Bible-belted
New Member
Post it,
Thanks for the encouraging words.
I don''t agree with liberal interpretations of Scripture of course, but I do understand that when conversing (or debating) with liberals about interpretation of Scripture I have to do more than simply argue from the assumption that the conservative interpretation is correct, even though I beleive it is corect. Why? Because you don't accept my assumption. If I were to continue going on as if you do accept my assumption, then I wouldn't be talking with you, but rahter passed you, and I would not be engaged in dialogue, but monologue.
I differentiate (sensibly I think) between intramural discussions (among conservatives) and inter-mural discussions. When discussing things with conservatives there is a shared asumption about the accuracy of conservatie interpretations, and we can go on from there. With liberlas I have to work a bit harder, find the common ground, the shared assumptions, before I can hope to go into a constructive dialogue. Then at least, even if we don't agree at the end, finish on the same page, we'll have at least a chance of doing so, having started from the same page.
She eagle:
I am sorry you feel that it is a blame game. It isn't. I am talking about real life interactions with fellow conservatives. And it can harldy be "liberal" when the comments are coming from a conservative!
I am not talking about calling sin sin. I am talking about how conservatives go about caling sin sin. And I find that they do so with alarming regularity in a spirit of sanctimony and self righteousness.
"What liberals want and have achieved in many churches is a social gospel."
There is truth to that comment. But we must not forget that it is very much a contrast to conservative proclamamtion, a proclamation that often fails to appreciate and live out the social implications of the Gospel. Rather than appropriating the element of social responsibility that ought to be properly evangelical, conservatives historically (IMO) have conceded the social ministry field to liberalism, simply because it is tagged as a "liberal" field. For example it is only relatively recently that conservatives have ceased merely wagging their fingers in condemnation to help single moms, pregnant teens, aids patients and the like. I have been involved with Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and have found it often difficult to get people to see that true ministry must move beyond "saving babies" to supporting the families that "saving babies" creates.
About feeling threatened. It is intersting then that liberl points and discussions are treated as they are.
I am afraid that you will not udnerstand the point until you move beyond arguing from assumptions (that the conservative interpretation is the true interpretation). You cannot expect to convince (or even have real discussion with) people who don't accept your asumption. See what I said to post it.
As to your chalenge, I must remind you that I am, myself, a biblical conservative. So don't expect me to respond to it.
Oh, and since I AM a biblical conservative. I wouldn't try to claim that you can speak for all biblical conservatives too much.

Thanks for the encouraging words.
I don''t agree with liberal interpretations of Scripture of course, but I do understand that when conversing (or debating) with liberals about interpretation of Scripture I have to do more than simply argue from the assumption that the conservative interpretation is correct, even though I beleive it is corect. Why? Because you don't accept my assumption. If I were to continue going on as if you do accept my assumption, then I wouldn't be talking with you, but rahter passed you, and I would not be engaged in dialogue, but monologue.
I differentiate (sensibly I think) between intramural discussions (among conservatives) and inter-mural discussions. When discussing things with conservatives there is a shared asumption about the accuracy of conservatie interpretations, and we can go on from there. With liberlas I have to work a bit harder, find the common ground, the shared assumptions, before I can hope to go into a constructive dialogue. Then at least, even if we don't agree at the end, finish on the same page, we'll have at least a chance of doing so, having started from the same page.
She eagle:
I am sorry you feel that it is a blame game. It isn't. I am talking about real life interactions with fellow conservatives. And it can harldy be "liberal" when the comments are coming from a conservative!
I am not talking about calling sin sin. I am talking about how conservatives go about caling sin sin. And I find that they do so with alarming regularity in a spirit of sanctimony and self righteousness.
"What liberals want and have achieved in many churches is a social gospel."
There is truth to that comment. But we must not forget that it is very much a contrast to conservative proclamamtion, a proclamation that often fails to appreciate and live out the social implications of the Gospel. Rather than appropriating the element of social responsibility that ought to be properly evangelical, conservatives historically (IMO) have conceded the social ministry field to liberalism, simply because it is tagged as a "liberal" field. For example it is only relatively recently that conservatives have ceased merely wagging their fingers in condemnation to help single moms, pregnant teens, aids patients and the like. I have been involved with Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and have found it often difficult to get people to see that true ministry must move beyond "saving babies" to supporting the families that "saving babies" creates.
About feeling threatened. It is intersting then that liberl points and discussions are treated as they are.
I am afraid that you will not udnerstand the point until you move beyond arguing from assumptions (that the conservative interpretation is the true interpretation). You cannot expect to convince (or even have real discussion with) people who don't accept your asumption. See what I said to post it.
As to your chalenge, I must remind you that I am, myself, a biblical conservative. So don't expect me to respond to it.
Oh, and since I AM a biblical conservative. I wouldn't try to claim that you can speak for all biblical conservatives too much.