|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Hated by the Liberals
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
I'd say if anyone, the conservatives should be most ready to abandon the term.
After all, it's not biblical is it? [ ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ]
Also, as you rightly say, the liberals (being liberal) don't really care who's included and who isn't, but the conservatives do.
hence the conservatives should go off and find a new more exclusive term for themselves.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Conservative Logician asserting zero self-righteousness among liberals:
quote:
I have heard conservatives sometimes question their own righteousness and specifically guard against self-righteousness. I cannot recall a single instance of hearing a liberal do this.
JimT catching card-carrying liberal female priest Anselmina in the act of guarding against self-righteousness:
quote:
But if I continue praying that those who oppose my ministry will someday see Christ's light in me, and at least honour that much about my Christian witness, then it's only fair I should seek, as far as I am able to, the same thing in the lives of those whose views I oppose.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Damn! Logician asserted zero guarding against self-righteousness in liberals, as implied in my second quote.
It's hard for me to admit that I often make mistakes like that when I post...I'm such a righteous person otherwise.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I'm a more self-righteous liberal than you are. Ner, ner, ner-ner-ner. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
JimT, Anselmina is guarding against one type of self-righteousness but not another. As any is laudable, it's a shame to seem to pick on her particularly, but in the interests of accuracy I will not that nothing in Anslemina's comments says "Gee, maybe this type of ministry harms the church, or creates problems." I'm not saying is or isn't on that question BTW, as I don't want to get sidetracked. I only note that it is a self-question not asked.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
"I will note that nothing in Anslemina's comments says "Gee, maybe this type of ministry harms the church, or creates problems." (typo corrected)
Logician, this goes beyond self-righteousness to complete self-doubt. I cannot believe that the level of self-doubt you seem to be asking for on something as fundamental as one's calling in life is healthy and desirable. That kind of extreme self-doubt I have never seen in anyone except myself when I was suffering from depression. I would not wish it on anyone.
Do you really mean to say that you ask yourself on a routine basis whether you are 180 degrees wrong on very central moral issues that you've given years of thought to and as a consequence are actually a servant of Evil instead of Good? I could see this as a once in a decade crisis of confidence when something goes terribly wrong like a spouse committing suicide. I can't see this as a healthy way to approach debate and discussion with friends and colleagues, though.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Hey Hell Host.....
Lemmings don't go over cliffs in herds. That's an Urban Myth. But, as we no longer have an UM board to check on these things, maybe its now true. [What you expect to look on other internet sites for opinons ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I get the feeling this conservative vs. liberal arguement is seen by much of the non-Christians as an equivalent exercise in mass self-extinction.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Should have known....question a hell host's post and make numerous errors in grammer and punctuation.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I do not subscribe to the urban myth of suicidal lemmings but when a population explosion occurs followed by a migration that goes wrong they have been known to fall off cliffs. I am glad to have improved your knowledge of the animal kingdom.
Weeeeeeee, bong, bong, bong.
{Lemming falling on a trampoline.}
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Logician: quote:
I have heard conservatives sometimes question their own righteousness and specifically guard against self-righteousness. I cannot recall a single instance of hearing a liberal do this. They do have two clever imitations of this, but not the real article.
I love it when you are able to look inside people's minds and tell us non-enlightened ones what they are really thinking. Thank you - suddenly the world becomes clear. How do you do it? Do you analyse their handwriting or their tea leaves? Or do superhuman powers of logic bring telepathy in their wake, as was the case with Mr. Spock?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
For some funny reason I now have a burning desire to get out my old Commodore Amiga and play "lemmings"
Anyone remember that masterpiece?
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
auntbeast
Shipmate
# 377
|
Posted
Posted by MTMM
quote:
Sexual ethics would be the best example. Were there no factual consequences to sexual activity, surely we would ALL want to follow a “jack” line on this one?? I know I would!!
The only reason not to is because of factual implications: namely the negative emotional, physical and social implications of uncontrolled sexual activity?
OK, fine, but who is it gets to decide for any individual what those "negative" consequences are, whether they are actually "negative", and who it is that should be controlling the "uncontrolled" and for whom? And what of the incidents where the "negative consequence" is nothing more than a by-product of the belief that the behaviour is wrong? (e.g. if the belief is that children should be seen and not heard, the negative consequence of a child asking a question is only that the parent will punish them for it. There is no universal negative consequence inherent in the behaviour)
and as for Logician's:
quote:
You will seldom see the marks of self-questioning among conservatives, but you will never see it among liberals
Oh thank God.For a moment I thought I was about to question my beliefs about the conservatives being a bunch of racist, mysogynist, power mongers... but, I guess as a liberal that's not possible, whew, I guess I shall rest secure in my unalterable assumptions.
and furthermore, just because I am in a pissy humour
quote:
Do we exclude too many? Probably. Lord, I hope so, because I'd hate to think that there were even fewer than that saved. But having the opposite sin is not a virtue
Since when was it sin or a virtue for us to be doing the excluding or the including? Yet another thing that annoys me about the (generalized) conservatives. They seem to think it is up to them to make the determination. No thanks, I'll take my chances with God rather than my local fundy. Rather reminds me of an old joke in which God is showing a new comer around heaven and there is a walled off area with no windows.. that's for the [sub in name of fundamentalist group here], they think they're the only ones here.
Here's to hoping we can learn to get along sometime before the judgement day... although I hold little hope.
Cheers,
Auntbeast
--------------------
"My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor; and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal" - Mary Shelley (Frankenstein)
Posts: 820 | From: Vancouver, Canada | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
JimT, a fair question. Yes, about once a decade is about right. But it is fair to ask the subsidiary questions more often, particularly in the instance when other Christians call your actions into question. I would prefer self-examination to self doubt.
Wanderer, also a fair point, especially as I rail against constant mind-reading of liberals, who are quite sure that we conservatives have all manner of psychological ills which drive our beliefs. What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for this gander. Without rereading the exact wording of my post, I will make a clarification I think is fairer. I do not see evidence for that type of self-examination, nor also of cross-examination from within one's own group. I cannot say it doesn't occur. I do think if it had happened it would show in some way. If there are signs I should note but am missing, I am sure people will fill me in.
As a point of comparison in the public square, I note that Phillip Yancey and Tony Campolo have both done serious questioning of their earlier beliefs and accept some more politically liberal ideas. I read their self-examination of their former ideas respectfully, and found some persuasive points. I felt they had missed some things which bear on the discussion. Others have raised those questions to them, and they now show no inclination to continue the examination, but choose instead to demonize their critics. It leads me to ask, what is it about cast of mind which allows one set of beliefs to (occasionally) be questioned, and the other to not? It does not seem logically necessary that this be so, but it is in practice. Compare also, reading First Things, or reading The Nation in comparison to The National Review. The difference is startling.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
I read their self-examination of their former ideas respectfully, and found some persuasive points. I felt they had missed some things which bear on the discussion. Others have raised those questions to them, and they now show no inclination to continue the examination, but choose instead to demonize their critics.
How do you, and these "others", know that Campolo et al. have not, in fact, taken these things into consideration already? How do you know they have "missed" them? Are you performing the same mind-reading that you denigrate others for just 2 paragraphs before this quote?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Logician, thanks for your reply and verification. I have to say that I find it quite curious that you find the one dimension of "liberal vs. conservative" so very diagnostic of so much human behavior and interaction. For myself I find this one dimension even more limited in usefulness than the four dimensions of Meyers-Briggs. Some characteristics do tend to clump, especially at the extremes of the dimension, but the middle is a difficult place to describe and make predictions. What of the middle? Is there a place for "moderate" on your axis or is that a separate dimension of "inconsistency?" Are there two kinds of moderates, the "salad" mixture of some liberal and some conservative opinions as opposed to middle positions on most issues?
You painted a pretty big target on yourself with that one post, perhaps bigger than you intended. I admire the courage if not the wisdom of doing so, and admire you for responding with honesty.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I would echo Jim's last point in particular. Logician, I find it hard to remain annoyed with you for very long (despite the provocation ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) when you take criticism on the chin, and respond to it so honestly.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by auntbeast:
OK, fine, but who is it gets to decide for any individual what those "negative" consequences are, whether they are actually "negative", and who it is that should be controlling the "uncontrolled" and for whom? And what of the incidents where the "negative consequence" is nothing more than a by-product of the belief that the behaviour is wrong? (e.g. if the belief is that children should be seen and not heard, the negative consequence of a child asking a question is only that the parent will punish them for it. There is no universal negative consequence inherent in the behaviour)
In answer to your first question, I'm not sure it's relevant to the debate.
You ask "who decides what the negative consequences are for whom". The tone of your question is such as to make me think the question is supposed to be a rhetorical one, and that the reply is "no one can".
Yet even the most liberal people I know believe in this sort of moral decision making about negative consequences at least some of the time.
For example, you are not (I assume) seriously suggesting the legalising of paedophilia on the grounds “no one can decide for any individual what the negative consequences are”
The fact is, we all believe in this sort of executive moral decision making. It’s just having differing opinions about what it should and shouldn’t apply to.
Your argument to say we shouldn’t have it at all is, in one sense, a very strong one, but only if what you are arguing for is complete anarchy. If you want anything more ordered than that, you must submit to the idea of executive moral decision making, and, having submitted that idea, you can’t just pull the “anarchy argument” whenever it suits, and shelve it when it doesn’t suit.
You might say it should apply to paedophilia, but not homosexuality, but that is your opinion.
Presumably, if you class yourself as a liberal, you do not see any reason on the other hand for not allowing homosexuality?
But the wording is right there: see any reason That is always the way moral reasoning works..if you cannot see a reason for not being liberal about something...then we should be liberal about it.
If we cannot see any good reason for not allowing something, then we should allow it, because the moral imperative is always to allow as much as possible.
Therefore, the best defence for being more liberal on any issue is "I cannot see any reason not to be liberal on this issue".
You can't really construct a positive case for being more liberal, only state that you can see no compelling negative case.
The conservative response will usually just be "That's because you are too short sighted to see the reasons".
There's not a lot the liberal can say to that, because the whole point of being short sighted is that you don't know you are!
I should say, I’ve been on both sides of such debates. I think the reason they generate such anger is because they are so frustrating. The conservatives pulls his hair out, because the liberals can’t seem to see the obvious path to destruction that they are on. The liberal pulls his hair out because the conservative seems to live in an abstract world of dire consequences at some unspecified point in the future, while ignoring the obvious moral realities of the present.
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Re: JimT definitions (I know, he said it more for the purposes of humour than truth), which MTMM thought were right on the money:
quote:
Conservative Christian: Man[sic]kind is basically evil and in need of salvation, which will come by the grace of God leading all of us backward in time to the Roots of the Truth.
Are, in my special erudite way of speaking, pretty spewy. 'Backward'? 'Roots'? A traceable origin? Linear? Tain't no way ta talk about an eternal, omnipotent God if ya arks me. Seeing how he is Truth and all.
Nup. Thumbs down to Matt the Mad Medic. Martin PC Not uses much bigger words, more complex sentence structure, actual humour, and does a fairly good job of conveying God's grace and compassion and even being animated by it himself. And he's an inerrantist.
MMTM = ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) Snoresville. Go and watch MPCN in action, laddie. Learn from him. Until then, thou art just another rabid, regurgitating, somnolent hack. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Please resume.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
JimT, Anselmina is guarding against one type of self-righteousness but not another. As any is laudable, it's a shame to seem to pick on her particularly, but in the interests of accuracy I will not that nothing in Anslemina's comments says "Gee, maybe this type of ministry harms the church, or creates problems." I'm not saying is or isn't on that question BTW, as I don't want to get sidetracked. I only note that it is a self-question not asked.
I assume that, as a human being, there are bound to be elements of the performance of my contribution to ministry which may create problems or be harmful; just as every clergyperson, and indeed lay person, is prone to making mistakes or being a little lazy, or unpleasant or whatever the fault/sin is.
That my contribution to ministry would be per se harmful to the church, causes problems because I am not a male priest, has certainly caused me moments of self-doubt, and doubt over the question of women and the ministry, over the 10 plus years I've been exploring this road.
Though I have to say mainly because of the repercussions it has on some opponents rather than in any sense of 'is it against God's will, or wrong?' That argument was fought, personally, a long time ago, and as for rigorously questioning my personal sense of vocation to this kind of ministry, I believe that was what the selection process of the Church of England was about.
If I wasn't being comprehensive in my list of 'types of self-righteousness I must guard against', maybe that's because these things generally are the preserve of one's spiritual director and God. There are lots of 'self-questions' that are perhaps not suitable for public consumption!
I appreciate, Logician, that you have tried to be fair in your posts; that you have a particular point you wanted to make and were not necessarily interested in 'picking' on me personally.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Please give it a little time before you agree with MarkThePunk on anything, RuthW. I'm still recovering from the "I Dated a Republican" revelation.
My name is Laura.
[hi, Laura!]
I have dated Republicans. I can't defend it, but there's just something about their moral certainty and air of omniscience that I found really hot. Plus, in college, they dressed much better than the liberals. What can I say?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I married a Republican. She has mellowed considerably, however.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
What the feck is an "over-arching meta narrative"? when its at home?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
What the feck is an "over-arching meta narrative"? when its at home?
It's Pretty much the same as an over-arching meta narrative when it's on holiday - except without the suntan.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
For some funny reason I now have a burning desire to get out my old Commodore Amiga and play "lemmings"
Anyone remember that masterpiece?
Llllet's go!
I remember both masterpieces -- Lemmings and the Amiga.
I have no TV set, but my VCR and DVD player are hooked up to my old Amiga 500 monitor.
Snopes on Lemmings
David
now on an iMac
WE INTERRUPT THIS POST TO BRING A SPECIAL NEWS BULLETIN
Wow. Okay, now you can play Lemmings at home via an emulator I found here.
Wow.
I am sure that, in some way, if you look hard enough, one can find Lemmings hated by some liberal, somewhere. At high levels, it could be difficult, so I am sure I had some moments of hatred for the game, albeit briefly, when the timer ran out, but in typical liberal fashion, I felt guilty.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
What the feck is an "over-arching meta narrative"? when its at home?
Very very basically:
A meta-narrative is a big story, a paradigm/viewpoint, a lens through which to view the whole of life itself.
So Christianity is a meta-narrative, as is feminism.
Don't what Edward meant with the over-arching bit, cause part of the philosophy surrounding meta-narratives etc is that one isn't better than another, all truths are equal, that kinda thing. So one can't be over-arching the rest. Maybe he meant to emphasize just how all-encompassing said meta-narrative was; it arched over, and explained, the whole of life.
Or maybe he was being an ironic bugger, trying to simultaneously show both how clever he is, and how stupid other people are, for having to ask what he meant. Except clever dickedness like that just looks pretenious and ultimately stupid. Never mind Edward
Viki
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Thanks for the explanation. One thought occurs what happens when meta narratives collide within Christianity? Ie traditional views of sexuality and a more liberal view of sexuality?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
Thanks for the explanation. One thought occurs what happens when meta narratives collide within Christianity? Ie traditional views of sexuality and a more liberal view of sexuality?
Short answer: Dunno.
Long answer: Either Christianity is a meta-narrative, and traditional/liberal views of sexuality are narratives within it. Or traditional Christianity and liberal Christianity are meta-narratives on their own. Or it's a pile of shite.
Your call
Viki
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
No you have a Kuhnian revolution. That is two metanarratives struggling for cultural dominance.
Actually I am more sure that liberal sexuality is far more a Gramscian accommodation by traditional sexulaties of other sexual perspectives. That is I do not believe it has a true radicalness towards the metanarrative at its route but concerned with the accommodation of others who may hold truly experience this radicalness inorder to remain dominant.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I haven't started a thing. It isn't in my nature to ruffle feathers ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) I merely want to ask innocent questions ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) But most of the time this place puzzles me ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Toby
Shipmate
# 3522
|
Posted
The whole liberal/conservative thing has often confused/frustrated/vexed/disturbed me on many occasions. The words come with so much baggage that they have accrued through constant misuse as prejorative terms. I would loosely be classed as 'liberal' because that is where my gut instinct draws me towards. Above you can read tortuous logic about how liberals are, essentially, illogical but I don't think the answer lies in logic. For myself, I lean towards a liberal perspective because that seems to be the more loving and less nasty side (yes, yes, I know that everyone has their horror stories about how they have been abused by liberals...). I grew up from a conservative church background but there was just something wrong, some dissonance and hypocrisy and dogma and intolerance that cannot be logically proven through philosophical sophistry but is instead intuitively perceived.
The other thing that annoys me is how if one is 'liberal' in one thing, people assume that one is a 'liberal' and thus the scum of the earth (and I am sure it goes the other way too). I think evolution is valid (after all, I am a biology student) so of course I must think Jesus never existed and attend secret communist rallies after university. Ridiculous, but people are regularly branded by others along similar (if not quite so exaggerated) lines.
This thread is entitled 'hated by the liberals', but I am a 'liberal' because, in some ways, I have been driven away by the hate I see in some more 'conservative' arguments.
--------------------
'Civilization is only savagery silver-gilt'
Allan Quartermain
Posts: 99 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Leans on toasting fork
Yawn. If you wanna use long words in your post and/or debate exactly what Liberalness or Post-modernism are, then visit Purgatory.
Viki, hellhost
[Edited cause I can.]
[ 05. February 2003, 23:15: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
This is hell so here goes. For me I have a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I come across AFFIRMING LIBERALS and BACKWARDS IN BIGOTRY! Each of them in a way makes my skin crawl... and just because I am not an out and out Liberal doesn't mean I'm and uncaring fundermentalist. And just because I am not sure whether women can or can't be priests doesn't mean I have sold out to the Liberals and their permissive agenda. Surely catholics in the COF will become an endangered species because we are fighting among ourselves. This weakened catholic voice means that loony free church folk will have their way within Anglicanism. If we catholics continue to cut each other's throats we leave the door open for Lay Eucharistic celebration and the end to dignified and prayerful worship.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Gunner, sort your threads out. If you want to argue/bitch about FinF, post over here.
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I was being even handed, as always, bitching about both AffCath and FinF.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Or maybe he was being an ironic bugger, trying to simultaneously show both how clever he is, and how stupid other people are, for having to ask what he meant. Except clever dickedness like that just looks pretentious and ultimately stupid. Never mind Edward
Oh stick it up your nose.
The irony in the post is that the story of 'there is one right way of doing things' is found in both Liberal and Conservative viewpoints ... but the alternative that 'there is no one right way of doing things' is in deed a 'one right way of doings things'.
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Yawn. If you wanna use long words in your post and/or debate exactly what Liberalness or Post-modernism are, then visit Purgatory.
Oh insert it upwards into your proboscis.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Yawn. If you wanna use long words in your post and/or debate exactly what Liberalness or Post-modernism are, then visit Purgatory.
You're admitting, then, that all hellizens are incapable of understanding long words? You're all a bunch of 2-digit IQ lukewarmies? I'm not sure I would cop to that in public 'fI were you.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
You're here too, aren't you?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
You're here too, aren't you?
Just Visiting.
Actually if I took what you said to heart, I would then be offended by what she said and not merely amused. It doesn't really help her point.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Yawn. If you wanna use long words in your post and/or debate exactly what Liberalness or Post-modernism are, then visit Purgatory.
You're admitting, then, that all hellizens are incapable of understanding long words? You're all a bunch of 2-digit IQ lukewarmies? I'm not sure I would cop to that in public 'fI were you.
Reader Alexis
No dearheart, I'm saying that I don't get paid enough to read the long words and incomprehensible posts that belong in Purgatory. The Purgatory hosts do. Well, either that or they're gullible fools.
Viki
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
No dearheart, I'm saying that I don't get paid enough to read the long words and incomprehensible posts that belong in Purgatory. The Purgatory hosts do. Well, either that or they're gullible fools.
Glad to know that Orwell was right. If my words and ideas are too taxing then I will sat away from Hell.
[How about you get your code right first? Then concentrate on making basic sense. You'll sat away from Hell?]
[ 09. February 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
[How about you get your code right first? Then concentrate on making basic sense. You'll sat away from Hell?]
Code and sense are, after all, a modernist construct.
BTW I Love you!
![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Can Liberals have it all ways round the freedom and yet the authority of the church. How can they be met when they are often so opposed to each other. What of say Headship bveing male and found in scripture and the desire to be politically correct. Does Scripture then become trashed to serve the needs of our present western world view?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
What of say Headship bveing male and found in scripture
What of say accepting that might be what you think, but ain't what some other people think?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
Can Liberals have it all ways round the freedom and yet the authority of the church. How can they be met when they are often so opposed to each other. What of say Headship bveing male and found in scripture and the desire to be politically correct. Does Scripture then become trashed to serve the needs of our present western world view?
Sorry, but this really doesn't make sense.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fen
Shipmate
# 4052
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Ken:
Sorry, but this really doesn't make sense.
Which I think answers Gunner's question... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Gunner asked, how do you reconcile authority of the church with freedom of the individual? You replied, it doesn't make sense.
In my book, that's 1-0 to the Arsen*l.
The only other reply so far has gone for the unfortunate straw man of male headship. Any advances? It's not that difficult.
Posts: 103 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I can't answer Gunners non-question about "politically correct" not being reconciled with "headship" for 2 reasons:
- It is meaningless to reconcile an abstract noun with an adjective in a non-inflected language. "Politically correct headship" parses as well as many other phrases.
- as "politically correct" is a category used by right-wingers to mock things said by the Left, its contents can only be defined by those right-wingers. I am not a right-winger, I am a Socialist. So I can't possibly know what is meant by "politically correct". It is nothing to do with me. Ask a Daily Mail journalist. They seem to know what it means.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Dear Kim,
Not be familiar with Grammar I am at a loss as to what you are on about. Nevertheless, I do think that your response was suggesting that I am of a right-wing persuasion. Not only could that be interpreted as good or bad it is also assuming that I hold right-wing views. I doubt any of us hold clear cut Right or Left political views. Not withstanding all this I can't believe that such a clever person as yourself could graps what I was trying to say, albeit rather clumsily, about political correctness within the church. Perhaps a more accurate label would have been the permissive liberalism of the church which seeks to cosy up to the prevailing secular world view.
If you think I am wrong just look at what is happening:
The sactity of life has been erroded so that a halacust occurs in the legal death camps called hospitals and clinics. And where is the voice of the church where is the action? It is limited to a few who are called mad, bigots and fundermentalists.
Or what of divorce. The church is pandering to the world view of disposability. Anythging that has lost its interest is thrown away like an old shoe. And the church instead of being counter to such a view sanctions serial adultary each time it remarries.
What of the issue of interest payments on loans. We we really make a fuss when big business exploits the poor and ensures that they are enslaved in their poverty?
What of the issue of human sexulaity. A complex issue I know. But will the church ordain practicing homosexuals? Will they eventually say that a same sex relationship is the equivalent to a marriage and deserves a church service?
I am not a great mind but a guy who struggles all the time with these issues and constantly ask myself whether I am right or wrong. In the end I have to be true to my conscience. But in doing so many other chiristians make you feel like some hate filled bastard!
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
You know, I'd hate this thread to descend into yet another discussion of homosexuality. I'd also hate it to turn into a copy of a Purgatory thread (such as this one, on abortion).
So how about y'all find something more to discuss based on the OP, or I'll close the thread?
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Gunner, I never know which it is with you. Either it's option a) your head is so far up your bottom you really can't tell the Christians from the crap; or option b) you really can't make the connection between how you ignorantly judge huge sections of Christendom, finding them summarily 'guilty', and why it is some of these condemned people bite back at you?
By all means shoot off a few rounds at whoever it is you consider to be the enemy. But be careful with what weapon you choose. You're very good with the blunderbus and buckshot, which means one pull of the trigger and everything in sight gets riddled with holes, and quite frankly the only safe place to be is where you are, behind the gun!
When you refer to 'the church' doing all the things you've listed in your post, do you really mean every living, breathing Christian alive on the planet including yourself behaves like this and promotes this kind of behaviour? Of course, not. So, hold fire on 'the church.... this', 'the church.... that' crap. Just think for a moment what, or better still who, you mean by 'the church'.
Do you mean everyone who holds to a more liberal theology than your theology behaves like this and promotes this kind of behaviour? That does narrow it down a bit, and if that's your honest opinion then so be it. But don't be surprized when liberals, like myself, come back and challenge what would appear to be an ignorant, misinformed and utterly untruthful view of liberal Christianity.
FWIW, I'm sure there's nothing wrong with your mind; but there aren't many of us around whose minds couldn't be improved at least by a little bit of broadening (myself included, of course, which is why I enjoy the boards!). So before you pull the trigger on that old blunderbus of yours, check out that it really is an enemy of God's kingdom you've got in your sights, and not simply some poor sod whose practice of Christianity differs just significantly enough from your own to prevent you from recognizing them as the co-worker with Christ that they really are.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
