To become more liberal...

[Tom Wetmore]

...read your Bible more.

Survey: Frequent Bible Reading Can Turn You Liberal

[John317]

Turn people liberal "in some ways," as the article says.

Quote:

Frequent Bible reading has some predictable effects on the reader. It increases opposition to abortion as well as homosexual marriage and unions. It boosts a belief that science helps reveal God's glory. It diminishes hopes that science will eventually solve humanity's problems.

It all depends on what is meant by "liberal."

[ClubV12]

"It diminishes hopes that science will eventually solve humanity's problems."

Well, I'll have to plead guilty to that line since becoming a christian.

I've moved about as far left on that question as you can get. Were doomed, science can't help. Governments will become increasingly baffled about what to do. Were going down hard, the end of all things is right around the corner. Until that time comes, I remain optomistic and will diligently do my part to increase the comfort, joy, happiness of those around me, my neighborhood, my community, my country.

[Gerr]

I don't see how one can read the Bible and take its advice and not become more compassionate with the less fortunate on the one hand (leftward on social issues), and yet on the other not take a rightward stand on the evils in society.

[Overaged]

I don't see how one can read the Bible and take its advice and not become more compassionate with the less fortunate on the one hand (leftward on social issues), and yet on the other not take a rightward stand on the evils in society.

This is quite true Gerry; I know that before I started reading the Bible; I never gave a thought to helping others...

[Overaged]

...read your Bible more.

Survey: Frequent Bible Reading Can Turn You Liberal

[Parade Orange]

when i first picked it up -i didnt know how much sex was in it!

my mind reeled and sinned alot in fantasy

[Neil D]

I don't see how one can read the Bible and take its advice and not become more compassionate with the less fortunate on the one hand (leftward on social issues), and yet on the other not take a rightward stand on the evils in society.

maybe those who become more compassionate dont see the world as black and white.....various shades of gray come to view....

[doug yowell]

I don't see how one can read the Bible and take its advice and not become more compassionate with the less fortunate on the one hand (leftward on social issues), and yet on the other not take a rightward stand on the evils in society.

maybe those who become more compassionate dont see the world as black and white.....various shades of gray come to view....

Why then would it follow that they would become more compassionate with the less fortunate? Seems like all that grey would lead to less clarity on all the above issues?

[Gail]

I like to think that Bible reading will do both (as John317 mentioned)- increase liberality in those who are not that way, and make people bolder who need to be to join God in His ways.

To varying degrees...

Great topic!

[Gail]

A note-

One would HOPE that these modifications would come about. Sometimes we are so stubborn that God needs to knock us about the head before what is in the Bible sinks in.

You think?

[joeb]

I'd just like to point out that taking other people's money by wanting to tax them, which is the political liberal's position, is not charity, charitable, or loving, and never will be any of those things. It is, in fact, compulsion, forcing someone else to spend their money as a liberal sees fit, and that flies in the face of true charity. The fact that liberals want to compel people to comply with their ideas tells us where their ideas originate. All that glitters is not gold.

True charity comes from the heart and is given willingly, not at the virtual point of the government's guns.

Looking at this from the Christian perspective, Jesus said the widow with her two mites, given in her extreme poverty, gave more than the Pharisee who gave from his abundance to make himself look good. And, Jesus took the willing gift of five loaves and two small fishes from a small boy, who knew only that he was giving up his lunch at Jesus' request, and fed 1000's of people for the cost of a boy's lunch.

The value of a truly charitable gift is in the heart of the giver, and always will be. It is God's blessing that makes a charitable gift valuable, and God does not bless unwilling gifts or unwilling givers.

[doug yowell]

Great point,joeb, maybe that's why every study shows that it is the Bible thumpers that give the most of what they have to charity as opposed to those who advocate the governmental model.Whereas the Bible appeals to one's conscience to open to other's needs based upon how God has given to you, the state has a chosen few who determine to whom,how much,and why you should give (or else!).

[ClubV12]

"I'd just like to point out that taking other people's money by wanting to tax them,..."

Now thats an odd statement. Every Government since Moses, and no doubt before, had taxes of some kind. It's fundamental to any form of Government.

[phkrause]

"I'd just like to point out that taking other people's money by wanting to tax them,..."

Now thats an odd statement. Every Government since Moses, and no doubt before, had taxes of some kind. It's fundamental to any form of Government.

Not only that, but if we recall, the Jews at the time of Jesus were being over taxed, and when asked what they should do, obviously the Jews were hoping Jesus would say not to pay it. But Jesus made it pretty clear with his answer that they should pay it plus still to give money to the temple or God.

[fccool]

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

[phkrause]

To sac religious for my tastes, maybe 40 some years ago I would've laughed my you know what off. He could've said the same thing without all the reference's to Jesus, but than he wouldn't have gotten any laughs.

[ClubV12]

Way over the top for me as well, wouldn't recommend it to anyone I know.

[joeb]

"I'd just like to point out that taking other people's money by wanting to tax them,..."

Now thats an odd statement. Every Government since Moses, and no doubt before, had taxes of some kind. It's fundamental to any form of Government.

It's not odd at all. The implication of Tom's statement is that politically liberal, socialistic, government policies are charity and come from Bible principles. They are not, and do not. They are the government forcibly taking money through taxation. The money thus taken is not given willingly, nor from a willing heart, which is the source of Biblical charity. Furthermore, no government can take on the expense of socialism and survive economically. The current economic problems Greece, Italy, and Ireland ought to show you that. They tried to do just what our President is trying to do and it has bankrupted them in a relatively short time.

Do you not understand that a greatest portion of our monetary problems in the US today stem from spending that which we do not have for the last 50 years or so. The approximately $15 billion so often referred to as our "debt" is only a small portion of what the US owes. We have unfunded liabilities, meaning debts incurred by the US government without Congress approving a way of paying for them, that a couple of years ago were estimated by Federal Reserve officials at between $90 and $120 trillion depending on which official you read. We are far beyond point of ever being able to repay what we owe now, and yet the profligate spending contines without end.

When you're broke and your income is decreasing, do you go out and increase the amount of debt you have? Do you go out and pay off one credit card with another? Do you print money so you'll have more of it to spend? Our government is doing exactly that in increasing amounts. The farther we go into debt that we already can't pay off, the more our presidential administrations borrow and spend. Every 2 years Obama is creating debt than all Presidents and Congresses combined from the beginning of our country until Reagan.

The interest on our funded debt alone is $454+ billion for this fiscal year, and it's going to keep on growing the further we go into debt and the interest rates we have to pay on our debt increase due to the downgrading of our credit rating. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm Currently our annual interest payments are more than we spent on defense in any year previous to 2003. Think about that! Then understand that Obama has us going further into debt another $1+ trillion every year from now on.

Where does the Bible say we should borrow when we cannot pay off what we owe now? Where does the Bible say enormous debts are a good thing? And, just from a common sense point of view, what will happen when we, as a nation, must pay the piper? Will our current spending habits make the crash worse, or better? Think about all the above and then tell me if you really think those who are objecting to creating more debt are just cold, hard, uncaring people. They see a future far bleaker than our present in which millions will starve to death because of our addiction to debt. It will be worse than the Weimar Republic after the WWI. Then it took a wheelbarrow load of cash just to buy a loaf of bread. What it will take after the US economy completely collapses, I hate to even guess for we will take down every other national economy in the world along with us.

I don't think liberal political policies are loving at all. I think they are short-sighted mistakes leading us to far greater evils in the future.

[ClubV12]

"The money thus taken is not given willingly, nor from a willing heart,..."

Have taxes EVER been taken from the populace with a "willing" heart?

Taxes are not the issue here, taxes are needful, justified and proper to sustain society.

The argument is:

How are the taxes being used? To promote a war? To explore space? To feed the hungry? Many people have different views on how the taxes should be used. THIS is why we have ELECTIONS and the right to VOTE. If you don't like ANY taxes used for the military, space or feeding the poor, you might as well move out of America. Because ALL those things and more WILL be funded to some degree.

I take it some think using taxes to feed the poor is "socialism"? That shows a complete lack of understanding "Taxes 101". What next, we are "communists" because we put "rules" on big business? This concept is laughable! :)

[Haldog]

For me, reading the bible steers me more conservative. Sanctity of life, Smaller federal government (God destroys earthly kingdoms)), That which is not seen is more real than that which is seen, etc.

As for helping the poor, that is a conservative value. Liberals think the federal government should do it but it is conservatives who think it is the responsibility of individuals and/or the Church.

[ClubV12]

Perhaps reading the bible makes us more independant than liberal or conservative?

I see there is a need to feed the poor and the liberals and the conservatives are both right on how to do it, when the proper balance is found.

[joeb]

"The money thus taken is not given willingly, nor from a willing heart,..."

Have taxes EVER been taken from the populace with a "willing" heart?

Taxes are not the issue here, taxes are needful, justified and proper to sustain society.

The argument is:

How are the taxes being used? To promote a war? To explore space? To feed the hungry? Many people have different views on how the taxes should be used. THIS is why we have ELECTIONS and the right to VOTE. If you don't like ANY taxes used for the military, space or feeding the poor, you might as well move out of America. Because ALL those things and more WILL be funded to some degree.

I take it some think using taxes to feed the poor is "socialism"? That shows a complete lack of understanding "Taxes 101". What next, we are "communists" because we put "rules" on big business? This concept is laughable!

Every entitlement program in the US is based on socialism. The idea that government is responsible for us from the cradle to the grave is socialistic in nature. Go back to the founding of our nation and up to about 1900 and you won't find any of these programs. No SS, Medicare, Welfare, Education, etc.... They simply did not exist and our country, during that time, was the envy of the world. We the people took care of each other. The Federal Government was not in the picture.

Go back and read our Constitution. The Federal Government was never meant to be a nanny state. Our founders had just broken away from a highly centralized type of government and wanted nothing to do with a very powerful central government as that always leads to the denial of individual liberties. What we are getting right now is exactly what they feared and did their best to stay away from. They never wanted nor designed that the government should be involved in every aspect of the lives of it citizens.

What we have now is because of a steady usurpation of state and individual rights by the Feds over the last 100 years. We've had several Presidents who really disliked our Constitution and looked for ways to make it obsolete: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and now Obama. Three peas in a pod as far as political agendas go.

BTW, I find it interesting that you ignore our debt completely. The 900 lb elephant in the room, and you don't even acknowledge its presence.

[ClubV12]

I see the National Debt as a separate issue, that could be a thread unto itself, being as it is indeed a 900 lb elephant.

I DON'T see care for the poor and needy as being ANYTHING like "socialism", not even close by definition or reality.

Now, do we offer to much care for the poor and needy? Yes, I think so. Should we be more stringent on who qualifies? No doubt! Is their fraud on a large scale? Perhaps, it depends on the definition of "large". More important I think is that we allow to many people to LEGALLY apply and receive, therefore, not "fraud", but mismanagement.

Fraud is rampant in Medicare, Medicaid and other programs. I think we have to look at each one individually.

[Igakusei]

For me, reading the bible steers me more conservative. Sanctity of life, Smaller federal government (God destroys earthly kingdoms)), That which is not seen is more real than that which is seen, etc.

As for helping the poor, that is a conservative value. Liberals think the federal government should do it but it is conservatives who think it is the responsibility of individuals and/or the Church.

To clarify, liberals generally do not believe that individuals should not help the poor. The only reason we think the government needs to get involved is because history has repeatedly demonstrated that individuals and churches do a pretty unreliable job.

Free public education and federal student loans have made big strides in allowing upward mobility, but we're still quite far from where we should be. There are good reasons why virtually all sociologists align with the left side of the political spectrum.

So to say "helping the poor is a conservative value" is downright wrong, and misleading. Helping the rich, on the other hand, now that is a conservative value.