The Mormom's Are Coming!

True. I am pleased to see you make the distinction -- many people don't.

Are you talking about the "lifestyle" view?

Using the above closing as an example, it is not terribly clear what you mean. It sounds like you are saying that for "conservatives", moral guidelines are intentionally drawn from the Bible and for "liberals", the Bible is interpreted as not to interfere with current morality/immorality. If that is what you mean, then it is simply not true in any sort of a broad sense unless you are limiting your definition of "liberals" to people like Spong. As for "conservatives", I grew up with plenty of conservatives who tried to justify all sorts of things (racism and greed especially) with their "interpretation" of the Bible. But in a broader sense, the labels "conservative" and "liberal" are such loaded terms that they have no real meaning -- except for those who like to brand other people with labels so that they don't have to take them seriously.

 

How does this apply to "liberals" and "conservatives"?

More immediately, how does that apply to people who have been labeled "liberal" on Baptistboard? I have been labeled "liberal" by some here, but I certainly fit the first description. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm guessing that a number of other "liberals" here could also honestly claim the first description.

I think the problem comes when people who disagree with another person's interpretation assume that the other person must not "believe the Bible" instead of trying to figure out why the other person believes the way they do. If I am correct with the last statement (feel free to disagree) then how can you make a blanket judgement about how "liberals" develop/live their theology?

p.s. I appreciate that we can have a civil discussion when we so strongly disagree. It speaks well for both of us and is good evidence that God is at work in our lives and attitudes.

 

How does this apply to "liberals" and "conservatives"?

More immediately, how does that apply to people who have been labeled "liberal" on Baptistboard? I have been labeled "liberal" by some here, but I certainly fit the first description. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm guessing that a number of other "liberals" here could also honestly claim the first description.

</font>[/QUOTE]Believer,

Just out of curiosity, what were the specific viewpoints that you espoused that caused you to be labeled a "liberal"? I'm new to this board, so I don't have any context within which to place this discussion. Assuming that the label is used in the traditional sense, I'm assuming that your political views lean to the left. What are your opinions on abortion and homosexuality, for example?

 

Honestly, I'm not sure. It just sort of happened when I starting speaking out about some of the ugliness in some of the responses to others.

Politically, I'm actually fairly conservative. I've voted almost exclusively straight-ticket Republican since 1984 (when I was old enough to vote). I have voted for Democrats on occasion here in Texas where a Democrat is often quite a different beast than in the rest of the country. The one 'political' issue that gets me in the greatest trouble with "conservative" Christians is my strong support for institutional separation of church and state. Too many Baptists think it is an atheist doctrine because their preacher or David Barton told them it is.

Specifically, I am against abortion except to save the life of the mother. (I've recently been informed that because of advances in medicine, the tough choice of having make a decision about the life of the mother is almost non-existent.) However, I believe that if Christians are going to tell pregnant women to keep their children to live birth, we need to get about the business of supporting them and working out solutions for the unwanted children. It has been my experience that when an unmarried person gets pregnant the church immediately shuns the young mother sending exactly the wrong message and encouraging that mother (and all the others who are secretly pregnant) to abort their child. "Pro-life" churches are often so afraid of loving "sinful" people that they completely abort their Christian duty... [Off the soapbox]

As for your other question, I believe that homosexual sexual acts are wrong -- just like heterosexual acts outside of marriage. People can't help the way they feel (and I do think that there is likely a genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality), but they can sure exercise self-discipline and abstain from sex. I was single for a long time myself and I abstained -- it's not fun, but it is good for building character and actually getting to know your potential spouse while dating instead of being consumed with urges. For the record, I have two homosexual friends (one of them a very good long-time friend). One, my good friend, is celibate. I don't know about the other one. Both of them have asked my opinion and I've been straightforward with my views. I have studied most of the relevant literature that urges that homosexuality be affirmed by the church and I have found it lacking. But I affirm homosexuals as people and invest my life in them as a friend. There is never any question about where I stand, but I'm convinced that it is a good thing that they have a male friend whom they are certain will never be a sexual partner. It may help them one day normalize their relationships with men and find relief or release from their emotional struggle.

Another issue that many here have vigorously opposed me on is the issue of divorce and remarriage. Simply put, I believe Jesus specifically allows divorce and remarriage for adultery (Matthew 5 and 19). Paul also allows divorce and remarriage for desertion (1 Corinthians 7).

And probably the biggest issue for many here is my belief that the popular theories of inerrancy are a misplaced emphasis upon the Bible instead of an emphasis on Christ. It seems strange to me to claim that it is essential to our faith that the original manuscripts (the ones we *don't* have) be "inerrant" but then turn around and say that God didn't perfectly preserve His world "inerrant" today. Frankly, the King James Only people are more consistent and have a stronger argument than to make the claims of the Chicago statement with all of it's loopholes. But I'm not a King James Only person either for other reasons, so I upset them too. I'm convinced that if a person is truly a believer, they will automatically recognize the Bible as authoritative and get about the work of learning what it says and obeying God's will as revealed through its pages and through the Holy Spirit's direct impressions.

Arguing about "inerrancy" or "King James Only" seems to be just a religious distraction from true religion. - NOW I'VE MADE EVERYONE MAD! -

There you go. I'm sure it's a lot more than you wanted to hear...

Glad you've joined us Norm!

--- late addition to the post ---

Another reason that I may be called a "liberal" is that I sometimes get pretty passionate about some of the subjects here and come across much harsher than I intend -- especially when I think others are beating up one someone else for no reason. I have no tolerance for bullies -- especially "religious" ones and I may sometimes rebuke too strongly. But I'm a work in progress like everyone else around here and I usually settle down after I have a good night's sleep.

[ August 31, 2002, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]