1. 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!

Why I like LIberals...

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Bible-belted, Aug 16, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 4
  1. post-it

    post-it <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberals are turtle-neck wearing, closet homosexual children of the devil who purposely sneak into God-fearing Baptist assemblies and try to wreak as much havoc as possible before they collapse into a hopeless pile of doubt brought on by a lack of belief in a secret rapture and the necessity of affirming the virgin birth for salvation.[/QUOTE]

    ROFL :D :D :D Funny stuff!

    Liberals also allow their wives to make major decisions in the marriage, we would have no problem with them preaching since women are as smart as men (according to my wife, smarter than men). We have sex with our wives for pleasure and not just procreation. We don't tell our kids what they should do when they grow up or force them into unhappy relationships because their choice "looks bad" to our conservative friends. We don't turn our backs on them when we catch them drinking. We don't force them into having children they don't want when they get impregnated by the child of the Conservative down the block.

    We don't tell other church members how they should live, what they should drink or how they should eat. We don't tell them what they should wear, where they should go or not go. We don't tell them to how to raise their family to our standards.

    We don't force our prayers on other religious kids at schools. We don't insist that prayers be held at football games unless each religion's God is prayed to in equal time. We don't figure out who is going to hell and who isn't, we don't gossip as a general rule since there is nothing "juicy" to hear or judge others about.

    We make great neighbors and fellow church members and really the perfect Christians :D , as long as you stay out of our personal lives :mad: .

    [ August 19, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
    #61 post-it, Aug 19, 2002
  2. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Of course, your opinion is in direct contradiction to the evidence. I gave you a link that studied denominational growth over about 30 years. It showed that the "fundamentalists" types were growing while moderate-liberal types were stagnant or shrinking.

    Joshua, do you think that liberal churches evangelize more or less than conservatives? When someone wanders in to a liberal church, are they more likely to rationalize and "feel" better about their sin or repent from it?

    What is sin to a liberal anyway? What defines sin? It cannot be the Bible. As our discussions on various topics prove, the Bible can be denied if need be.
    What kind of "Christianity" would that be though? A religion redefined by liberals that denies many of the fundamental truths of the faith? A religion that compromises its moral platform to parallel the norms of the world? A religion that rejects its own foundation- namely that a real, personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord is the only way to God?

    It appears that the only thing that liberals desire to keep of Christianity is the label, buildings, and tithes.
     
    #62 Scott J, Aug 19, 2002
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ...and do so completely ignoring the God's Word on these issues. For the record, my wife and I share the major decisions for our family. However, I have no right to acquiesce my leadership responsibilities and my wife wouldn't desire for me to do so.

    The Bible defines who can serve as a pastor and the intelligence of women has nothing to do with it.
    As do conservatives. In fact, I saw a poll a couple of years ago that said that evangelical, born again Christian women had the highest frequency of orgasm of any sub-group measured.

    In other words, you don't disciple them to be godly and moral.

    This isn't my experience... most liberals I know think alot of people are going to miss hell regardless of what the believe, say, or do.... and liberals are no less likely to gossip than anyone else. They simply have their own language for doing it.

    .... and as long as you don't take the Bible and the standards/principles it teaches too seriously.
     
    #63 Scott J, Aug 19, 2002
  4. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    My dear Post it I believe if you haven't already that with this you have truly crossed the line. To support my opinion I will use Scripture that I have not yet heard you guys question, the words of Christ. Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Of course we all know what I am talking about, in the above quote you question the truth that God thru the Holy Spirit fathered a son by the virgin Mary. I truly believe that by doing so you have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. I truly am sorry for you and Pray that you will repent of this sin, if not please keep studying you will get the chance to argue your case before the great white throne. In closing I am adopting a new stategy in dealing with the radical liberal view, check it out in the thread "Mind of Christ"
    Murph
     
    #64 C.S. Murphy, Aug 19, 2002
  5. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Post,

    "Yes, I have considered that point too and while it is a valid argument, it could go to either side of the argument, therefore, I cancel it out of support for either side. You can see why, I'm sure."

    Not really. There is no comnpelling reason to not accet the harmonisation, and it creates fewer problems than your alyternative. Weighting the possibilities, it should be accepted. So I don't cancel out.

    "Being Baptist, you will understand why I can only approach this from OT and the synoptic gospels? I think the answers are to be found and accepted from just these areas, don't you? The OT could predict what would happen, and the synoptic?s told what happened."

    Um, no I don't see. Certainly I don;t see what being baptist has to do with it. I don't see how that's relevant to the point I raised abot the Lucan geneology, which is, after all, in the Synoptic Gospels. Perhaps you could explain your thinking a bit?

    "While you are correct in your opinion, you haven't proved that it couldn't be true either. Again, we come to a draw on scripture or possibilities which could have happened."

    That isn't true. IMO you are failing to weight the arguments. The existence of many possibilities does not a priori make them all equally possible. As the possibility you present has more problems it is less likely than the conservative position. So again, no cancel out.

    "Claiming that X is heresy does not make X invalid or wrong to claim. A heresy is just a disagreement, via a claim, with anything that has been the norm in church doctrine and teaching, as tradition has held. It is allowed in protestant religions including the Baptists. Therefore, it has no value as a claim in any argument I or others on the BB may make."

    Heresies are not merely disagreements. Heresies are false paths that have been eliminated from discussion through discussion. The Creeds and all that which descrtibe Orthodoxy (and proscribe heresy) are certainly not necessarily the last word on the topics they speak to; they don't exhaust discussion. But it has already been decided that these flase paths will yield no beenfit, and so there is not point to wasting time on them. They are, simply put, not live options.

    In this specific instance, I am simply stating a fact. Adoptionism is a heresy. That being the case, for Christians it is not an option. That isn't a liberal/conservative question either. It is one of Christian vs non-Christian.

    If I were trying to intimidate you with that fact, then you would be within your rights to complain. But I am not doing that. I am pointing out that the position you put forward is not an option as to hold it places one beyond the pale, not of conservativism, but of Christianity itself. You may not like that, but then your argument is not with me, but with the Creeds. Those formulations are not mere accidents of hsitory, the surviving positions though not necessarily the correct ones, as liberalism likes to contend.

    Liberals need to understand that the discussions of Christology that took place were not over liberal vs conservative lines. Thus the have no grounds on that scpre for claiming that this is an area where assumptions may be called into question.

    Being baptist is not a hedge aginst truth. It is not a theological free for all zone. Being baptist does have boundaries. The most basic is being Christian. Proposing heresies prevents one from being Christian, let alone Baptist.
     
    #65 Bible-belted, Aug 19, 2002
  6. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Post-it, you forgot patches on the elbows of sweaters. ROFL!

    Which is why, after the (unsecret) Rapture of Christ for His Bride, religion will go on as if nothing happened (people will believe the delusion, says the Scripture), and the False Prophet will be the head of it all! :(

    My friend, your liberalism in doctrine has the stage set. :(
     
    #66 LadyEagle, Aug 19, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 4
Loading...