Why liberals deny the existence of Truth

[Mornac]

I can think of at least two posters who are God fearing people, and I haven't seen enough of the newbies to decide that about them.

--I can think of no one who stepped forward to answer my question concerning the existence of truth. Can you?

Off hand I don't see see how believing there is a God or not qualifies or disqualifies someone from having a discussion with you.

--Me neither. However every day I experience how difficult it is to have a conversation with people who are not capable of knowing whether or not they belive in the existence of truth.

If you cannot discuss your faith objectively then how do you know whatg it is worth to you?

--I’ve never backed away from discussing my faith objectively.
 

What constitutes a liberal is a matter of the consensus or majority position of a culture, and it is more than an economic position.

--I agree. It is a completely relative description.

Christ was the liberal is what was a very conservative Judaic setting because the defied the existing order, the existing religious order that prevailed in Israel at the time.

--Okay. So what?

Being a liberal is not all bad, which you seem to imply at times.

--I only use “liberal’ as a derogatory term when I mean to.

For example, a liberal in the old USSR would have been a person with a pro-western pro-democratic preference.  The true conservatives were the hard shelled communists in that political order.  So the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are relative to the existing political and social order that prevails in a given society.

--You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know ivan.

Much to your chagrin, there is no absolute in political thought for the reason I have just explained

--I agree with that statement. Why do you assume that it is to my chagrin?

Liberal in early America were more like modern day conservatives, with a populist twist.  They advocated a limited government and economic freedom, where today it seems to be just the opposite for their outlook.

--I don’t remember them giving us permission to change anything. Looks like someone violated their Constitution.
 

Why, it could be a populist reaction to a hard right conservatism that is out of touch with the needs of the people.

--Whatever it is, it’s clearly unconstitutional.

If you have noticed, these rigid types seldom get elected to high office because they alienate too much of their voter base with their self centered high and mighty preaching.

--People get who they elect.

I think that there are practical and useful conservative concepts, but some people run it into the ground and cut off  their noses to spite their faces.

--I don’t care what concepts people embrace as long as that don’t contravene the Constitution.
 

A successful politician sees the value of giving and taking but the wingnut bigots don't understand the value of it.

--Here’s a successful politician. Does he seem like someone who “sees the value of giving and taking” to you?
 

It is all or nothing for them and all too often they end up with nothing but a stack of hollow rhetoric to show for their efforts.

 
--Those are the breaks.