Have we crossed the line yet?

[RickD]

Fligender wrote:
Does anyone really think that if Jesus came back today he’d become a card carrying member of the GOP? Would he vote for Trump in 2020? The very idea is absurd.

That's an interesting point. Hypothetically, if Jesus were here in the US today, instead of in the Middle East 2000 years ago, he would be paying taxes that support abortion.
And if the US made it mandatory to vote, he may well have voted for Trump!
Wrap your head around that!

[edwardmurphy]

You're not giving Jesus much credit.

[abelcainsbrother]

You're not giving Jesus much credit.

I am, because we were given our freedom because of Jesus.Would Jesus force you to believe in him or to do things his way? No! He would give you the freedom to choose to or not to and he would cry if you rejected him like the jews of his day but he would allow you to suffer the consequences for your decisions and choices you made,but he would not force you to be against abortion,although he would be.He would not force you to be against slavery but he would be.

[abelcainsbrother]

Fligender wrote:
Does anyone really think that if Jesus came back today he’d become a card carrying member of the GOP? Would he vote for Trump in 2020? The very idea is absurd.

That's an interesting point. Hypothetically, if Jesus were here in the US today, instead of in the Middle East 2000 years ago, he would be paying taxes that support abortion.
And if the US made it mandatory to vote, he may well have voted for Trump!
Wrap your head around that!

Jesus certianly would not be a liberal however he would probably use Republicans hypocrisy in a parable to get a point across about hypocrisy.

[Philip]

ACB: "... he would probably use Republicans hypocrisy in a parable to get a point across about hypocrisy."

Wow, Abe believes there is actually such a thing as Republican hypocrisy. Who knew???!!!

[Fliegender]

Hypothetically, if Jesus were here in the US today, instead of in the Middle East 2000 years ago, he would be paying taxes that support abortion.
And if the US made it mandatory to vote, he may well have voted for Trump!
Wrap your head around that!

There’s no mandatory vote here. If Jesus were a resident of, say, Louisiana, he’d prob’ly go hunting go ‘gator hunting with 12 guys on voting day.

[RickD]

Hypothetically, if Jesus were here in the US today, instead of in the Middle East 2000 years ago, he would be paying taxes that support abortion.
And if the US made it mandatory to vote, he may well have voted for Trump!
Wrap your head around that!

There’s no mandatory vote here. If Jesus were a resident of, say, Louisiana, he’d prob’ly go hunting go ‘gator hunting with 12 guys on voting day.

Since voting day is in November, Jesus would be breaking the law, if he hunted alligators in November. Gator hunting season begins on the first Wednesday of September, and ends 30 days later.

My whole point with the hypothetical of voting being mandatory by law, was to show that Jesus would obey the law of the land, not break the law.

I thought the logic was pretty simple, but maybe those of you from the socialist province of Quebec, are a little slow to understand.

[DBowling]

ACB: "... he would probably use Republicans hypocrisy in a parable to get a point across about hypocrisy."

Wow, Abe believes there is actually such a thing as Republican hypocrisy. Who knew???!!!

The real question is does he believe there is such a thing as...
alt-right hypocrisy
alt-right lies
or alt-right racism

[RickD]

ACB: "... he would probably use Republicans hypocrisy in a parable to get a point across about hypocrisy."

Wow, Abe believes there is actually such a thing as Republican hypocrisy. Who knew???!!!

The real question is does he believe there is such a thing as...
alt-right hypocrisy
alt-right lies
or alt-right racism

Hypocrisy, lies, and racism, aren't specific to people in any one political group.

Anyone that believes that there's no hypocrisy, lies, or racism in his political group, either doesn't understand human nature, or is intellectually dishonest.

[Philip]

Rick: Hypocrisy, lies, and racism, aren't specific to people in any one political group.

Anyone that believes that there's no hypocrisy, lies, or racism in his political group, either doesn't understand human nature, or is intellectually dishonest.

Absolutely! But people so often assert a far different narrative, while totally ignoring the sins of their own favored group.

[Stu]

Pedophelia is extremely marginal in most nations, even in very liberal places like the Netherlands. Actually, in strictly conservative nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is a form of socially acceptable pedophelia...another nail in the coffin of the idea that the Left accepts any weird sexuality while the Right is pure lily white...

There seems to be a fundamental difference in how liberals and conservatives categorize sexual behavior. For example, here's a list of behaviors:

homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, polygamy, promiscuous heterosexuality, heterosexual marriage, same sex marriage

For social conservatives the metric seems to be a blend of "What does Jesus (or an OT cherry pick if it's unclear WJWD) say about this behavior?" and "Does this make me feel icky and uncomfortable?"

For most social conservatives homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, polygamy, promiscuous heterosexuality, and same sex marriage all fail one of the two tests mentioned above and should therefore be railed against, strongly discouraged, and/or outright banned. The only fully acceptable sexual activity involves a man and a woman who are married to each other.

Since they're using the God says no/I feel icky metric to judge the behaviors many social conservatives lump all of those behaviors into the same category - sexual activity - and then assume that anyone who supports anything other than sex within a heterosexual marriage is looking to push us down the slippery slope and into the pit of depravity and doom. Consequently, comments like "First gay marriage, next bestility" make sense to those people.

For most liberals the metric is consent. If the behaviors are consensual it's all good. If not, it can never be okay. A typical liberal would be fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, heterosexual marriage, and same sex marriage, assuming that all of the participants were consenting adults. To be clear, by "fine with" I mean that the typical liberal generally takes a "you be you" approach to other people's' sexuality. That doesn't mean that they enthusiastically support any of those behaviors, that they engage in any or all of them, or that they're fine with their kids being promiscuous. For example, I'm fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, heterosexual marriage, and same sex marriage, but I'm in a 100% monogamous, heterosexual relationship with my wife, and I would not be supportive of my daughters being sexually promiscuous. At all.

On the other hand, for the typical liberal bestiality, child marriage, and pedophilia are completely unacceptable because children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent or of being coequals in the relationship. Sex with animals and kids is abusive and will never be okay. Never. Period.

So as you can see, the slippery slope that many social conservatives bring up when discussing things like marriage equality is not real. If you worry that we might be fine with polygamy then your fears are justified - most of us don't much care about that. If you worry that liberals are trying to weaken society so that non consensual behavior becomes legal then you haven't been listening to us. We will never, never, never support pedophilia or bestiality. Therefore, when social conservatives start howling about how "the left" supports bestiality and pedophilia we're shocked and offended.We do not, never have, and never will support those things, and they have absolutely nothing in common with consensual acts like same sex marriage.

Regarding cannibalism, I have no idea how anyone could possibly think that liberals support that, so I assume that's just a mindless smear from an insane person working his way toward a crazy-eyed ragegasm. It's a bizarre accusation. We don't support cannibalism.

What's this "we" business. You always say not all leftists are the same and so I can't take the actions of one person and point fingers at them as a group. Yet here you are speaking for all leftists.... Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

Besides from what I've seen on this forum you seem like a conservative liberal compared to others out there, so you hardly represent the whole.

[edwardmurphy]

What's this "we" business. You always say not all leftists are the same and so I can't take the actions of one person and point fingers at them as a group. Yet here you are speaking for all leftists.... Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

First off, you calling me a "leftist" is the same as me calling you a "fascist." Leftists are people like Lenin, Mao, and Che Guevara - communist revolutionaries, anarchists, and the like. Referring to all politically liberal people as leftists is a deliberate pejorative aimed at connecting us with totalitarian communists and Marxist guerillas. It's [nonsense]. Cut it out.

Second, when I talk about the left versus the right, or social policy, or economics, or what all ever, I'm talking about those things as they exist in the United States of America, where I live and know what's going on. Just so we're clear.

Back on topic...

I'm not trying to have it both ways. When we talk about political beliefs we're talking about a spectrum. "Left" versus "Right" is an approximation of where an individual's beliefs fall on that spectrum. Acceptance of consensual but non traditional relationships is a socially liberal position. So is support of single payer healthcare, stronger consumer protections, and regulation of Wall Street and the banks. Some people support all of those things. Others support some of them, but are skeptical of others. Most of us have nuanced positions on most things. All that said, the terms left and right have no meaning if we don't generally accept that a certain set of beliefs can be used to place a person somewhere on the political spectrum. Liberals believe certain things, and if you don't believe at least some of those things then you're not a liberal. It has to be that way, or we'll have no frame of reference to even discuss anything.

For example, I grudgingly support marriage equality but I don't love it. The issues isn't that I don't think that homosexual couples should be able to marry, it's that marriage is a religious thing that has nothing to do with the government. When we discuss marriage we're really talking about two things - a religious union and a civil union. In my opinion the religious union is none of the government's business and shouldn't be regulated in any way, but the civil union is a completely secular one, should be open to any interested party, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anybody's religion. My position is based on a blend of my utter indifference to religion and my passionate belief in equality under the law, and my rdging acceptance of marriage equality is based on my understanding that you schlubs will never let us do it properly.

What I criticize about your arguments is your tendency to take examples of extreme, obnoxious, dumbass, or criminal behavior by some politically liberal individual and present them as typical liberal activity or as evidence that "the left" has lost its mind. I have two objections to your methodology.

The first is that it's just a pathetic excuse for thinking. It's completely intellectually bankrupt. It doesn't hold up to a second of scrutiny. And no, you're not arguing that some on the left are crazy. That's a new development. For the last year you've consistently pushed the narrative that "the left" is bonkers and supported it with stories about trivial nonsense, many of which aren't even true. You never support any of it. You never reply when I fact check it and show that it's garbage. You just ignore me and do it again. And again. And again. And it's just...so...stupid.

The second is that you make no effort to apply that ****ty excuse for a metric to your own beliefs. A couple of weeks ago a self identified member of the alt-right posted a racist, anti-immigrant maniphesto warning that white people were being replaced by foreigners then drove 10 hours to El Paso and murdered a bunch of people at a WalMart. That should have shattered your entire worldview. Here you are throwing out weak ass garbage like this and BOOM, a certified right wing populist - one of the good ones, one of your people - does something stupefyingly horrible and overtly racist in explicit support of the alt-right agenda. Consistent application of your methodology would completely discredit the alt-right, so you should be devastated. But no, not a peep. No soul searching. No questioning. Nothing.

So again, cut it out. It's dumb, and what's more, you don't even believe it.

Besides from what I've seen on this forum you seem like a conservative liberal compared to others out there, so you hardly represent the whole.

I'm just more pragmatic than idealistic.

[Fliegender]

Hypothetically, if Jesus were here in the US today, instead of in the Middle East 2000 years ago, he would be paying taxes that support abortion.
And if the US made it mandatory to vote, he may well have voted for Trump!
Wrap your head around that!

There’s no mandatory vote here. If Jesus were a resident of, say, Louisiana, he’d prob’ly go hunting go ‘gator hunting with 12 guys on voting day.

Since voting day is in November, Jesus would be breaking the law, if he hunted alligators in November. Gator hunting season begins on the first Wednesday of September, and ends 30 days later.

My whole point with the hypothetical of voting being mandatory by law, was to show that Jesus would obey the law of the land, not break the law.

I thought the logic was pretty simple, but maybe those of you from the socialist province of Quebec, are a little slow to understand.

1. So are you saying that Louisiana-Jesus would only drink legal whiskey and not backwoods moonshine?

2. You’re the one who married that strange woman from Frenchland. You keep projecting your heinous sin onto me.

[edwardmurphy]

My whole point with the hypothetical of voting being mandatory by law, was to show that Jesus would obey the law of the land, not break the law.

How much information would Jesus have upon his arrival? Does he have perfect knowledge, being that he's God and all, or is he coming here straight from the cross with no knowledge of anything that's happened since?

It seems to me that if Jesus arrived here and learned, for example, that it in some places it's illegal for citizens to feed refugees? Would he be like "Well, duh! Their suffering is a deterrent to them coming here!" or would he go and do something Christlike?

I guess me question is whether Jesus would suck up to the oligarchs and help them maintain the current social order, or would he value human life over the status quo?

[Philip]

Ed: How much information would Jesus have upon his arrival? Does he have perfect knowledge, being that he's God and all, or is he coming here straight from the cross with no knowledge of anything that's happened since?

Jesus IS God - He has NO knowledge deficits!

Ed: It seems to me that if Jesus arrived here and learned, for example, that it in some places it's illegal for citizens to feed refugees? Would he be like "Well, duh! Their suffering is a deterrent to them coming here!" or would he go and do something Christlike?

God says we are to have compassion for those suffering. But He also says we are to be ruled by laws that protect our countries. Ancient Israel had laws - not just anyone from outside could come in and do as they pleased. Also, who is causing the suffering? And can we alleviate the world's suffering? And why is this conversation always based primarily around the U.S.' responsibilities?

Ed: I guess me question is whether Jesus would suck up to the oligarchs and help them maintain the current social order, or would he value human life over the status quo?

You've prejudiced the question by assuming that if Jesus favored rule of law in ALL countries, that this would in any way be "sucking up to oligarchs." BTW, the United States has given more humanitarian aide than any other country - and that's just from the government - it's not counting the many charitable organizations, many of them faith-based, that exist here. There are many nation targets of obvious apathy towards suffering peoples. So this is just political hyperbole!