I didn’t define liberalism…the fact the Jesus allowed women into his inner circle was unheard of in his day and would have been seen as highly liberal by the conservatives of his time. .
And that’s not an example of why he was liberal?
While I appreciate you offering an opinion your personal attack makes it clear to me that you just don’t get it. A non-dualistic viewpoint must allow for all views and find ways of inclusion, not exclusion. Your certainty of your own righteousness leaves no room for the Spirit to be operating and is therefor entirely self/ego-serving.
So, what don’t I “get”? Your accusation of self-righteousness is ironic. To me there are few who are more self-righteous than the one who thinks he is right, even to the obstinate point of excommunication, and the defender of 2,000 years of Church teaching and tradition is wrong. These people are practicing what I call the “Gospel in Reverse”. Jesus commissioned his first apostles to “go into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching what I have taught you.” He did not commission them to “go into the world, find out what the current liberal ideas are and bring them back and incorporate them into my church.”
Not only are they self-righteous, they are selfish. There are churches that teach what these people want. As I stated, why don’t they go join one of them? They won’t because they are selfish. If they got what they wanted, where does that leave the vast majority who don’t want it? Without, that’s what.
Many saints were seen as heretical in their day also.
I read the book, and you can count them on the fingers of one hand. To say these dissenters are all saints to the man is stretching credibility.
From that perspective your view of reality is no more valid or invalid then anyone else’s…it is however, only your view. Balanced is not relativism…it is the rainbow that lies between the extremes of conservative and liberal values and perspectives.
This
is relativism. Everyone has his own truth. If I say to you, “I think you should go jump off a cliff,” and you think it would be a bad idea, does my “view of reality” have equal “perspective” with yours? Obviously not. There has to be an arbitrator, so the Church steps in and says to me that I am in error; and since error has no rights, we are no longer to consider whether tskrobacz should jump. The Church says these dissenters are wrong, and you say they are right. Which “perspective” has the more weight? As I said above, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good
discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with
victim status, because it is excluded by the good. This is at the core of liberalism.
“The indispensable condition of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”
