Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it doesn't, you have been brainwashed. Progressivism was the result of the Enlightenment Age that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition. This predates capitalism and communism both of which have their roots from the Enlightenment and then Progressivism.
Nope, you are wrong still. You have gotten your terms twisted by far right wing revisionist history. Using relatively contemporary political terms may not suit Jesus, but Jesus was more liberal than conservative. John Locke is widely regarded the father of classic liberalism.... but liberalism not meaning the negative, far right wing term you've been conditioned to hate.
Conservatism in the general sense relates to the keeping the status quo, which Jesus and the Founding Fathers were not about. Absolute monarchies and Divine Right to power were conservative ideas at the time, while democracy was a very liberal idea. Deal with it.
What your Wiki cut and past is referring to is not the modern day "Progressivism," in the same way that classical liberalism is not todays liberalism. Terms change meaning. Todays Progressives are socialists, and socialism today is about redistribution of wealth and central planning. That was not what our founders believed in, nor John Locke, whose ideas they were well familiar with, and which influenced their politics. I don't know if Locke was the "father of classical liberalism, but you are closer to the truth to call him a classical liberal. Certainly, though, he wasn't a progressive, as the term is used today.
Conservatism is perceived to be about "keeping the status quo" by liberals, but as F. A. Hayek states in "The Road to Serfdom," that is an unfortunate and misleading meaning that has been attached, because of the negative implications. Conservatives today are about restoration of our limited constitutional government.
As for Jesus, he was not a political figure. That wasn't the reason he came. He came to announce the gospel, the reconciliation of man to God, through faith in Him, and his teachings were primarily about mans relationship to God, and also how we as Christians should live in the world. But the point of my OP was that he was definitely would not be a "socialist," because he never would have supported government redistribution of wealth (todays socialists) and respected private property and ownership.
But the point of my OP was that he was definitely would not be a "socialist," because he never would have supported government redistribution of wealth (todays socialists) and respected private property and ownership.
Source?
Keep in mind that your wealth is already being redistributed by submitting to a system of taxation, whether the people in charge of it call themselves conservatives or liberals. Is taxation, using your premise that Jesus did not support government money redistribution, against Christianity?
What your Wiki cut and past is referring to is not the modern day "Progressivism," in the same way that classical liberalism is not todays liberalism. Terms change meaning. Todays Progressives are socialists, and socialism today is about redistribution of wealth and central planning. That was not what our founders believed in, nor John Locke, whose ideas they were well familiar with, and which influenced their politics. I don't know if Locke was the "father of classical liberalism, but you are closer to the truth to call him a classical liberal. Certainly, though, he wasn't a progressive, as the term is used today.
Conservatism is perceived to be about "keeping the status quo" by liberals, but as F. A. Hayek states in "The Road to Serfdom," that is an unfortunate and misleading meaning that has been attached, because of the negative implications. Conservatives today are about restoration of our limited constitutional government.
As for Jesus, he was not a political figure. That wasn't the reason he came. He came to announce the gospel, the reconciliation of man to God, through faith in Him, and his teachings were primarily about mans relationship to God, and also how we as Christians should live in the world. But the point of my OP was that he was definitely would not be a "socialist," because he never would have supported government redistribution of wealth (todays socialists) and respected private property and ownership.
Enough said on that.
Of course terms change but again progressivism comes from Europe in response to the Enlightenment. Why would you use modern day term to refer to historical figures? Maybe that is where your confusion stems from. Again, the founding fathers were progressives during their era as Jesus would have had a liberal slant during his times. We are talking about Jesus the historical figure which is the only thing that can verified.
Keep in mind that your wealth is already being redistributed by submitting to a system of taxation, whether the people in charge of it call themselves conservatives or liberals. Is taxation, using your premise that Jesus did not support government money redistribution, against Christianity?
Exactly. Flamenco seems ignorant about history and history's politics. They certainly had taxes during Jesus's time and wealth distribution to the ruling elites.
Jesus was more liberal than conservative, even in the modern sense.
arguing about Jesus is like arguing who will win a Hulk vs Ironman fight
It a perfectly human trait to humanize everything. Conservatives want Jesus to reflect their own views so that is why they will argue he is conservative when every historical recount says otherwise. Jesus was a radical during his time, conflicting with the status quo. Conservatives just don't like the notion that historically theyve been on the side of status quo.
who is that??? most of the self described right wing Christians are extremely intolerant, judgemental, and all around jerks.
Consider; perhaps those you speak of....are not truly genuine Christians.
Many will claim to be...but the Bible Warns, many who speak of God....are farrrrr from HIM.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
