What is your definition of a Liberal?

liberal adj. Abbr. lib.
1.a. Not limited to or by ... orthodox ... attitudes, views, or dogmas

this is a bad thing:

OR'THODOX, a. [See Orthodoxy.]

1. Sound in the christian faith; believing the genuine doctrines taught in the Scriptures; opposed to heretical; as an orthodox christian.

2. According with the doctrines of Scripture; as an orthodox creed or faith.

 

Laurenda, my first post was a sad attempt at humor. Anyway, liberals are generally those who view the Bible as a means to an end.

If they want to argue that evolution is true, they will search the Bible to find errors or contradictory reports on creation. For example, they would say that Genesis 1 and 2 are two different stories. We know they are one story (a general in chapter 1 and a more specific in chapter 2).

If they want to argue for homosexuality, they will insert culture problems, a bias on the part of the writers, a lack of education or awareness of other sincere people, into biblical texts. For example, in Romans 1, Paul argues that people know what is right but suppress the truth. As they get decidedly worse, they will explore bizarre forms of sexual relations. Thus, same-sex activity/thought/relations in any form is evil. For the liberal, he would say that only the same-sex activity that is part of idolatrous worship is evil. Or he will say that during that particular time it was evil. In other words, variables that they want to include are imposed on the text to broaden the meaning.

Liberals are NEVER about interpretation of texts. They are about using texts for further gain (in whatever field they are in).

Have you ever heard a rascist say, "what fellowship has light with darkness?", and mean the color of your skin? I have.

 

Those darn liberals!

 

Those darn liberals! </font>[/QUOTE]BB, this is the attitude of liberals. Do you deny this?

 

Those darn liberals! </font>[/QUOTE]BB, this is the attitude of liberals. Do you deny this? </font>[/QUOTE]It's the attitude of many people including some liberals, some fundamentalists, some conservatives, and some moderates. -- All sorts of people twist the Bible for their own purposes.

The word "liberal" is nearly meaningless the way most people in this thread use it. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are so subjective that it should be dropped.

So yes, I "deny" your allegation. (What should I have to "deny" it anyway. Why can't I simply disagree?)

 

BB, please follow the discussion and not try to sidetrack it anymore.

If you take that one line of mine like you did, of course it can refer to anyone. I gave two significant examples though. This is about liberalism.

 

I was – and I wasn’t sidetracking. In your zeal to defame “liberals” you made an unfounded attack that claimed that “Liberals are NEVER about interpretation of texts” but only use the text for selfish gain.

How can we take you seriously with statements like this? I was responding to the major point of your post because the falseness of it was, in my mind, self-evident.

Then you dared me to “deny” it, so I responded with an explanation.

Good, I’m glad you see the error of it.

Whatever “liberalism” is supposed to mean…

You did give two examples though… Let’s look at them from your earlier post:

Allegation: “Liberals” bring their opinions to the Bible and try to twist it to suit their purposes. (Lots of people do this – has anyone noticed the ‘drinking alcohol’ discussions?) If this is the definition of a liberal, we’ve got a whole bunch of “liberals” here on Baptist Board!

We “know” this? I don’t want to argue the Genesis text in this forum, but it is far from a settled opinion that Moses wrote Genesis chapters 1 and 2 in their current form in one writing session. Many believers zealous for God and dedicated to truth do not “know” this because of their study of the text.

Again, a repeat of the allegation that the “liberals” are attempting to distort the Bible to suit their opinions…

I’m sure you know you are greatly oversimplifying a difficult issue for the sake of the discussion so I won’t pick of some of the problems with your very brief analysis. In my opinion, many people do try to read in their biases regarding homosexuality into the text (including “conservatives”), but I certainly agree that sexual relations outside the context of marriage (between and man and woman) is sinful.

And then you nicely sum up your point (the one that I originally responded to):

Since this primary allegation you make is obviously faulty (and you’ve nearly admitted this yourself), then the examples you give cannot support it.

Friend, I grew up in a part of Texas where the KKK was still active. On of my earliest memories as a child in the 1960s was to see a cross burning at a KKK rally held down the street – by the timing of it I think they may have been celebrating the murder of MLK, although I was too young at the time to make the connection. Even in my college years I would occasionally see a klansman on the street corner in full robes handing out literature.

Yes, I have heard stupid things like that before. As I said before, all sorts of people twist the scriptures in order to justify their prejudices. And yes, sometimes liberals do it too.


Now please give us a real definition of a "liberal". I'd love to know your perspective (seriously).

If I was going to attempt a definition of "liberalism", I'd probably go back to the what the first fundamentalists were reacting against.

 

I don't think most liberals need a zealous person to defame them,they usually do a good job of that themselves. By the way Daniel David I have enjoyed your recent posts.

Murph

 

You really think things were better in 1828, then they are now?!?!? What history book are you reading? When are we going to grow up and stop thinking of the "good ole days" as so good? Next we will be promoting the thinking that all of the founding fathers of this country were Christians!

 

The word "liberal" has become a label overused by hyperconservatives to find fault in others. They was it's often used, you think that Senator McCarthy was alive and well.

A hyperconservative will view a liberal as anyone who's not as conservative as they are.

 

go2church, they were only "good" in comparison to today. However, in 1828, things were much worse than in 1674. Paul tells us that the times would get progressively worse.

One thing that is worse today is than then is the flagrant, open attitude of sin that it is a good thing to participate in.

If you study Romans 1, the final straw of a depraved society is not only the flagrant, open sin, but the rejoicing in and bold support of sin.

Such an attitude does indeed exist today. It is much worse in countries where Christians are few.

 

My special thanks to Baptist Believer for his thoughts in this thread. He illustrated better than I did how and why liberals even use the Bible at all. My comments are listed last on the thread (as of the time I am typing this).

Click here for a classic example

 

Worse then temples full of prostitutes, worse then babies killed at the birth of Jesus, worse then bands of Jews roaming the country side killing Christians. Aren't these things happening STILL today? Progressive worseness is dispensational poppy-cock

 

some of the most dangerous liberals are religious, or should i say liberal religionist.
they hurt Christianity with many views that go contrary to Gods word. so a definition of liberal religionist would be apostate or maybe infidel.

 

You are welcome.

1.) I gave no illustration of “liberals” using the Bible. Your allegation is patently false.
2.) I recognize the fact that you are alleging that I am a “liberal” (whatever that happens to mean today). To call me a “liberal” is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of me and my beliefs. To use the term of me is an expression of hostility and/or ignorance.
3.) Because I did not give extensive references or a simplistic summation of Paul’s complex teaching of women in the early church, does not mean I have not studied the issue or that I am imposing my presuppositions upon the text.

Should I go back a rehash your logical/theological lapses and make a sweeping generalization that “conservatives” don’t know what they are talking about?

 

Go2church,

Ignoring the historical context of Paul's statement to Timothy, I think many Baptists believe that pessimism about the future is a cardinal doctrine. If you don't believe it--you're a closet liberal.

Have a nice day (tomorrow is bound to be worse),

Tim

 

Tim and go2church, I would really hate to include one of many passages on the subject from the Bible, I will for the sake of others.

2 Timothy 3:12-13
Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will GROW WORSE and WORSE, deceiving and being deceived.

Now, are we going to argue that this refers to the false teachers that are damnable? Not hardly. It refers to the number of them.

go2church, this is the fundy forum. If you would rather discuss whether or not this is part of the canon within the canon for liberals, go somewhere else.

 

BB, as I tire of mincing words with you, I will be blunt.

You have already admitted more than once that you hold to Open Theism (or something that closely resembles it). If the ETS (which has a VERY loose statement of faith) can refer to this as outside of basic orthodoxy, it is.

It is a position that lacks support in Scripture. Instead, people want a God that allows them the freedom to not only decide their own future, but actually depends on man to even know the future.

Attention everyone: Open Theism teaches that God does not know with 100% certainty what the future holds. This is beyond even postmodernism.

BB, I find it amazing how often you show up in this forum.