Is there a difference between American conservatives and liberals?

Apples and oranges. First, an accusation, then an unconnected statement. Seeking justice for the poor isn't watering down Scripture. Solid doctrine must include helping the poor, including speaking truth to power, or it is not solid doctrine.

How about the plethora of books - and, for that mater, the plethora of posts - which equate a conservative, Ameican mindset with Biblical orthodoxy, and view the actions of the US in the world as morally just by default? Idols are not always of wood or metal. Sometimes idols are ideals.

So oil is worth killing innocent people over, because it's in America's best interest. Idolatry.

If the Bible says this or that is a sin, then fine. The post you refer to was in a Political area, not a theological one. I have yt to find a Scripture that says it's OK to force a secular state to adopt theologically based moral ideals. I did, in fact, speak to this repeatedly, but since I did not quote your coipy-and-paste job, you might not have noticed.

Yes, it is. The problem is that what Conservative American Evangelical Fundamentalists say is clear, and what is really clear, are often widely different things.

 

If you continue to object to honoring the rules you agreed to when you joined BB, maybe you should consider going elsewhere.

It's beginning to appear BB is not a good fit for your opinion of what a Bible believing Christian is.

 

I'm not objecting, carpro. Read what I said.

I am honoring the BB rules, son. Get a dictionary.

 

==My point was that many liberal "Christians" focus alot on helping the poor (etc), which is good, but what is not good is that they allow doctrine to fall to the side. My point was that we need both solid doctrine and a willingness to help.

==But none of that is claiming that America is god. The things you mentioned are things believed by people who view America as a goldy nation, but they don't believe America is a god. There is a difference between the two.

==Well you try living without oil, and good luck with that. Now nations go to war because their national security is threatened in one way or the other. Innocent people, sadly, die in war (all war). So that is not idolatry that is just reality.

==For a professing Christian the two cannot be divorced. What do I mean? If God condemns a behavior as an abomination then a person who claims to be a follower of God cannot, in any context, go out and defend someones "right" to practice that sin. If a Christian did that it would be a contradiction to their very Christian profession. How can a Christian ever support those who are living lifestyles that God hates and that will finally lead them to eternal death? If Christians are forced to divorce their relationship with God from politics, then Christians need to stay out of all forms of Government and Civil affairs. That kind of belief, of course, goes back to the beliefs of some of the early Anabaptists (radical reformers).

==Please refer me to my "copy and paste" job. Any post I put up that is not attributed to someone else was written by me (Martin). The post I posted in response to you was written by myself, on Microsoft Word, on my laptop. It was not a copy and paste job.

I am not sure that we are talking about "forcing" anyone to do anything. I am talking about Christians, and what we as Christians support. We cannot support, in any context, what God condemns. In our country Christians have the same right as everyone else to present our views/positions. However we should never do that in a worldly/carnal way.

==Give an example.

 

Good.

Then maybe, in the future, you won't have to refuse to respond in order to stay within the rules.

 

You really aren't that dense.

 

This is factually correct on several levels.

 

There are Christian liberals just as there are atheist conservatives. Render unto Caesar.....

 

This may be true, but there is a distinction between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. One may be a fiscal conservative but not hold to social conservative principles.

 

Thank you for being so perceptive. :flower:

 

I think he is! :tongue3:

 

Indeed. I am fiscally moderately liberal, but I am socially moderately conservative.

 

Muddying the waters...

Let's say that "Liberals" tend to be for change, while "conservatives" oppose change in general.

Then, we take an immoral situation (such as slavery or Jim Crow laws). One might take a "liberal" position. When the law is abolished or the situation changes, it's desirable to that person to keep the new "status quo;" hence, they become a conservative.

I would define myself as very conservative...but by that, I mean that I look to the individual rather than the government for solutions to problems...IMO, most of the time, the best thing the government could do is stay out of the way.

 

I'll take a socially conservative liberal over a fiscally conservative liberal any day.

My main area of interest is on social matters dealing with abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, prayer in school, gun laws (although I don't see a thing wrong with waiting periods), etc, etc.

I, myself, lean slightly to the left on fiscal matters.

Shoot, I'm not even completely against embryonic stem cell research, though I do worry that acceptance of it might mean that a black market develops for unwanted embryos.

There are liberals and conservatives all over the political spectrum.

Now, if you're talking about the core make-up of what each group, in a general sense, stands for, I think you have a very vast difference between a liberal and a conservative.

There is an obvious difference between a Hollywood/Berkeley/Massachusetts/San Francisco liberal (how most of us view liberals) and a Texas/Georgia/Kansas/rural country conservative (I would assume how most liberals view conservatives).

Frankly, I would rather be associated with the values of my grandparents and great grandparents than with those that came of age in the 1960s.

 

Conservatism/liberalism, they're both false religions.

 

Please explain.

 

If you believe that either of these are the answer for every woe society faces, you might have a point.

But if those words are used to describe your m.o. in things fiscal, social, etc., then they are simply descriptive monikers...not religions.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tragic_pizza
I'm not objecting, carpro. Read what I said.

I am honoring the BB rules, son. Get a dictionary.


Quote: Carpro

Good.

Then maybe, in the future, you won't have to refuse to respond in order to stay within the rules.

Indeed I am and will remain so.

The fact that you say you won't respond to some posts because the rules prevent it, tells me the real problem is in your heart, not the rules.

 

I see. If my heart disagrees with the BB rules, and I thus refrain from breaking the rules, the problem is with me.

Yes, indeed. The answer to every theological dispute is found not in Scripture, but in the BB rules. That, folks, is the Gospel according to carpo. Amen. The doors of the church are open...

 

I'd like to lite a $5 candle ...
oops, too liberal,
I'm a conservative -- make that a 50¢ candle :smilewinkgrin: