<diceman> calls me a liberal.>

Exhibit A: <I voted for Hillary.>

<I consider myself a blend of Progressive and Libertarian, to be quite frank about it.>

A "better" liberal.
(shame the libertarian guy doesn't show up on election day)

<Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga>--You complain about liberals all the time>

It's hard to identify someone as a progressive if they reject the whole feminism thing. It's also hard to identify someone as progressive when they reject the "racial double standard". Also, it's hard to identify someone as a progressive when they do not accept the limitations on speech (say, frank and honest discussion about Muslims, black on black crime, immigration based on culture and being selective) that political correctness imposes on them.

A "better" liberal.
(shame the libertarian guy doesn't show up on election day)>

Maybe progressive is the wrong term?>

Well, I guess it depends on you definition of progress - lool! (I love to throw in a "lool" every now and again, as an homage to the endearingly wacky posts of <UNF>)

Double standards strike me as very unamerican, so having one set of rules for white men to follow, and a less restrictive set for everyone else (as an example) is just as oppressive as a caste system in India or a Royals/Commoners system in monarchies.

It is unfortunate that the word progressive got co-opted to mean the kind of policies that retard the improvement of society. It is rather binary thinking, if you ask me, and I don't think opportunity has to be a zero sum game, where White men need to be victimized to achieve "justice".

I also view adaptation to new problems to be fundamental to progress. How can one call himself a progressive if, for example, he doesn't want to take on the side effects of growth in clean energy alternatives, one of which is the loss of economic opportunity for coal miners?

This adaptation to new problems includes the Islamic terrorism problem. I didn't have a problem with Islam when they were fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But they started exporting terrorism in the early 1990s, and I consider it a failure of the political left to adapt to the new situation.

I also think the political right has tried to adapt to Islamic terrorism, but has done a poor job, until Donald Trump came along and said we need to ban Muslims from entering the US until we find out what the Hell is going on.

Yes, <unf> is a good old boy!

Indeed, but there is certainly an equivocation of the word progressive happening in that case.

Liberals don't like being called liberals or leftists, so the try to hide behind the euphemistic "progressive" because, after all, who can be against progress?

I think that everyone knows that progressives are liberals that don't want to be called liberals, but they take all of their "sit down and shut up when black people and women are talking!" liberal ideas with them.

You are treating the word "progressive" in a literal sense.

Given that progressives identify with the three points above that I say mark you out as "not a progressive", I think there is a more apt description of your position than progressive mixed with libertarian.

Personally, I would find this rather interesting if I were in your shoes. It's cause, I think, to rethink the appropriate label.

That's kind of cool.

By the way, I can see why you identify half way as a libertarian. That seems rather apparent to me, but the progressive identity seems not to be the best fit.

As far as which denomination I fit into, I'm not sure really. I must be some kind of protestant but I have a different way of looking at things. When discussing doctrine, I raise questions among my Christian interlocutors that they don't like, that they brush off, that they swat down with Church or denominational dogma, and so I find myself someplace unfamiliar and strange.

I was brought up in a First Baptist Church, and I tend to be oriented in that direction more or less, but I read the bible critically and I'm suspicious about Christian Church Dogma, no longer accepting certain things at face value, but rather thinking for myself, or rather, waiting or receiving (perhaps) revelation a bit at a time.

I've listened to him but haven't read his work. He kind of reminds me of John Dominic Crossan, who is also very left on the resurrection. To me, he is an oxymoron in himself. He's a bishop but he's not a theist! Talk about left, wow!

He considers the gospels to a a midrash rather than historical/biographical in terms of style and how they are interpreted, which gives him the leeway he needs to speak anything he wants into them.

Spong is definitely a theist and believes in the Resurrection of Christ, but not a literal bodily resurrection.

<He considers the gospels to be a midrash rather than historical/biographical in terms of style and how they are interpreted, which gives him the leeway he needs to speak anything he wants into them.> You're right about that!

Although I find his writing thought-provoking, he often jumps to unwarranted conclusions and sometimes I even suspect him of purposely proposing controversial theories just to attract publicity.

Nevertheless, he does provide some very interesting insight into biblical context and midrashic interpretation.

I would also add that Crossan and Spong are very different scripture scholars despite having some similar views on biblical interpretation.

I'm not sure if you could strictly call them naturalists since they both believe in Christ's Resurrection, which I think a naturalist would reject, although their concept of Resurrection is spiritual rather than physical.

Anyway, your list of favourite theologians looks interesting although I'm not familiar with a couple of them.

Anyway, I'm already satisfied that an OT prophet prophesied the end to the animal sacrifice, although it sounded like it was not desirable.

As to whether it refers to the end times, I'm not so concerned, because the real end time is when a person dies. Lol.

Nice!

I visit rogoff forum after 24 hours for a few minutes again.

1)has <big pawn> explained yet why must 'uncaused cause' be replaced with God in omv morality argument?

2)has <ohiochessfan> explained if not <big pawn> ?

They both claim to have very high degree of critical thinking and they claim they are not cowards and liars, so they must have explained in last 24 hours, I might have missed.

On the other hand <johnlspouge> says <big pawn> 's jig is over , he can not explain this , he has not for many years now.

Hmm

<Bureaucrat> , <abdel irada> , <johnlspouge> and other honest , ethical , constructive users here - I would visit again after 24 hours. Please let me know if <ohiochessfan> and <big pawn> have explained and I missed as I am short of time , can't read very carefully every post.

I will read first line of posts tomorrow to look for the answer .

And you don't get off the hook from answering my questions but trying to shift the subject by asking me a whole line of questions.

Not gonna happen.

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderE...

He SO NAILS IT!

Anyway, like you I'm fighting the liberal agenda, abortion and gay marriage.

I'm trying to get myself registered as a Republican, the problem is I'm not an American citizen. I wonder if anybody can give me advise.

I like the republican ideals of conservatism and religion and trying to put a Republican party in the Philippines. I'm trying to contact the GOP.

<User not found: They won't win Trav, they won't stop tourism, affect the economy, nothing. They just expose Islam for what it is.. Twisted and medieval. Genuinely the ONLY thing I agree with Trump about. Now we won't have to take in as many immigrants with Brexit, they'll only get little attacks like last night off, they'll never ever pull another 7/7. A bloke I went to school with was at that concert with his two little girls last night and they're In hospital with shrapnel wounds according to his sister.. Now Islamic terrorism has affected someone I know!>

<they won't stop tourism>

Cool, as long as it isnt a problem.

<the ONLY thing I agree with Trump about>

Wow, you're very brave.

<they'll only get little attacks like last night off>

Yeah, some dead kids aint much trouble.

<they'll never ever pull another 7/7>

Whistling past the graveyard?

<Now Islamic terrorism has affected someone I know!>