Thread: Hell: Hated by the Liberals Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001075

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
Are conservatives in theology an endangered species? If conservative voice their opions on either women, gays, the position of scripture, and pro-life issues they are often accused of being old fashioned, anti-women, and homophobic. Such opinions are short-sighted and make me The liberal thought police seems to have taken over much discussion that perhaps the more timid folk like me hide their views. With the hiding of opinions there is dishonesty and a lack of enagement in any serious debate.

[ 15. May 2003, 19:01: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Nope.

Plenty round here.

Of course, we aren't all conservative in politics. So if you start being racist, or sexist, or militarist, or elitist in any way whatsoever, just wait till i bash you over the head with my Bible...
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I'd say almost exactly the opposite. I can't say that I have seen any reticence from conservatives - Reform and FiF are hardly shrinking violets - and my experience is that liberals are much more likely to be accused of being lukewarm, not really Christian, and so on.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Then again I have seen it claimed that believing an all-male clergy to be the will of God is a product of hatred. I've never seen Liberals accused of hatred.

Reader alexis
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
As a church secretary, I see how much the conservative religious press is putting out - every day we get flyers and catalogs. I'm not worried about their survival.

Do you really think conservatives are timid souls, afraid to speak their minds? 'Cause I haven't noticed this. Yes, they get jumped on a lot. So do liberals. The only way to avoid getting jumped on for your views is to not have any.
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Then again I have seen it claimed that believing an all-male clergy to be the will of God is a product of hatred. I've never seen Liberals accused of hatred.

Reader alexis

---

Hell, I've accused liberals of hatred on so many occasions.

Isn't that right, Mike?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I've never seen Liberals accused of hatred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I've never seen Liberals accused of hatred.

---

You must have abstained from our little Anglican "Forward in Faith" thread.

---

quote:

---

The liberal thought police seems to have taken over much discussion that perhaps the more timid folk like me hide their views. With the hiding of opinions there is dishonesty and a lack of enagement in any serious debate.

---

Gunner, I hadn't realised you were so timid! You must learn to express your opinions. Tell us what you really think. Please don't be dishonest, and please don't be frightened of the liberal thought police!
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
If most of what you hear is liberal, and you are a conservative, then you might feel a little out numbered; if ensuing arguements get heated, you might feel persecuted. This works also for those liberals who are found in the opposite scenario.

Thought police come in all stripes. Anybody who claims otherwise has to get out more.
 

---

Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :
 
It's definitely true that 'there ain't no bigot like a liberal bigot'. I find it good fun turning on my 'thought-police chip' - heeey, that sounded a bit racist/sexist/sectarian (or could be spun to sound that way). It's a bit scary when I take it too seriously, though.
 

---

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :
 
Gunner - if you're timid, I'm a banana. And if you think that the liberals who disagree with you here are the 'thought police' then you've led a very sheltered life. So liberal opinions make you vomit? So what if your opinions make me vomit? Where does that get us? (apart from an even lower than usual standard of debate). If you don't want to be disagreed with, don't bother posting here. I agree that there's no point in people hiding their opinions - but you seem to want liberals to hide theirs. I mean, what exactly is it you want? Just for everybody to be reasonable and see it your way for a change?
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
The Ship is a very lively place, and I'm sure we've all been jumped on at times. If you express any view at all, you can get challenged on it - particularly if your view was expressed tactlessly, or you started making assummptions about other people. So I have to say that this perception of bias is likely to be unfounded, and to arise from our own starting points.

For instance, I am slightly liberal in theology, more so in politics. It seems to me that both of these views get attacked - particularly the last. From where I'm sitting it often feels that anyone less militant than Genghis Khan is doomed to a rough ride. But I reckon that might have something to do with where I'm coming from, particulary as there are lots of Shipmates (such as the OP) who would claim the exact opposite.
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
This timid creature thanks you for not being too intimidating. Of course without colour the world would be dull and I am greatful I can express some of my hate-filled views with other equally lovely people.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I would definitely say that conservatives in theology in the U.S. are far from a dying breed. They are alive and well in what is called "flyover country" in the U.S. (everywhere but California and New York ).

The media is predominantly located in the latter (CA and NY) so the "liberals" have a very loud voice regarding conservative "hatred", etc.

By the way, I'm religiously liberal, as if any of that matters.

Mousethief:

Navel-gazers are not limited to Anglicans .
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Ruth

quote:

---

The only way to avoid getting jumped on for your views is to not have any.

---

I am not sure what conservative means. I am extremely conservative on doctrine, wildly radical on incorporating truths from other disciplines, crazily liberal on certain ethical issues and impossibly fuzzy on what God does or doesn't do, (he gives me my marching orders ... not the other way round).

Does this make me a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal? Maybe it makes me a cross between Rowan Williams, Helder Camara, Hans Ur Von Balthasar and Vladimir Lossky. (I have deliberately chosen modern witnesses).
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Then again I have seen it claimed that believing an all-male clergy to be the will of God is a product of hatred. I've never seen Liberals accused of hatred.

Reader alexis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
You see "the will of God", I see carefully perfumed misogyny disguised as the will of God. Whatever. To each his or her own. (Uh-oh! Inclusive language alert!)

Could what I just said be perceived as hatred? Depends on whom you ask. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I would definitely say that conservatives in theology in the U.S. are far from a dying breed. They are alive and well in what is called "flyover country" in the U.S. (everywhere but California and New York ).

---

Oh, we have them. We just hide 'em real well.

Along with the smokers.


 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

quote:

---

If conservative voice their opions on either women, gays, the position of scripture, and pro-life issues they are often accused of being old fashioned, anti-women, and homophobic.

---

Gunner, you shy creature, your first post to me was that "people who don't believe in the Virgin Birth but do believe other things are clever dicks." You have proven yourself the cleverer of we two dicks, my friend: you are the one who must cower in fear of my wrathful liberal slurs. Nice job!



You and other conservatives will not draw fire for "any opinion on women," just one: that God does not intend them to become priests. Try saying that because women have been born and bred to be more sociable than men that they are actually more suited for the priesthood than men. See who calls you names then!

The same goes for "opinions on gays." There is only one opinion that will draw liberal fire: that they are sinners with a perverse desire that is at odds with God's plan for normal human behavior. Have you some other view of them that has wrongly drawn fire from liberal bigots?

So it goes for "position of scripture:" the view that it needs little interpretation other than reading what it says in today's translated English is what will draw fire, not "any opinion." Especially if you imply that it says "right here--no women priests; right there--homosexuality is sin."

What specific views do you have on women, gays, scripture, and the sanctity of life that are wrongly described by liberal bigots as old-fashioned, anti-women, and homophobic? Surely you're a clever enough dick to come up with some.
 

---

Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:
And churches where any mildly conservative opinion goes over like a turd in the punchbowl.*

*Sad. We had to throw almost half the batch out.

---

You know I have to ask this...

Half the punch or half the turd?


 

---

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
What indeed is a Liberal/Conservative ? A political 'Liberal' in history believes in non-Government interference, and 'free-trade' with no barriers or taxes. Not what we mean by 'liberal' today eh ?

My explanation...

A Conservative Christian believes that everyone is basically bad/evil and needs saving, punishment/imprisonment being a good start..

A Liberal Christian believes that everyone is basically good but some evil influences have crept in from somewhere (probably from the Conservatives) and can be cured by Government legislation.

Pax et Bonum
 

---

Posted by auntbeast (# 377) on :
 
I manage to be neither hated nor adored by either camp. It seems I just confuse them all. My politics/theology cover a wide range of positions. A while back I noticed all those fish on bumpers.... and decided I wanted to play too. I stuck a Darwin fish and a Jesus fish nose to nose on my bumper and painted a big silver heart over their noses. It's great. I can catch sh*t in almost any parking lot... the fundies hate the Darwin fish... the left of Marx contingent hate the Jesus fish... and I have ample opportunities to play with people's heads and fine tune my beliefs in the conversations that ensue.

Here's to the "passionate middle of the road". It's time we put our foot down.

All good things,
Auntbeast
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Auntbeast - you rock!

(And I've been wracking my barins trying to remember which L'Engle novel your name comes from. Is it A Swiftly Tilting Planet? I have no copy to hand to check.)
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 
As I've mentioned on several occasions, there was a time I got called a mad fundamentalist and a wet woolly liberal by other Christians in the space of about a week.

Actually, everyone hates me. Which proves they're all morons.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Milkman, I've had that experience too. Makes you feel you must be doing something right!
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
<tangent>
Wanderer: A Wrinkle in Time
</tangent>

I hate everybody, liberal and conservative.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
A Wrinkle In Time???? Bugger, how could I have been so stupid. That's my favourite - and the best of all her output. Nooooooo.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
A Liberal Christian believes that everyone is basically good but some evil influences have crept in from somewhere (probably from the Conservatives) and can be cured by Government legislation.

---

Ah... no wonder your posts about "liberals" are meaningless
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Garden Hermit, you've got an excellent start going, but you've mixed religion and politics. It is perhaps better to stick to religion only.

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.

Liberal Christian: Human[sic]kind is basically good and already on the road to salvation, which will come as the grace of God leads all of us forward in time to a New Absolutely Relative and Inclusive Truth.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
How about "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life"?
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
Gunner, depends in what context your question is addressed.

Within the church I'd say no, evangelicals are growing in influence largely due to the rapidly declining number of non-evangelical worshippers. And this trend will continue. I understand that c.80% of Anglican ordinands are evangelicals.

In the UK as a whole evangelicals are a tiny minority (c.2% of the poplulation). And typical evangelical views on abortion, sexuality, commitment etc are not very politically correct.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
....loved by the go-o-o-o-od
Robin Ho-o-od! Robin Ho-o-od!

Sorry. Don't know what came over me. As you were.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think thats definitely an exaggeration in terms of ordinands.

This does emphasis the point that the Church may well become simply estranged from the rest of society and ignored as a result - because the effect of this direction is to alienate those who would not find it in the least appealing
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Become? It is. They all left. A couple of generations ago, most of them. Are we to pretend that we don't believe what we do believe just to get them all back?
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
I am generally accused on this board of being "too conservative", however, in many other places I have been accused of being "too liberal". (Yes..really)

Having being accused by both sides, I can honestly say I find the former far more of a personal insult and more hurtful.

The reason is, in general, I think the liberals tend to imply a "moral high ground" that conservatives do not.

If you disagree with a conservative, they may well say you are mistaken in your particular belief on a particular issue, but it need not generalise to "you are therefore a bad person". A conservative can accuse you of having committed an misdemeanour rather than a felony.

For example, a conservative may criticise your view on homosexuality, because they say it is in conflict with scripture, but all they are really therefore saying is that you have made a mistake in your judgement of scripture. If they are a decent sort of person they will assume it to be an honest mistake. They may try and "correct" you and you may find that patronising, but they need not be necessarily saying you have your entire ethical gyroscope out of kilter.

However, if a liberal finds you offensive the ethical law that they are usually accusing you of having breached is always the same one, regardless of the particular issue: Intolerance, that is, the impinging of another individual's personal freedom of thought and/or action by your own belief.

This principle is so highly held by all men (conservatives and liberals alike), that if you are truly in breach, then we would surely all agree the charge is a grave one; you are committing an ethical felony of the highest order.

It is such an obvious principle in all ethics that one can hardly argue you are in ignorance of it, or do not understand it, or have trouble believing or accepting it. If you are in breach of the ethical axiom of tolerance, it can only be because you wilfully choose to be.

To be in disagreement with a liberal then, if the liberal has good cause to be in disagreement, by definition means you are an intolerant bigot.

However, what I have tended to find, is that whether you truly are in breach of the liberal dogma of hindering personal freedom usually all hangs on who's freedom it is being considered.

Very often, more than one party's freedom is in play, but the liberal will have, conciously or unconciously, made a personal judgement on which party is most important and will henceforth completely disregard any others, focusing the entire discussion around whether their chosen party's freedom is being impinged.

It would be cynical to say the particular personal freedom that most liberals usually have in mind is their own, although human nature being what it is, this is sometimes the case.

I tend to find most liberals are highly inflexible when asked to consider that other personal freedoms may come into play or afford in their thinking an equal starting point for both sides of the argument.

For example, should one take a pro-life view, a liberal will have burned you at the stake for your ethical felony of denying women their personal freedom long before even beginning to entertain or engage with the possibility that there may be other personal freedoms at stake: such as those of the fetus.

For me the abortion question is not one of "Are you liberal or conservative on this issue?" It's a question of are you a libertarian for fetuses or a libertarian for women? The question of which you should be is surely not a question conservativism /liberalism per se?

This is only one example, chosen for illustration due to it's recent debate in purgatory, but it equally applies to War/pacifism, sexual politics of all descriptions, theological issues (Which all fundamentally all boil down to what beliefs you must have to fall within the category of "True Christian")

In fact I have come to the conclusion that we are basically all liberals. I know I certainly am at heart. The question is what you choose to be liberal about and how you prioritise various groups liberties.

So what we really have is the liberty of different groups which are in competition..and those liberties sometimes become mutually exclusive.

The problem is, for those times when the liberties become mutually exclusive, we must have some kind of systemic "rules of play" to decide which trumps which.

The problem is, this is by definition a system of moral law which sits above, and in judgement over personal liberty and freedom.

Which is of course the antithesis of liberalism, yet it must exist for liberalism to exist.

Hence all liberals are really conservatives.

Confused? I am.

Matt
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

I stuck a Darwin fish and a Jesus fish nose to nose on my bumper and painted a big silver heart over their noses. It's great.

---

Auntbeast - you are my hero! Truely that is the most fantastic thing I have ever heard. Fantastic.

My rejection of 7 day creation has marked me out as a "rebellious liberal" in certain circles! Which I'm sure will give MerseyMike and the rest of my liberal brethren here a chuckle!

matt
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Matt, some good points there.

But I'm not a liberal.
 

---

Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
The reason is, in general, I think the liberals tend to imply a "moral high ground" that conservatives do not.

---

quote:

---

If you disagree with a conservative, they may well say you are mistaken in your particular belief on a particular issue, but it need not generalise to "you are therefore a bad person".

---

quote:

---

However, if a liberal finds you offensive the ethical law that they are usually accusing you of having breached is always the same one, regardless of the particular issue: Intolerance, that is, the impinging of another individual's personal freedom of thought and/or action by your own belief.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, the term is "poppycock" - but only in excruciatingly polite company. I've found one as bad as the other here...

---

quote:

---

The outcome of liberalism is merley that your opinions are condemned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
Re. the rest, frankly a lot of "liberals" are not, in fact, liberals, but instead are merely touters of another conformist orthodoxy - i.e. different by label rather than nature...

---

Spot on. I come from a church background where anybody Catholic is routinely considered a liberal.
 

---

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :
 
Just a line Gunner to offer my support for your post 'Buggered'.

I thought that you made a very valid point and it's a shame that Nightlamp went and buggered the thread.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Just when I thought Lifeman knew nothing about comedy at all, he goes and says this! My apologies, you are a very funny man after all.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Yo, dude, there's a whole whopping huge thread on it right down there in Dead Horses, which is still quite active...
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lifeman:
Just a line Gunner to offer my support for your post 'Buggered'.

I thought that you made a very valid point and it's a shame that Nightlamp went and buggered the thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:

quote:

---

The outcome of liberalism is merley that your opinions are condemned.

---

Someone needs to tell unborn children that.

---

quote:

---

Unless you personally plan to donate money to help an impoverished single mother and her child survive (And I'm talking about a mother and her already born child), kindly [trying to think of a more polite but no less forceful way to say "shut up" but am at a loss for words]. There's plenty of other threads on this topic anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
So come on pro-choice campaigners: convince me abortion isn't taking a human life and I will gladly join your number and campaign fervently for you.

---

quote:

---

The point of the pro-choice stance is that there are instances (medical and non-medical) where the taking of a human life may be justified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
the liberals tend to imply a "moral high ground" that conservatives do not.

---

Oh. You're serious.

quote:

---

For example, a conservative may criticise your view on homosexuality, because they say it is in conflict with scripture, but all they are really therefore saying is that you have made a mistake in your judgement of scripture. If they are a decent sort of person they will assume it to be an honest mistake. They may try and "correct" you and you may find that patronising, but they need not be necessarily saying you have your entire ethical gyroscope out of kilter.

---

quote:

---

However, if a liberal finds you offensive the ethical law that they are usually accusing you of having breached is always the same one, regardless of the particular issue: Intolerance, that is, the impinging of another individual's personal freedom of thought and/or action by your own belief.

---

quote:

---

Very often, more than one party's freedom is in play, but the liberal will have, conciously or unconciously, made a personal judgement on which party is most important and will henceforth completely disregard any others, focusing the entire discussion around whether their chosen party's freedom is being impinged.

---

But conservatives don't do this?

Oh, that's right. You're serious.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Elizabeth Anne said:

quote:

---

Unless you personally plan to donate money to help an impoverished single mother and her child survive (And I'm talking about a mother and her already born child)...

---

Actually, I do that on a regular basis.
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Matt, Matt, I read your essay with tears streaming down my face!

Perhaps it's my mischievous inhabitation of evolution/creation boards, but if I were to list the things that theological conservatives have called me, this post wouldn't even be suitable for Hell.

Apparently I'm a ravening wolf in sheep's clothing. I am a cafeteria Christian. I will never enter heaven. I'm taking orders from an atheist conspiracy. And so on.

I have to disagree with you on a personal experience basis. When I have gone to churches more conservative than me, I have been labelled as a dangerous liberal. I have been told to shut up or put up. Or, of course, go away. I've been made unwelcome generally. Conservatives have frequently doubted that I am a Christian at all.

Now I go to a very liberal church - I often joke that the bell at St Marks doesn't go "Bong bong", it goes "Spong spong". We've had conferences from Borg, Crossan and Spong in the last three years. The church is probably as far from me theologically than the evangelical churches I speak of. But you know what? They have no problem with me. My Christianity is never doubted. The validity of my opinions is accepted.

The point is this - I think many conservatives have a scale in their mind from "conservative" through to "liberal" through to "not Christian at all". So if you are on the liberal side of them you are in danger of dropping into the "not Christian at all" category. Liberals do not see it that way. We may think Conservatives are wrong about a whole load of things, but we never suggest that we will not see them in heaven.

Those of us that believe in heaven, anyway.
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 
While Karl has a point (I've been considered "not a Christian" on some occasions) I've also been faced with a sort of intellectual arrogance from my liberal brothers and sisters, in a sort of "you believe in the literal resurrection? Gosh, how quaint and benighted" sort of way.

I find this equally galling.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
ummmm....I believe in the literal resurrection .

Does that make me a conservative??!!
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 
Mike:

Nope. But then, not all conservatives (as I really hope you've realised by now) are hardline "fundamentalist" nutcases, just as not all liberals are unbelieving and intellectually arrogant.

I know people who are far more conservative than me, and people who are far more liberal, all of whom I'm fine with - but on both sides you get your scumbags. It's a fact of life.

Gunner in his OP wasn't complaining about the lack of conservatives, really. He was just complaining about the lack of people who agree with him.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

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.

Liberal Christian: Human[sic]kind is basically good and already on the road to salvation, which will come as the grace of God leads all of us forward in time to a New Absolutely Relative and Inclusive Truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Now, my point was, that when a liberal takes issue with something that someone has said, 99 times out of 100 it is on grounds of imposing on another individuals liberty.

---

quote:

---

Not imposing upon another individual's liberty is an extremely high moral virtue, hence if a liberal is accusing you of it, they are accusing you of a morally very serious "sin".

---

quote:

---

A conservative on the other hand may only be accusing you of being mistaken in your biblical interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Of course, an obnoxious conservative can say this in a nasty way, and a nice liberal can accuse you in a very respectful and polite way. I'm not awfully bothered by their manner. I was referring to the philosophical implications of what they are saying.

---

quote:

---

Conservatives derive their morality on the basis of what is dictated in scripture

---

quote:

---

Liberals derive their ideas of morality based on what they feel to be self evidently true...because they don't like being dicatated to.

---

quote:

---

Now, if you have a disagreement with a conservative it can simply be a matter of interpretation of those dictated laws.

---

quote:

---

But liberal morality comes from supposedly "self evident truths", but if you don't see them. to be such....then clearly you must be blind to something which should be self evident. If you don't "see" it, then presumably you are to morality what a tone deaf person is to music, a kind of moral dunce.

---

quote:

---

Therefore a liberal's attack on your morality is highly personal attack on your own internal moral compass.

---

quote:

---

ummmm....I believe in the literal resurrection .
Does that make me a conservative??!!

---

:faints:
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

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.

Liberal Christian: Human[sic]kind is basically good and already on the road to salvation, which will come as the grace of God leads all of us forward in time to a New Absolutely Relative and Inclusive Truth.

---

No one has picked up on this gem of a post, so I will.

I thought this from Jim T was absolutely fantastic. I think it's just about spot on.

---

What about the idea that (hu)man[sic]kind was basically created to be good, that this goodness is still in God's plan, but has fallen into sin and is in need of salvation, but that salvation has already been made real, possibly even for those who have not heard about Jesus' death and resurrection, and the Grace of God is not bound by time (either past or future) but is leading those of us who will trust Him to the eternal Roots of Truth -- which, while Absolute, must often be understood in Relative contexts and with an eye to the way God may work Inclusively, redeeming all that is in us?

Not very Hellish, I'm afraid. Dammit! Oh, wait, that was, so I'm covered.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Merseymike said:

quote:

---

ummmm....I believe in the literal resurrection .
Does that make me a conservative??!!

---

:faints:

---

Hoping to put the Punk out of commission for a couple of days ...
I also believe in the literal resurrection.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :
 
Well give Mark his due; he is a fan of the Dead Kennedys.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Matt, while I'm flattered, there was more humor than truth in my definitions. What I tried to show in the Conservative definition was a charicature of how they are viewed by Liberals and vice versa. While some Conservatives might view the charicature as not so unflattering, Liberals would probably find their's much more so. They would probably go more for something like "forward in time to an Ever-Clearing Picture of the Ultimately Unknowable Truth."

I do see what you are saying in terms of the differences being almost like completely different denominations. It comes out in works like The Meaning of Jesus by NT Wright (CS Lewis style conservative) and Marcus Borg (nearly Spong). A very central question is: was the Truth given long ago but we stubbornly refuse to recognize and obey it, or is the Truth continuously revealed to us in new manifold ways that change radically with time? I'm afraid I'm in the "new radical revelation" camp. So much so that I've gone over to the Unitarian/Universalists.

Just by the way because it's on subject, I bumped into Marcus Borg's office a few days ago. Yup. He's a professor at Oregon State and it looks like I will be taking a course from him on science and ethics. I'll have to tell him what a timid, cling-to-the-past (1960's) conservative I find him!
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Merseymike, in some quarters believing in the literal resurrection does make you a conservative. Don't fight it, relax and enjoy it.

I think conservatives have learned to be unnecessarily defensive. Yes, it is true that people don't "get it," and ascribe ill motive to us rather than deal with the content of our thought. But we should expect that at this point.

There is an apples-and-oranges comparison in the argument that conservatives think you're not Christian and going to hell, but we nice liberals never do that. That's our point. You (generalization, pace) include too much. You can't draw any boundary of what's Christian and what isn't. 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. Feel free to think us judgemental or closed-minded. You could be right. But don't congratulate yourself on falling to starboard because it's not port.

RuthW you make a fair point in turning the self-righteousness accusation back on conservatives. All of us do it sometimes, and some of us do it all the time. My challenge to you (plural) is very serious, however. 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. The first is chastising themselves for not going farther in their chosen direction than they have. This takes the form of (for example) "well, I don't know if I could do it, being human and all, but even if they were raping my wife we shouldn't meet violence with violence," or "I also find that selfishness in me when the government wants to raise taxes." It's just a nice way of saying "And if I believed as you did I'd really feel like a shitbag." Similarly, to accuse by apologising. "Christians have been allied with some tyrants, so we shouldn't be so quick to judge..." which would be fine, except that "we" means "you," because the other progressives and I certainly never did that. Bill Clinton was a master at this one.

The second is to never question whether one's position is actually more cruel, less moral. Of course refraining from war must always be more moral. Of course we should preserve the wilderness. Liberals will acknowledge that perhaps their idea lacks some practicality, that it may be only a noble dream, but never that their dream might actually be a nightmare.

Now that I have you all in infuriated disbelief, I will add to it. Browse the papers. Review the posts. You will seldom see the marks of self-questioning among conservatives, but you will never see it among liberals. There is an agony of soul, a scar of intellectual self-confrontation, that reveals itself if you let people talk long enough. And I don't see it.

You are of course free to start convincing me at any time.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
If liberals seem that way, Logican, one reason why is they tend to focus on societal sins more than conservatives do, whereas conservatives tend to focus more on personal sins. And liberals, though often quite dogmatic on societal sin, usually are not as dogmatic as conservatives on personal sin.

Good point on the "boundaries" of what is Christian. I thank God that perfect theology is not a requirement for salvation. Trust in Jesus is. But even the lines between trusting in Him and not trusting in Him can be hard to see at times.

I better go before I start sounding like a liberal.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Well everyone,

I fully accept that up to this point, my posts on this thread have been incredibly badly written to the point on unintelligibility.

I agree with what Ruth W and gbuchanan said, the point is I didn’t mean anything like what they thought I meant. Rather than try again to defend what I’ve written before and spend numerous posts saying “What I meant to say was this” I’ll just try again, this time illustrating with a little parable, not because I need to make it easier for you to understand, but because it will make it easier for me to put into words!

Once upon a time there was a community of lemmings. They had an elected council to make their decisions, each member of which represented a section of the lemming community:

Jack – A very liberal lemming, but not awfully bright.
Lucy – A liberal lemming, but very clever.
Peter – A rather dim, but very cautious lemming.
Mildred – An evil nasty lemming who just wanted to spoil everyone’s fun.

One day a council was called because a lot of the lemmings had a deep built in desire to go and jump off cliffs.

“We should all be able to jump off cliffs if we want! It would be fun!” said Jack.
“Fun? Fun? Quick! Ban it!” said Mildred.
“It doesn’t sound a like a good idea to me, I don’t think it should be allowed” said Peter
“Yes, although I generally don’t like having laws, in this case we shouldn’t allow lemmings to go jumping off the cliffs because they will all die” said Lucy.

“Awwwwww! You’re all spoilsports! You’re all restrictive inhibited conservatives and discriminatory against those of us who have an innate desire to cliff jump!” said Jack.

Still, it was put to a vote and the law “No cliff jumping” was passed by 3 votes to 1.

However, Lucy went away, and thought about it. Being naturally a liberal, she didn’t like having more laws restricting personal freedom than were strictly necessary, but in this case the facts of the matter made it necessary, jumping from a cliff would kill lemmings. But what if the facts changed?

She went away and invented parachutes. Now the lemmings could cliff jump all they wanted with no risk of death.

At the next council a new debate took place:

“We want to cliff jump! Cliff jumping rights for lemmings! Oppress us no more!” chanted Jack.
“I reluctantly had to vote in favour of a restrictive law last time” said Lucy, but I Think now the time has come to repeal it. The facts have changed.
“No! I like restrictive laws! I’ve seen lots of lemmings walking around with sad “I’m being oppressed” expressions on their faces, and I LOVE IT!! Besides, it’s probably good for their souls to live in misery or something” said Mildred.

“I thought we said cliff jumping wasn’t allowed?” said peter

“It wasn’t” said Lucy

“Well there you go then..cliff jumping is a bad thing” said peter.

“not anymore” said Lucy.

“Good and bad don’t change” said Peter

“no, but the facts do!” Said Lucy

After much debate, a vote was taken. It was a dead head 2-2. Lucy tried to swing Peter’s vote, but he was just a bit too thick to understand.

Eventually, many councils later, Peter finally “got” the whole parachute thing, and the oppressive cliff jumping laws were repealed 3-1. Mildred declared the society morally corrupt and that she would oppose the repeal till her dying day.

There! I hope you all enjoyed the story.

Now to my point….

All decent human beings surely want to be like Lucy or Jack in our morality? That is to say, we want to be as libertarian as possible wherever possible. Liberty is the highest moral ethic.

However, we all recognise that there must be restrictions on this moral imperative, because of the obviously destructive results of Jack’s unrestricted libertarian philosophy.

But the restrictions on liberty are not moral they are factual. The reason for the law was not (except in the warped mind of Mildred) a moral question. It was a matter of fact: Namely to do with the laws of gravity and their detrimental effect on small rodent’s health.

As soon as the facts changed, there was a moral imperative to push back the boundaries of liberty

And hence I reach the following conclusion.

When suggesting we should be more liberal than we are, we are suggestion a moral imperative
When suggesting we should be more conservative than we are, we are suggesting a factual necessity for restriction.

Now, when I say to someone “You should be more conservative” all I am saying is “The facts of the matter necessitate a more restrictive policy”. If we are in disagreement, it will be because of the facts of the matter and their potential consequence.

If there were no facts to consider, there would be no reason for not being more liberal.

On the other hand when I say to someone “you should be more liberal”, I am either in the same position as Lucy trying to convince the nice but dim Peter, namely trying to convince someone of a salient change in the facts, or our understanding of them, or else, my “should” is implying a moral imperative; appealing to the moral axiom of liberty.

I think all four characters exist in the real world. Probably on these boards.

I think a lot of morality was originally derived by Lucy types, but then hijacked by Mildreds.

For example:

quote:

---

...and stating that, e.g. someone's view promotes sexual depravity is not, for a Christian, a serious sin?

---

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?

However, some warped people have then created from this a strange idea of sexual chastity as if restriction in itself was some kind of virtue? Restriction for restriction’s sake is never a good thing. They have, in effect moved from a lucy perspective to a mildred one.

The key point I am making is that the continual moral push on our legal restrictions is outwards: to be more libertarian. However, the continual factual push is inwards: to be more conservative.

Hence, why to disagree with a libertarian is more likely to be a question of morality, while to disagree with a conservative is usually a factual question.

Apologies for the long post..but I made a hellishly bad job of explaining this before!

Matt
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Weeeeeeeeee. bong

lemming falling with no parachute.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
Liberal/Conservativ/ism is a modernist construct. Both rely on over arching metanarratives. Metanarratives are dead ... er except for that one.

So we are in a state of flux. LLiberal/Conservativ/ism need to move beyond right/wrong language games, and instead embrace fictionalism.

Otherwise they are stinky and smelly and yucky and poo. Well that's my narrative and I am sticking to it.


 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

I mean, if what Jim has written is true, and I believe it is, isn't it rather strange that both groups fight for the label "Christian" when they appear to be saying opposite things?? Why doesn't one of us ditch it? To say these two statements flatly contradictory statements can fall, meaningfully, into the same catagory of belief is like saying black is white.
matt

---

But which one of us should 'ditch' the label 'Christian'?

For example, many of my conservative evangelical friends read their Bibles and come to the interpretation more or less proposed by Jim T's first definition; I have no problem regarding them as Christians. Does that mean, logically, I should not regard myself as a Christian, then? How does - in my case - my non-conservative interpretation of the Bible exclude me from the right to use 'Christian' as a label, in that case?

Because I'm more in line with part two of the definition (though not necessarily 100% so), why does that mean I am less of a follower of Christ?

(Of course, to read it the other way, switch the labels and ask the same questions.)

You seem to have fallen into the trap, Matt, of assuming that because a criteria (whatever it is) of belief has not been ticked off, anyone thinking outside the box must by definition be excluding themselves.

It isn't a case of two flatly contradicting statements; but two flatly contradictory interpretations, of what essentially leads to the same truth. I appreciate that is a typical 'liberal' argument, but I don't see a difficulty in acknowledging what is Christlike in my conservative brethren, even though we may be at odds over certain issues of interpretation and philosophy.

It would be interesting to know if conservatives felt the same, or whether based on what you've written, they would agree that only one group is deserving of the label 'Christian'.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
I'd say if anyone, the conservatives should be most ready to abandon the term.

After all, it's not biblical is it? [ ]

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
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
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.

---

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.

---

 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I'm a more self-righteous liberal than you are. Ner, ner, ner-ner-ner.
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
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 ]



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.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Should have known....question a hell host's post and make numerous errors in grammer and punctuation.


 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
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.}
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

You will seldom see the marks of self-questioning among conservatives, but you will never see it among liberals

---

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

---

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
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
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 ) when you take criticism on the chin, and respond to it so honestly.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

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)

---

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 = Snoresville. Go and watch MPCN in action, laddie. Learn from him. Until then, thou art just another rabid, regurgitating, somnolent hack.

Please resume.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

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.

---

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?


 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I married a Republican. She has mellowed considerably, however.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
What the feck is an "over-arching meta narrative"? when its at home?
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

What the feck is an "over-arching meta narrative"? when its at home?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

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
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

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
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Now see what you've started, Gunner!!
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
I haven't started a thing. It isn't in my nature to ruffle feathers I merely want to ask innocent questions But most of the time this place puzzles me
 

---

Posted by Toby (# 3522) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Gunner, sort your threads out. If you want to argue/bitch about FinF, post over here.

Viki, hellhost
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
I was being even handed, as always, bitching about both AffCath and FinF.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

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

---

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.

---

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!

 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

What of say Headship bveing male and found in scripture

---

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?

---

quote:

---

posted by Ken:
Sorry, but this really doesn't make sense.

---

Which I think answers Gunner's question...

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.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0