OUInsider - Owen Field

I could understand that if the point wasn't made that James was a conservative Christian. His ideological view therefor must be factored into just what made baby Jesus cry.

Before this thread is locked I would like to clarify that Jesus wasn't a "liberal". I understand the misconception and Jesus was very vocal about helping the poor and the outcast.

The misconception is that liberals care about the poor and underprivileged and conservatives don't. That's not the case. Both sides care about them (although both sides have manipulative and cold politicians).

Liberals believe the government should help them. Conservatives believe that it is the duty of the PEOPLE to help them. Jesus never said to take from the people and give other people's money to the poor. He said that it is OUR responsibility to help them.

So, Jesus was a conservative. Although he disapproved of many of the outcasts' sins, He showed them love and reached out to them. That's something modern "Christians" have not done. Sadly, most Christians don't follow Jesus' teachings. :-(

Was he? That strikes me as an incredibly odd statement.

Again, you need to do some more homework. There was a lot of arguing at that time, if you read historical evidence from Josephus and others, between the Pharisee (misguided conservatives) and Saducees (devout liberals). The Saducees greatly out-numbered the Parisees and controlled the politics of the time. Their compromises with the Roman tax collectors were a major emotional issue of the time and resulted in insurgents which in the Bible are called Zealots. Jesus had at least two zealots as disciples. One we know changed his perspective (but not to liberal). One we know did not (Judas). Paul actually used their equal disdain for each other for his benefit. This is really easy information to research. I know that you feel that people like Bill Maher and the long list of those like him are all sweet, unemotional and rational. Agree to disagree with you.

I don't listen to Bill Maher or Rush Limbaugh, and I don't have a dog in the fight as I consider myself a moderate type who shares certain aspects from each end of the spectrum.

However, with the subject of whether Jesus more closely aligned with liberal views or conservative views, I need no further research to conclude he leaned left.

Leave the religion crap and politics off of the pay board

Of course Jesus was a liberal. And he was also a Democrat.

Don't you know the bible verse where Jesus threw the Republicans out of the temple?

Really? My views are wrong because you say so? You make a statement that conservatives don't engage in greedy business practices and speak for all conservatives?

So in your opinion there are no conservative leaning ideologies involved with any of the Wall St scandals? You think those guys are Liberals or Moderates?

Conservatives want small government right? How much smaller was the government after 8 years of Reagan and 12 years of Bush? 

I've plenty of grasp on ideology pal. I've got a degree in it and teach it. 

What is your conservative view on labor? Specifically labor unions. That people should help each other and government should stay out of it didn't really provide much help for worker conditions and safety. It took the government to do that.

What's your thoughts on Conservatives and the environment? Without government intervention in business and industry our environment and pollution my be comparable to that of China.

When it came to The Great Depression, the Conservative idea of "it'll fix itself sure wasn't putting food on people's plates.

What is Conservative thoughts on race? That conservative approach in the 50s was pretty resistant to integration. I never felt the KKK had Liberal roots nor did I see them as people who took responsibility with helping the fellow man.

Give an honest view on all the conservative views on hot topics and see if Jesus would shake your hand and thank you.

Now you are getting off-topic. Each of those tangents requires a lot of explanation.

The question at hand is whether or not Jesus is more "conservative" or "liberal" (specifically American conservatism/liberalism).

Both sides of all those issues have good intentions behind their beliefs. They just have different philosophies on what will help solve the problem.

To give a simple answer, these situations aren't black and white. There isn't always a perfect solution. Usually, there are multiple proposed solutions, and all of them have strong negative consequences. The controversial issues are almost always a case of choosing the "lesser of two evils". The idea of labor unions is a great example. Without unions, employees were commonly taken advantage of and worked in dangerous conditions and there's nothing they could do about it.

But, when unions get too MUCH power, they start getting greedy and start controlling politicians, businesses (and consequently prices of goods and unemployment rates), etc. and we get into the problem we are in today.

There's no easy answer. Conservatives, just like the founding fathers, don't want any group to have too much power. We believe that power corrupts and any group with too much power will become greedy and cause problems. We want the power to be split and checked among the people with checks and balances. The government is needed to enforce laws and protect the country from outside threats and a limited amount of other things that only the federal government can do. The rest should be left to the states, where the people have control (because they can always leave the state, there's competition).

Conservatives believe the government is the most corrupt institution and should be the absolute last-resort option.

.

As for race, conservatives believe in equality (believe it or not). Not equality of outcome, but equality of value of life and opportunity. We believe no laws should be in place to help or hinder anyone based solely on their race, religion, or gender. (sexual orientation is a controversial topic even among conservatives)

100 years ago the country was split on racial issues/slavery, but it wasn't because one side was racist and the other wasn't. There were racists and non-racists on both sides. The issues were much deeper and race/slavery was a front used by both sides. The north was just as racist, but they didn't have cotton fields for their businesses. In fact, it was the north that didn't believe slaves should count as people. The south argued that slaves should count. Neither side was acting in interest of the slaves, they wanted the political advantage. They compromised on 3/5ths (known as the 3/5ths compromise). Even Abraham Lincoln was racist and said after the slaves were emancipated that they should be separated from whites.

Thankfully, things are different now.

Now, on issues of homosexuality, prayer in schools, separation of church and state, abortion, etc. I think it's pretty clear which side Jesus would be on.

- As I said, neither side in the 3/5ths compromise was out of compassion. Both sides were concerned only with political power.

- As far as social security goes, it's a doomed system that in the long term doesn't work. It's a nice idea, but it's a ponzi scheme. Once you start it you can't get out of it and end up in trillions of dollars of debt. As for financial aid and these types of programs, most of these things should be done by the states. The states can do it better and more efficiently than the federal government.

But, we've been brainwashed into believing that the federal government is the only answer. State governments are supposed to do things like that. Residents who want that will go to states that have it and residents that don't want it will go to states that don't. If it fails, it won't ruin the whole country and states can learn from other states.

Social security is composed of money that is yours, that the government took from you and is just giving back. It's like the government doesn't believe we can be trusted to invest/save our own money. Why can't social security be optional? Then you get hit with scenarios where people who didn't bother investing in social security or save their own money reap what they sow and their sob stories get shown around and we're told we must do something to keep it from happening.

That's when you get to one of the main cruxes of the problem (conservatism vs liberalism). Should people be allowed to suffer the consequenced of their own actions/decisions? Conservatives would say yes. They would say that although it is bad for people to suffer, in order to have freedom we must have to live with the consequences of our free choices. Liberals believe that we should prevent suffering of all kinds, even if we have to take away freedom to do it. Both sides are understandable, and most liberal laws/policies are kneejerk reactions to horrible situations.

It's like a Norman child who died a few years ago after a freak accident on a see saw. It begs the question, is a 1 in a billion death rate acceptable? There is always the danger of a freak accident and we can never avoid them all unless we live in a bubble. But, to the parents, friends, etc of the 1 child who dies that 1 in a billion death rate is not acceptable and actions must be taken. So they ban see-saws. It's a knee-jerk reaction that in the future will be questioned harshly.

The hard truth is that some amount of suffering is acceptable. We can never get rid of all of it, and there's always a trade-off. Where that line is will be something that you'll never be able to find more than a couple of people to agree on. That's what makes politics so hard.

But, parties will manipulate their members by portraying the opposing party as bad people. Democrats make their followers believe that conservatives are evil, hate-filled, cold people. Republicans make their followers believe that liberals are stupid, lazy, entitled, hippies who are incapable of logic.

The reality is that people all over the spectrum have good intentions and want to help others and help make this country the best it can be. We all want freedom and we all want less suffering. We just have different philosophies of how to get there and how freedom and lack of suffering should be balanced.

I just wish we would ignore the manipulations of the parties and realize we are all on the same team and be civil about it. It's okay to have different ideas. Sure, there are bad people on both sides (especially politicians), but most of us have good intentions. And that's what matters the most!

I think someone said Craig James reminded them of 3/5 of Jesus....how bout them Bears?