what would progressives do if he came today? would they welcome him with open arms?
Who are the so-called “progressives” of this day? Is there a single definition?
You are conflating progressivism with political correctness. That said, it is not wrong to want to remove nastiness from speech, though I agree we go way overboard.
Notice how He called on the adulteress to repent her sins after He rescued her from the throng wanting to stone her? How He instantly saved the Good Thief? How He came to heal, without first asking if they’d fully observed the Sabbath or tithed or whatever?
You are missing the word “some” between “of” and “progressives”. But true, He isn’t for the most part; He is, after all God incarnate and we are mere mortals. He was far more radical than today’s progressives. We’d likely crucify Him all over again if He came today and asked us to live more humbly (you mean we can’t have two gas hog SUVs?), to ensure everyone had adequate medical care, a roof over their head, clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, and to truly help the poor and downtrodden.
if they espouse true ant-gospel messages, you can’t; but again the devil is in the details.
i don’t control the brush, the progressive movers do.
not definition, but definite controllers manipulating the progressive message, read the news and you will know who they are
progressives turn on their own when they are not pc.
and what did the leaders of the jewish temple say, same would be said today except the leaders would be progressive leaders.
have you noticed how progressives are eating their own? for many, progressivism has passed them by. but they still cling to past ideas. the past is now the enemy of the progressive, what they haven’t changed that is.
if he came today, he would preach the same message he preached before.
they all would, especially today’s progressives
Actually, this ^ strawman is the only fallacy here.
Not really. Let me remind you what you wrote:LeafByNiggle:
Actually, this ^ strawman is the only fallacy here.
You are trying to show that Progressivism puts progress before God by citing a group that does put progress before God, namely the anti-theists, and using them to define Progressivism. That is like trying to show that “love of one’s mother is evil” because anti-theists love their mothers. Your argument to define Progressivism in terms of what anti-theists believe is a logical fallacy because there are Progressives that are not anti-theists.
See above.
Would it be better if they were low-minded?
Progressives have often striven for ideals that were unattainable in their lifetime. Consider the abolition movement. The early adopters of this philosophy did not see success in their lifetime. By your standards they were not realists. But without those idealists, the later efforts at abolition would have been long delayed.
As I said, people often do not respond to that voice within them, and so we have the evils you mentioned. But natural law is a real thing. It might be good to review the Catholic doctrine on natural law.
It’s not a coincidence that anti-theists choose to support the Progressive wing. It’s no coincidence that Bernie Sanders, who is assumed to be an atheist, is the Progressive wing’s “leader”.
What say you to faithful Catholics like me who support what you would call “progressive” policies?
Note that the title of the thread is “True Religion And Progressivism Cannot Co-Exist.” Therefore observations about particular anti-religion policies associated with today’s Progressives (such as abortion), do not address the general question of whether Progressivism in general is ever able to co-exist with religion. Examining some other Progressive policies of the past (like Abolition and the others that I mentioned) shows that Progressivism has at some points in history co-existed with religion quite well. To prove the premise of the thread, one would have to show that there is something inherently anti-religious in all Progressive movements. It might be good at this point to review the life of Archbishop Óscar Romero if you want further examples of Progressivism co-existing with religion.
what policies do you support that are only progressive policies?
The person who uses the term is the one who is controlling the brush.
www.deseret.com
That sure isn’t for me to say. The use of these terms to mean government overreach baffles me. On some issues, liberals want more government, and on others, conservatives want more government. That is why we still have a huge budget spending with Republicans, as well as Democrats. I think the only ones with a non-contradictory view of government are the Libertarians and the Communists.
The article is about progressive-ism today.