Brent W
Active Member
Not unless Christ was walking around in the early 1900's in the Southeast?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The False Compassion Of Liberalism
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Not unless Christ was walking around in the early 1900's in the Southeast?
Churches did not and cannot meet these needs. It would cost $200K/yr to provide insurance to replace what Obamacare provides. That's counting every Christian Church in America. We have the choice to spend more of our tax $ on healthcare fgor the poor or to pour it down the black hole of Defense spending.
The organized Church (organized religion as you call it) did not start in the early 1900s.
The Bible, or Christ never mentioned health insurance. I don't mind the insurance industry, but you're speaking of it as if it's biblical. It is not, and it's not the most efficient use of funds, especially if the government is involved.
Brent W
Active Member
I am well aware. I am referring to a specific time. Not sure how it can be anymore clear that the church let down people of color and without intervention from the Federal Government that the southeast would still be struggling, more than it is, with racial issues within certain denominations.
Saying that these churches would be able to reliably and willing support a group of population that were being hung from trees and made to drink and and eat in different places than whites is false, in my view. You are welcome to disagree but I feel that history simply can be looked at to prove what I say above as true.
The liberal church let them down. That's your side of the fence. The conservative church lead the abolitionist movement which not only ended slavery in America but influenced the entire world to turn from slavery. That's my theological heritage. It's the same think tank that is now fighting the abortion holocaust—something you liberal Christians have been ignoring for decades.
Brent W
Active Member
I am not a liberal. I am honestly tired of conversing with people who reduce everything in politics down to left or right, 1 or 0, on or off when it comes to politics.
If you can't hold a conversation with someone without labeling them then you aren't worth the time to discuss issues with and there is no point in wasting time with you anymore. It is toxic and has lead to some of the most awful conversation in this country when it comes to politics.
Either way, you made my point in that an organized Church let people down.
I believe in labels to an extent. They help the dialog in many cases. You can almost predict perfectly what a person will back based on the labels ascribed to them.
That said, please help me to be accurate about what you believe. Give me some conservatives beliefs you hold, so I can judge more properly.
I think I deserve a label. I think I'm a politically conservative Christian. I don't mind the label at all. I'm also a Trump supporter. No problem with that label either.
And it's common for liberals, even media liberals, to resist the liberal label. They call us right-wingers all the time, but object to being called left-wingers. I don't see what the bid deal is. There is the religious right and the religious left.
And yes, the Church has often failed the people. The modern Church today is struggling badly with political liberalism, among other things. Many turned their backs on the unborn this election cycle. I have no problem admitting the Church failed kidnapped Africans back in the day, but I do give them credit for heading up the abolitionist movement. They went back to the Bible.
Brent W
Active Member
You know nothing about me other than the few posts you have read and you are putting me in a group. It is ridiculous and not productive.
I have not put a label on you nor would I ever. I prefer to look at each issue discussed and discuss the issue without letting some political ideology take over the conversation or turning this into some exhaustive non productive Liberal vs Conservative non sense that this country has sunk down to.
If we had just stuck to this issue instead of bringing labels into it, this conversation would have turned into simply this:
In which we could have agreed on instead of generalizing and labeling someone based on a handful of conversations on the internet.
It is Caluminum's schtick.
I have no problem with labels. Jesus used them, the Bible uses them. They're useful.
Brent W
Active Member
Not when you label someone you have never met and have only interacted a few times with on the internet. That is not useful, productive or beneficial to any conversation.
I'm out of this thread. I've made all the points I care to.
Yes, north of the Ohio and Mason Dixon. But, Brent is speaking about the Southeast, the land of the KKK, Jim Crow, and Bull Connor.
Never said otherwise.
You are correct. I would never label someone I've never conversed with and never listened to them express their views.
Sometimes referring to someone as liberal means they are responding from that type of world view. Some people see the world view of liberal as inferior and most often just wrong headed. Usually it is a reference to the philosophy that the ends justify the means.
I'm with you until that last part. Sometimes the ends do justify the means, in fact, I would say in most cases they do. A bomb in Japan a good example.