*grins* See? I keep telling you guys, Jesus was a liberal. How much more liberal than this can he GET?

Very interesting. I'm not interested in entering a my-religion's-better-tan-your-religion discussion, but this is rather ... interesting, as I said.

In fact, yesterday I had some blood work done and on the way home from the hospital I stopped at Barnes and Noble to buy myself a treat for being brave with needles and blood, and I bought a Bible and a Koran. I'm really looking forward to reading both of them and comparing and interpreting for myself.

This has nothing to with anything.
Charlotte was afraid of monkeys (and we don't know why...) so we keep showing her this video. To make her less afraid. She LOVES it...had to share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9e3qlZ3zxg&mode=related&search=

That was so cute!

Hahahahahahaha ... inappropriate penguine jokes make my day ...

"How much more liberal than this can he GET?"

I know many conservative men who respect women and I've had the misfortune of encountering many liberal guys who don't. Upholding the dignity of women is hardly an exclusively liberal trait.

Thank you, Joanne!

Erin, re: Jesus being a liberal, it's true - with one vitally important caveat.

Jesus and the Bible are very clear that it's the Church's job to care for the poor, not the government's.

(Jesus was also very clear that the able poor, including able young widows, are not to get hand-outs. Lazy people are to pay the consequences of their own inactivity.)

The Bible is clear that the role of government is to keep citizens safe and maintain order.

In America, our roles started to reverse in the 1930s, and it has been downhill ever since. The government cannot do the job of the church.

And the more the government siphons money through taxes to try to do the job of the church, the less people give to church, so the situation only grows worse.

One final point, corrupt governments are primarily the reason people live in poverty, surrounded by illness and danger.

Erin -

Considering some of the posts on this blog I am in shock that you think liberals care about women's issues. It is the liberals that do nothing about the horrid conditions in abortions clinics. It is the liberals that do not want myspace to add protection for the minors (primarily girls) from the 29,000 identified pedophiles. It is the liberals that do not want abortion clinics to be inspected let alone be considered ambulatory surgical centers so they are forced to comply with governmental standards that every other clinic has to (look up Missouri as an example). It is the liberals that turn their back on rape victims (think any sports celebrity that get accused of rape and the press - mostly liberals - attack the woman's life style, I think Colby Briant is an example). oh - and it is the liberals that look the other way when a woman at MMR has to have an emergency hysterectomy while in a coma because of a botched abortion at a clinic that was less sterile than animal hospitals or zoo's. It is the liberals that looked the other way when an abortioninst, Mi Kim, began injuring women and receiving complaints in 1998. This continued until this year when she voluntarily gave her license to the board. In 2005 she had to be court ordered to maintain patients logs and the control substance log. She was court ordered that she could not be in charge of the anethetic because "her judgment and knowledge was inadequate to supervise a CRNA during an IV conscious sedation". It was the liberals who protected her. It is the liberals that do not care about the Down's Sydrom genocide. AND it is the liberal who could care less about the female genocide in India - look in PP website in their international section and you will see no mention of :

500,000 aborted girls every year.
41,667 aborted girls every month.
9,615 aborted girls every week.
1,374 aborted girls every day.
1 girl aborted every minute.

Double these numbers if the truth is 10 million girls every 10 years - like some AP reports have stated. The above numbers are for 10 million in 20 years.

Discrimination is the liberals friend.

Valerie and Erin,

you both invoke a rather narrow interpretation of the word 'liberal'. Such is bad enough when Jesus is placed in this mental-straight-jacket, but to align liberal-idea-ism with the rampant woman-hatred in modern American politics is very misguided.

Jesus' words: "let he who is without sin(fault), cast the first stone.", be a guiding principle for us all.

Be careful how you interpret the word liberal- it means progressive, forward thinking. Jesus was a remarkable forward thinker with ideas very new to his day. Can you deny that?

Also, so, because I don't affiliate myself with a church, or believe in god, I can't take the initiative to be concerned about the state of my fellow man? That seems rather callous...

Jill, you have managed to find a very ignorant analysis of what the world would be like without Jesus.

"What would be the status of women in the Western world today had Jesus Christ never entered the human arena? One way to answer this question is to look at the status of women in most present-day Islamic countries."

That's actually an awful way to answer that question since Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam and the bible is one of their holy texts.

Islam built upon Christianity similar to how Christianity built on Judaism. This analysis is similar to Jewish people using Christians to analyze a world without Yahweh (It wouldn't make much sense because Christians believe in Yahweh just as Muslims believe in the teachings of Jesus - they just believe he was a prophet rather than the son of God).

Erin... Erin,

It is not that Jesus is/was a forward thinker, but the ideas He brought forward were not only revolutionary 2,000 years ago, they still are today. They are so powerful, that ANY politics is left standing-in-the-dust. So, to reduce Jesus to some kind of political-messiah solely or mostly, is a great misuse of His Life.

TH .... I am aware of how Muslims treat scriptures reverently (as they do treat Jesus' mother, Mary) but Jesus did self-claim He was divine. It would be very difficult to read any of St. John's writings where He distinctly uses the 'I am' or the 'I' to mean otherwise ... "Moses said to you ... , but I say to you ..." Much of this understanding comes from acknowledging just who Moses was in the Jewish mind ... very similar to the way Mohamed is perceived by current Islam.

Either Jesus was insane - a absurd-maniac or He is Truth ... if you disagree, take it up with Him!

"Either Jesus was insane - a absurd-maniac or He is Truth ... if you disagree, take it up with Him!"

Yes, that's very correct John.

@all:Jesus mentions hell eight times more the heaven. This is where I think the Catholic Church has strayed a little in the past 30-40 yrs, not warning people enough about hell.

Erin,

why do think Jesus was a liar? You seem to like His teachings...

You go , John McD! Knew you'd give us some theology 101 at some point.;-)

The only proof I have that Jesus claimed he was god is in the Bible. I don't believe most of the bible. I believe the historical evidence that he more than likely existed and was very revolutionary. And even if he did, someone with delusions of grandeur can still make valid points. Some of the greatest geniuses of modern times were mentally not all there.

Erin,

When people are delusional their behavior reflects it. Other than the fact that you don't believe Him, show me where His behavior was unbalanced. He fought with nobody, He never contradicted Himself, He helped everyone who asked, He never stole, murdered, lied, bullied, cross-dressed, raped, raised His voice, harmed a midget or forgot His mother's birthday...

Show me where He exhibited "delusions of grandeur"! Which is hysterical considering he was born in a stable, worked as a carpenter, and was as gentle as a lamb...not exactly the same traits as Hitler, Nero, Caligula or Napoleon...all megalomaniacs...

And why the heck do you believe the historical parts? The same people who wrote those, wrote the descriptive parts. What, you think Dan Rather reported on the facts, and the apostles took care of the rest? Where do you get the notion that half of the bible is true and half is not...talk about delusional! I mean if you reject all of it, I'd say you were mistaken, but rational. But if you reject everything except the historical parts I'd say you are the one that has a problem with reality.

Seems to be a pattern with you...picking and choosing the "truths" that you are comfortable with. In your own words, you LIKE subjective morality. Well of course you do. Who wouldn't?

In my preschool class once, we had a little girl named Lauren. She was 4 1/2 and had been told since she was born that she could walk on water.

She was constantly taking toys from the children, refusing to listen to the teachers, etc...

One day, we were all coloring with markers. (This was a very bright little girl) and she began to gather up and hoard all of the markers. The other children were crying and I had had enough!

"Everyone" I announced to the class "you know that we have rules in this class. Rules for one are rules for all...(most of them stared at me like I was nuts, but Lauren understood what I was saying...she had that defiant little look on her face, and I was about to wipe it off!)"So" I said "Lauren has decided that the rules for her have changed. Well, if they are changed for her, then they are changed for everyone. Lauren says that she can take toys from you and keep all the markers for herself...So from now on, because Lauren says so, all of you can take toys from Lauren and keep all the markers away from her. Is that right Lauren, are those the rules now?"

I then proceeded to take all the markers and sit down with the quietest (markerless) group of kids and Lauren just sat there and stared, stunned! After awhile I asked her if anything was wrong? I told her we were only following her rules! The lower lip started to tremble and I explained to her that in our class, nobody is the queen. At home she might be the most important person in the world. But in school she was no more important than Kiana or Dhruv. She got it. I gave her some markers and she turned out to be one of our favorite students. That was 15 years ago and I still remember her, because she was so delightful.

The point of this long, rambling post is, that Lauren was a victim (and I do mean victim. She had been duped into believing that she was more important than the rest of us) of the "I'm different than everyone else. I live by subjective morality. What's best for me is best for everyone..."

That lasted about a week...how is it you've gotten away with it for 19 years?

Erin -

"I keep telling you guys, Jesus was a liberal"

"Be careful how you interpret the word liberal- it means progressive, forward thinking. "

Then why do all the people that turn their backs get referred to as liberal?

John -

"you both invoke a rather narrow interpretation of the word 'liberal'. "

It is not me that have a narrow interpretation, it is the people who 'claim' to be liberal that have the narrow interpretaton......

;-)

Bethany- that is not the point of subjective morality at all. The point is admitting that you don't know for sure if you're right, and accept the possibility that the things that you believe may not be believed by everyone, and that they as a fellow human being, have just as much right to believe what they do as you have to believe what you do. I don't believe that a single black and white, right and wrong, can be defined for every human being. The world is too culturally and socially diverse, has too many different belief systems, and I am no so arrogant as to say that any belief is wrong- be cause there IS no way to know. I respect the beliefs of everyone- as long as they respect mine.

Erin "I am no so arrogant as to say that any belief is wrong- be cause there IS no way to know. I respect the beliefs of everyone- as long as they respect mine."

Erin, if I have the belief that killing liberals is ok, would you respect my beliefs? there's no way to know if what I believe is really wrong, correct?

TH, 4:42p, said: "Islam built upon Christianity similar to how Christianity built on Judaism. This analysis is similar to Jewish people using Christians to analyze a world without Yahweh (It wouldn't make much sense because Christians believe in Yahweh just as Muslims believe in the teachings of Jesus - they just believe he was a prophet rather than the son of God)."

No, TH, Islam did not "build upon" Christianity. For quickest analysis, look at Islam's fruit. Name one Muslim-led nation that is anything other than barbaric.

But that's an aside. My topic was on women. Name one Muslim nation that treats women as equal to men.

jasper- if I honestly thought that that was truly, honestly what you believed, yes, I would respect it. I would also respect my own right to renounce you as a decent human being. If you honestly, seriously, believe that what you're doing is right, no matter what it is, it warrents some kind of respect. However, I know that that isn't what you believe- because culturally, you haven't been raised like that. My referrences to completely objective morality falls on very isolated areas- for example, in some african villages, a malformed baby is still subject to the policy of exposure. They have been using that practice for generations. Do I think that that is OK? No. But their entire society accepts that as morally fine. Can I really pass judgement on something like that? No. In most modern societies, we have basic rules. Don't kill other people. Don't rape. Don't steal. And yet, there are exceptions. Self defense. The need to feed yourself or your family. Situations where things percieved as wrong, seem right, and things percieved as right, can seem wrong. That's why it's impossible to claim a true dichotomy- because good and evil, right and wrong, are defined by social acceptability and the exeperiences that humanity has learned from. If you honestly believed that you could kill liberals, for the greater good of mankind, I'd respect that you honestly believed that you were helping mankind. I'd hate the way you believed that you could do it.

Erin,

I'd respect that you honestly believed that you were helping mankind. I'd hate the way you believed that you could do it.

And you'd stop him...legally, of course;)

In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral objectivism does not imply intolerance. These people's moral outlook can be explained from both theoretical frameworks.

Perhaps your understanding of the term moral relativism (subjective morality) is also subjective, relative to who is defining it?

Does this mean that Hitler should not have been stopped because, after all, he really, really, really believed that what he was doing was right?

Hi Erin,

saw Ed Bradley a while back talk about his fondness for the Cambodian people that he had 'covered' as a cub reporter. In the segment he talked about the Kumar Rouge and its atrocities. As one little example: the armed-guerillas broke into a peasant's thatched 1 room house where the parents and kids were sleeping. Anyway, they broke in and promptly executed both parents. Next they gave a loaded gun to the 10 year old boy. With this came a demand: "We want YOU to kill your sister - decide now! If you do not, we will kill you both!" The boy shot his sister.

Ed then asked a haunting question: "What would you do?"

Here's the rub, folks- when your beliefs impede on the ability of another person to function under their belief system, there's a problem. Hitler was a person who did terrible things- I also honestly think that he believed he was helping his country. He was medically very, very mentally ill. If he wants to be anti-Semitic, fine. The line is crossed when he starts actually killing people because of it- therefore disrupting their belief system. Understand?

Hmmm "or in many other Arab countries"...
that line should be changed to just "in many other countries" as there are many non-Arab countries that are predominantly Muslim. And women's rights are under attack in these countries also. Examples include Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, and Iran (all of these are not Arab countries). We certainly don't want to ignore the plight of women in these areas.

No Erin,

If he wants to be anti-Semitic, fine. The line is crossed when he starts actually killing people because of it- therefore disrupting their belief system. Understand?

I don't. You killed your child disrupting our belief system and definitely infringing on your son's rights...What is the difference between you and Hitler. You both believed that what you were doing was right.

The only difference I see is that Hitler only managed to kill 6 million people, while you and the rest of the pro-choicers have managed to kill billions...all in the name of something you believe in...