. He wants liberty in thought and action. He is tolerant, free from bigotry, and generous in all his deeds. He places truth above all else and hungers for full truth. He welcomes all new improvements and calls for more—the telegraph, electric light, telephone, printing press, typewriter, railroad, airship, radio. He insists that every new invention must be used for human welfare, with full respect to civil and moral law. In short, the liberal seeks to make better the day in which he lives, and he becomes therefore a crusader for the betterment of the human race.

Such a liberal, to accomplish his purpose, holds fast, without the least concession, to the convictions of his soul. He is anchored to the rock of truth, as he may see it. He never wavers from the basic, underlying principles of the cause, whether of church or state, to which he is committed. All the world knows how and where he stands.

His liberalism lies in his constant attempt to make the underlying unchanging principles of the cause he represents serve the changing conditions of the day. He may differ with the superficial conventions of the past, but not with its established truths. He may refuse to continue the church architecture of the past but will insist that the ancient truths of the gospel be taught in every building dedicated to worship. He may be forever seeking, under changing conditions, to make the doctrine of human brotherhood more effective in behalf of the needy. He is a believer who seeks to use his beliefs in every concern of his life.

Unfortunately, the word liberal is not always properly used. It has been used, or misused, for so many purposes that its original meaning has largely vanished. Word-juggling, making a good word cover a doubtful or an ugly cause, is an age-old pastime. Words are too often used as shields to hide or disguise truth. Many men are inclined to hide their true motives behind a word.

It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth. Neither can one be a liberal in religion except in the application of the underlying doctrine to human needs. It would be as preposterous as speaking of a liberal science, since science rests upon truthful observations of nature. It is only in the use of scientific discoveries that the word liberal may be used. One either accepts or rejects truth. There is no middle course.

Under the true definition of liberalism, the Church of Jesus Christ is preeminently liberal. First, it makes truth and love of truth its foundation. The whole latter-day work was initiated by Joseph Smith's search for truth. "In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right ...?" Thus came the first great vision of Joseph Smith; and as a consequence of his search for truth came the other revelations, and the enduring light-giving structure of the Church. In his differences with the beliefs of the churches of his day, he did not seek cover under the name of an existing church. Instead he frankly formed another Church and fought out the issue on the basis of his own fundamental doctrine. It is understood that every worthy member of the Church must likewise seek and find truth for himself. Then, the Church insists that its truths must be used for human good. The gospel has value only as it fosters the welfare of those who have accepted it. Further, the Church recognizes that there is constant change on earth but insists that every change must respect and use the basic doctrine of the Church. It declares that men "live and move and have their being" under the law of progress. Change steps upon the heels of change in the unfolding of a progressive universe. The simple eternal truths of existence are combined and combined again, in different ways, but progressively, to serve man on his never-ending journey. It is much as the endless combination of the few numerical digits from simple to increasingly larger numbers. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not need to look elsewhere for a liberal Church.

So, I guess I should accept the term. But I do dislike the often viewed opinion of the term.