Fair enough. You're not a fundamentalist. I take that back.
I may be one, but there is nothing inherently wrong with holding fundamental beliefs. My complaint was using categories to complain of categorizing and using arbitrary (depreciating) terminology to induce incriminations. Whether I am fundamental or not is not only a category but one you have no way of knowing for certain and not one that is inherently a flawed position. If sincere I appreciate your admission but it was not exactly what I was complaining of.
My point is that I am not a liberal (in political sense), and I'm not liberal in the sense of "anything goes" either. I'm somewhat a Libertarian, that's true, but liberal... no.
In the spirit on sincerity I often categorize a world view or an aspect of one that is liberal in nature IMO and it appears as though I am classifying a person instead of an outlook.
So you've said I'm a liberal and even suggested that I'm immoral. Now you're placing me being intolerant to the "duck commander". He had every right to say whatever he wanted and believed in. But the TV network had every right (according to contract and product concerns) to do whatever heck they wanted for their TV show.
Again I meant to be discussing a world view or attitude. We went from discussing what I disagreed with about what you claimed to what I see as flawed with liberalism. I admit my complicity but let's clarify a bit. I do not know what you think about the duck dude. I was talking about what is typical of liberalism. I believe that was the context of the question or claim. I was not complaining about the network though it deserves it. I meant the modern spirit of selective intolerance in general. I knew the network would give up. While the commander's loyalties lie with objective truths the network's lied with money but that was not my point. Liberalism (whether you are one or not) is the most hypocritical, intolerant, and morally insane modern political force I know of. I can dislike but understand the communist that declares they hate capitalists or the Muslim who says we are the great Satan. They may be nuts but are consistent and you know where you stand. Liberals defend the murderers right to life and condemn a human life in the womb to death based on rights they deny it. Let me once and for all clarify. I am claiming what is true about liberalism in general not every specific liberal. There are certainly exceptions, levels, and politically hybrid individuals that do not fit the mold. Please remember this even if I do not make it clear.
I tolerate his opinions. I don't like their sandwiches. I haven't had one good one there.
I hate their food. Always have. I however hate the intolerance against them dressed as tolerance even more.
Oh, and I'm boycotting Subway now because they're putting weird chemicals in the bread. That must make me a liberal too.
What?
Now you're contradicting yourself. Liberals are the "everything goes" camp just a second ago. Now they are intolerant. Make up your mind.
That was a mistakenly hyperbolic or superlative statement. Let me make it clearer. Liberalism is the anything can go club. Anything and everything can be justifiable except what is not preferred. I di not mean everything was true to a liberal (God and moral objective accountability is usually not). I meant anything can be true. For example if morals are not grounded in an objective transcendent source they are there to opinion. One is as good as the next and they seem to blow in the wind because there exists no standard to serve as absolute criteria. Let me make it far clearer with an example.
Previously we noted in an interview with Richard Dawkins, when asked for his definition of morality he responded Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist. In short, society defines whatever it believes is right and wrong. That is, of course, value relativism where nothing is right or wrongabsolute morality doesnt exist according to Dawkins.
The interviewer noticed this, and when prompted to respond Dawkins replied Whats to prevent us from saying Hitler wasnt right?.
More on Dawkins and Morality-No absolutes | Frames of Reference
If there exists a clear example of a complete moral failure it is this reasoning. I am not saying Dawkins believes everything is right, he believes anything can be right or wrong.
I kind of agree with you that there's a bunch of idiot politicians that do this. Unfortunately, I feel it goes for "both" sides. They're all like this. Republicans and Democrats alike. And I was not, and am not, not the "liberal" side in above example. You called me liberal, and I don't agree with everything "liberals" do, so something is wrong in your assessment of me.
I can certainly grant there is no idiot shortage in Washington. Speaking relatively the greats have mostly been conservative - Washington, Lincoln, Reagan. because all humans are fallible we my inevitably go over the cliff regardless but the Clinton's, Obama's, and at times Roosevelt's seem to be stomping on the accelerator. I can certainly be wrong in my judgment of you but I attempted to distinguish between what is true of liberalism, what is true of your views, and what is true of you. I may have done so very well and assumed it was understood.
It's Republicans v Democrats.
And Conservative v Liberal. But then you have "liberal" in the non-political sense. You're mixing all of the terms up in "us against them" terminologies. And that's bad.
I grant common language use to others and assume it is granted in return. Let me be official. Liberalism is a mind set very common in political democratic camp as has been increasing in modern secular times. Conservative have generally been republicans but Republicans have drifted away somewhat from conservative roots. If you wish a "wrongness" hierarchy. It would be secularism, then liberalism, then democrat IMO. On the other "rightness side" foundationally anyway it would be Christian doctrine, conservatives then republicans. Christians a self confessed failures but have adopted the most responsible world views.
Jesus was against the hardcore, super-religious camps of that day. He invited the poor and sick. He talked about sharing your wealth with those who needed it and forgiving your enemies. The first Christians lived in communities where they shared everything. He didn't talk about owning a gun, running business, or getting wealthy for the purpose to suppress the poor and unfortunate.
Not in the sense you mean. He was not rebuking them for being fundamental but for being wrong and hypocritical. Jesus is the most extreme radical in history. He said thinking of a women with lust is to be guilty of adultery. Is that middle of the road? He embraced radicals like Nicodemus and rebuked the non-committal as well. Let me give an example.
So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. Rev 3:16
Jesus made constant extreme claims. He said he came to bring a sword (not literal), his message would turn father against son, and that if you did not work you would not eat. I making a very complex issue far to simple but Jesus was anything but a PC, get along, state-ist.
I want to hear what parts of your selective reading in the Bible shows that Jesus was a Republican.
I have none. I do have 750,000 of the most scrutinized words in history that are consistent with a conservative view point. That is why the republicans have always been the party of faith. In fact the democrats recently removed God from their platform and said this is no longer a Christian country (it actually is 80% Christian).
