birdog1960 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) You didn't actually answer his questions, mop. And the Romans didn't execute Jesus because they somehow feared him. They couldn't have cared less - to them, he was just one more fringe lunatic Judaic rabbi in a semi-autonomous province (fun fact: the Jews enjoyed the special privilege under Roman suzerainty of being a self-ruling body) of lousy with fringe lunatic Judaic rabbis. Nor were Jesus' teachings all that novel at the time - they were consistent with other Pharisee teachings of the time. The real reason is that he called the other Pharisees hypocrites and liars; and rather than kill him themselves, the other Pharisees traded the threat of their rebellion for Rome's execution of their troublesome rabbi. Rome acquiesced because the life of one fringe lunatic Judaic rabbi was worth a couple decades' peace. It had nothing to do with "liberalism" or upsetting the status quo. sorry, i give a lot more weight to the writer fromn the BBC and many other historical writers. The jewish religious aristocracy was the status quo and they answered to the romans. there was a roman garrison directly overlooking the temple ready to quell riots. and sevral jewish uprising were dealt with by mass killings and unspeakable brutality (and ultimately, the temple's destruction).. ultimately, the romans ran jerusalem and palestine at the time and flexed there formidable muscles many times to illustrate that fact. Jesus threatened the ruling jews (and their wealth) and thus threatened the romans. from the bbc article: But, of course, the Sanhedrin only ruled because the Romans allowed them to and the way to keep the Romans happy was to maintain order in society. Caiaphas himself was a Roman appointment, so he needed to keep cosy with the governor, Pilate, if he wanted to stay in power and preserve his luxurious way of life. So if Jesus was making trouble, he was making trouble for both Caiaphas and Pilate - and trouble for Pilate was still trouble for Caiaphas. Jesus was undoubtedly a threat; the public liked him, indeed they may have been paying more attention to Jesus than to the priests, and the public were listening to his condemnation of what he saw as wrong in the religious establishment. Edited May 20, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 sorry, i give a lot more weight to the writer fromn the BBC and many other historical writers. The jewish religious aristocracy was the status quo and they answered to the romans. there was a roman garrison directly overlooking the temple ready to quell riots. and sevral jewish uprising were dealt with by mass killings and unspeakable brutality (and ultimately, the temple's destruction).. ultimately, the romans ran jerusalem and palestine at the time and flexed there formidable muscles many times to illustrate that fact. Jesus threatened the ruling jews (and their wealth) and thus threatened the romans. from the bbc article: But, of course, the Sanhedrin only ruled because the Romans allowed them to and the way to keep the Romans happy was to maintain order in society. Caiaphas himself was a Roman appointment, so he needed to keep cosy with the governor, Pilate, if he wanted to stay in power and preserve his luxurious way of life. So if Jesus was making trouble, he was making trouble for both Caiaphas and Pilate - and trouble for Pilate was still trouble for Caiaphas. Jesus was undoubtedly a threat; the public liked him, indeed they may have been paying more attention to Jesus than to the priests, and the public were listening to his condemnation of what he saw as wrong in the religious establishment. Even if everything you say is true, how does any of it equate to Jesus being a modern day liberal? *And if your argument relies on taxonomy - defining the word "liberal" as being against the status quo so as not to associate it with the tenets of modern liberalism - then you've already admitted defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 All one has to do is look at the entertainment industry, pop culture and the universities to see that in "modern day liberalism" groupthink is the norm. I'd hardly consider that to be against the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Even if everything you say is true, how does any of it equate to Jesus being a modern day liberal? *And if your argument relies on taxonomy - defining the word "liberal" as being against the status quo so as not to associate it with the tenets of modern liberalism - then you've already admitted defeat. the root for conservative is conserve... and for progressive (liberal) it's progress...do u find it a stretch to say that liberals generally are for change (ie against the status quo)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 the root for conservative is conserve... and for progressive (liberal) it's progress...do u find it a stretch to say that liberals generally are for change (ie against the status quo)? So you're waving the white flag. Hey, at least you have the balls to show up and argue. I respect that about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 stop waiting. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/jesus-money-changers-modern-banks.html there are many more references available on the reason Jesus was executed by the romans. Almost all agree it was for sedition which by definition is a threat to the status quo. another ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_1.shtml Only a liberal would cite an article that suggests Jesus died because he was asking for it. My favorite part was the explanation of the blood sweat. Way to tackle the issues, BBC. Next up...Lazarus wasn't really dead so much as in a deep sleep because he had a big turkey dinner..."the medical term is tryptophan." Your problem trying to explain this is the same problem you see with people like Obama and Clinton, and most liberals we all know, who seem to think that because they've read a few articles about Jesus Christ, and were seen leaving a church during political campaigns, that they consider themselves followers of Christ. To add to this, they go so far as to suggest that Christ was a far-left liberal. But that comes from wishful thinking and little else, because if you studied the word of God and the life of Jesus -- and here's the tricky part -- with the complete, verbal acceptance that Christ was and is, in fact, the son of God, and that God sacrificed his only son "so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life," then even you would understand how Jesus was a lot of things, but a modern-day far-left liberal is absolutely not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Only a liberal would cite an article that suggests Jesus died because he was asking for it. My favorite part was the explanation of the blood sweat. Way to tackle the issues, BBC. Next up...Lazarus wasn't really dead so much as in a deep sleep because he had a big turkey dinner..."the medical term is tryptophan." Your problem trying to explain this is the same problem you see with people like Obama and Clinton, and most liberals we all know, who seem to think that because they've read a few articles about Jesus Christ, and were seen leaving a church during political campaigns, that they consider themselves followers of Christ. To add to this, they go so far as to suggest that Christ was a far-left liberal. But that comes from wishful thinking and little else, because if you studied the word of God and the life of Jesus -- and here's the tricky part -- with the complete, verbal acceptance that Christ was and is, in fact, the son of God, and that God sacrificed his only son "so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life," then even you would understand how Jesus was a lot of things, but a modern-day far-left liberal is absolutely not one of them. i'm a cradle catholic. i've been educated in catholic schools and a protestant university. been taught by jesuits and dominicans, protestant theologians, even an archeologist involved in the finding of the dead sea scrolls. i'm an active member of my parish and in good standing with the church. im a godparent to multiple kids, several in foreign churches that required my pastor vouch for me. so forgive me if i don't give a hoot about your opinion on my suitability to be a Christian. perhaps you should question your own. Jesus was all about inclusivity not exclusivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 sorry, i give a lot more weight to the writer fromn the BBC and many other historical writers. The jewish religious aristocracy was the status quo and they answered to the romans. there was a roman garrison directly overlooking the temple ready to quell riots. and sevral jewish uprising were dealt with by mass killings and unspeakable brutality (and ultimately, the temple's destruction).. ultimately, the romans ran jerusalem and palestine at the time and flexed there formidable muscles many times to illustrate that fact. Jesus threatened the ruling jews (and their wealth) and thus threatened the romans. from the bbc article: But, of course, the Sanhedrin only ruled because the Romans allowed them to and the way to keep the Romans happy was to maintain order in society. Caiaphas himself was a Roman appointment, so he needed to keep cosy with the governor, Pilate, if he wanted to stay in power and preserve his luxurious way of life. So if Jesus was making trouble, he was making trouble for both Caiaphas and Pilate - and trouble for Pilate was still trouble for Caiaphas. Jesus was undoubtedly a threat; the public liked him, indeed they may have been paying more attention to Jesus than to the priests, and the public were listening to his condemnation of what he saw as wrong in the religious establishment. Unsurprising. You practically make a career out of being misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Jesus was all about inclusivity not exclusivity. Exactly the reason why he would never, ever, ever be confused with a modern-day far left liberal. I knew you'd get to the truth if we just kept digging together. And for what it's worth, it matters little who taught you, what church you go to, or how many people will write you a letter of recommendation to be a godparent. If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the son of God, then that's all just filling for a another really good resume'. I'm sure as a cradle Catholic, you know this, but it's worth repeating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Things Conservatives can do to attract young voters: - support gay marriage - support pro life/women's rights - support social programs that'd bring low/middle class earners comprehensive health coverage - support decreasing spending on defense - support overturning citizen's united (removing lobbying/big money from politics in general) - support post secondary education cost reform - support minimum wage adjustments to living wage - support marijuana legalization Basically younger generations are frustrated with education and health care costs, regulations of private lives, the focus on war, and the lack of representation in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Things Conservatives can do to attract young voters: - support gay marriage - support pro life/women's rights - support social programs that'd bring low/middle class earners comprehensive health coverage - support decreasing spending on defense - support overturning citizen's united (removing lobbying/big money from politics in general) - support post secondary education cost reform - support minimum wage adjustments to living wage - support marijuana legalization Basically younger generations are frustrated with education and health care costs, regulations of private lives, the focus on war, and the lack of representation in government. So basically becoming Liberals? Edited May 20, 2015 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) So basically becoming Liberals? Basically. I'm not saying they should, to be clear. Different generations want different things, and in general people become more conservative as they get older (they already "have theirs", and they "set in their ways"). Today's fringe liberal youth might be tomorrow's moderate conservatives. The GOP could drop a handful of things and look a lot better to the younger demographic... easy ones would be gay marriage, abortion, and marijuana. Edited May 20, 2015 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Basically. I'm not saying they should, to be clear. Different generations want different things, and in general people become more conservative as they get older (they already "have theirs", and they "set in their ways"). Today's fringe liberal youth might be tomorrow's moderate conservatives. The GOP could drop a handful of things and look a lot better to the younger demographic... easy ones would be gay marriage, abortion, and marijuana. Because a million little corpses is a small price to pay to lure a few dipshits to your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Exactly the reason why he would never, ever, ever be confused with a modern-day far left liberal. I knew you'd get to the truth if we just kept digging together. And for what it's worth, it matters little who taught you, what church you go to, or how many people will write you a letter of recommendation to be a godparent. If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the son of God, then that's all just filling for a another really good resume'. I'm sure as a cradle Catholic, you know this, but it's worth repeating. which group do you believe to be more diverse? the exclusivity (old,white) of the current republican party is what the thread is about. it's not hard to prove the demographics. they are what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Because a million little corpses is a small price to pay to lure a few dipshits to your side. Well they were all going to grow up to be crack heads anyways, AMIRITE?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Things Conservatives can do to attract young voters: - support gay marriage - support pro life/women's rights - support social programs that'd bring low/middle class earners comprehensive health coverage - support decreasing spending on defense - support overturning citizen's united (removing lobbying/big money from politics in general) - support post secondary education cost reform - support minimum wage adjustments to living wage - support marijuana legalization Basically younger generations are frustrated with education and health care costs, regulations of private lives, the focus on war, and the lack of representation in government. The rub is that you're asking religious folks to compartmentalize their religious views. Not many folks are for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 So basically becoming Liberals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 The rub is that you're asking religious folks to compartmentalize their religious views. Not many folks are for that. Yeah, religion and it's relation to laws will always be a big dividing point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) the exclusivity (old,white) of the current republican party is what the thread is about. it's not hard to prove the demographics. they are what they are. Have you looked at the prospective list of Republican presidential nominees? Two Latinos. A woman who ran HP. A black brain surgeon. Who's the prospective list of Dem presidential nominees: a white female representing the 1% of the 1%. But yeah...the GOP needs diversity in the party. As for votes, every thinking person knows that liberal policies keep uneducated minorities poor and dependent upon all the 'free' stuff progressives like to 'give away' to keep those very people poor and uneducated. Few have done more harm to black Americans than the first black president. They don't vote for progs because of values. They vote for them for the handouts. Edited May 20, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Believe it or not Dorkington, the youth aren't nearly wanting to receive government hand out's as much as you do. They are in line with liberals on most social issues, aside from the near infanticide (late-term abortions) positions that many hold such as yourself. But the economic positions that the youth desire are more in line with the conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts