Conservative Christian

[nathan1977]

One that believes in absolutes

Since Muslims and traditional Jews also share a belief in absolutes, this seems to be a bit general.

Secondly I think of people who condemn homosexuality, believe women should be subordinate to men, etc.

Ditto. So why pick on one particular religion? Better perhaps to come down on a vast majority of religious traditions than one branch of the tree.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Ditto. So why pick on one particular religion? Better perhaps to come down on a vast majority of religious traditions than one branch of the tree.

I find homophobia and sexism abhorrent and would condemn them whether they are espoused by a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian or an atheist. However, this was a thread specifically about conservative Christianity, which is probably why people are focusing on Christianity.

 

[nathan1977]

^

Makes sense.

 

[briarrose]

I consider conservative Christians to be my inlaws. They homeschool their children (and each have about 6 kids), practice that the husband is head of the household, the wife is a homemaker, and their beliefs are based on the Bible. They also don't allow their children, or themselves, to watch TV. I had a really hard time with most of them at first, but they are genuinely nice people who are willing to help anyone out. I do feel judged a lot because I'm very different from them (I've been married for 4 years and don't have any kids. Horrors!)

Maybe that isn't a conservative Christian but that's what they consider themselves. I guess I'd call myself a moderate.

 

[Liesje]

I'm surprised you don't believe that. I remember you saying before that you were a Calvinist, but maybe that isn't part of Calvinism, though I think it is. I'm a Calvinist as well and do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, though it is hard at times, just like it is hard to be a Calvinist at times.

Calvin just rolled three times in his grave! Hehe, sorry, no, inerrancy of Scripture is definitely NOT part of Calvinism. Infallability, yes, but both are loaded words with VERY different theological outcomes. "Inerrant" means the Bible is the literal truth. "Infallible" means the Bible is truthful about which it's supposed to be. It's kind of confusing, but I can still be a good little Calvinist and believe that most of the entire Old Testament never happened, it's just stories whose purposes contain truth. Infallability of the Bible is more like when you learn about myths in history class. Myths are defined as stories whose events and characters aren't true, but the underlying theme of the story contains the truth.

 

[financeguy]

Since Muslims and traditional Jews also share a belief in absolutes, this seems to be a bit general.

Ditto. So why pick on one particular religion? Better perhaps to come down on a vast majority of religious traditions than one branch of the tree.

Agreed, and if anyone wants to start a thread bashing Islam, Judaism, etc, I for one will happily line up to do so, given that I am an agnostic! (provided that it's not of the 'all Muslims support terrorism type)

But I guess because most here are Christians of various persuasions, mainly relatively liberal ones, together with a few atheists/agnostics, it is probably not surprising that it is Conservative Christianity that gets it 'in the neck' the most.

 

[Dreadsox]

Ditto. So why pick on one particular religion? Better perhaps to come down on a vast majority of religious traditions than one branch of the tree.

Because there are FACES that are associated with conservative christianity that make it easier to target them.

I have MANY MANY friends who are conservaqtive christians. I do not see eye to eye with them on things...but deep down inside at the end of the day, we believe in forgiveness...feeding the hungry...clothing the poor....helping the homeless....visiting the elderly in nursing homes.....and if we spent all day long focusing on the differences would that not lead us to a rather unproductive path?

 

[briarrose]

Calvin just rolled three times in his grave! Hehe, sorry, no, inerrancy of Scripture is definitely NOT part of Calvinism. Infallability, yes, but both are loaded words with VERY different theological outcomes. "Inerrant" means the Bible is the literal truth. "Infallible" means the Bible is truthful about which it's supposed to be. It's kind of confusing, but I can still be a good little Calvinist and believe that most of the entire Old Testament never happened, it's just stories whose purposes contain truth. Infallability of the Bible is more like when you learn about myths in history class. Myths are defined as stories whose events and characters aren't true, but the underlying theme of the story contains the truth.

I thought inerrancy and infallibity were the same thing. Shows what I know! I'll have to do some pondering on that because now I'm not sure what I think.

 

[Liesje]

My apologies...I do not think that is your intent to be clear....it is the direction I fear it is headed.....

Ah, ok, sorry. My intent was to learn what others view as conservative Christianty. I often get labelled as such (not just here in FYM) and it confuses me, honestly, because I have more in common with totally seperate religions than I do with conservative Christianity. I'd like to understand where people are coming from and why these mistakes keep happening because I keep getting into situations where I get offended because someone gets me totally wrong or I offend someone else because I'm too defensive and the root of the issue is we're not on the same page as far as these words with loaded meanings.

 

[nathan1977]

Then you have the conservative Christians who are extremely politically active, who believe in a state sponsored theocracy or some degree thereof, whose religion and religious beliefs happen to permeate their entire social fabric and they would also seemingly like it to permeate the society as a whole.

The first group doesn't bother me in the least. The second group continues to want to infringe on what I perceive to be my rights as a citizen in a secular state and them, I could most certainly do without. So that's my honest answer.

I agree with nbcrusader -- the divergence of spiritual vs. political Christians is a good differentiation.

While I agree that there is a danger in backing up politics with religion (last I checked, just because someone deems America a "Christian nation" doesn't make it so), I think it's very hard if you're someone who takes her/his faith seriously, not to let it affect the decisions you make and the values you hold. And since so much of legislation is about choosing laws in line with your values, it's hard to leave your beliefs behind at the ballot box.

It seems to have the effect of saying there are places God should not be, and if you're of the mindset that God shouldn't be put in a box, then it's hard to say "HERE I will use my faith, HERE I won't."

 

[Liesje]

I thought inerrancy and infallibity were the same thing. Shows what I know! I'll have to do some pondering on that because now I'm not sure what I think.

To some it doesn't matter, but to Calvinists it does b/c usually people who don't think the distinction matters err on the side of assuming infallibility is the same as inerrancy (not the other way around). I can explain it better privately if you'd like.

 

[LJT]

I suppose i am a pretty traditional Catholic in that i got to church on Sunday, observe Holy Days and what not..i do not agree with everything in the church though, but the way i practice my beliefs is traditionalist, but the beliefs i hold are a bit liberal leaning, but not all.

I have issues though with people who say that you should not take your beliefs into politics and then try to implement them through law. If you hide your beliefs to get elected to a position of power and then try to force them into law then i believe that is wrong, but if you openly state your beliefs and are elected then i think its ok (no i do not believe its ok if an extremist is elected who then wants to kill these people for disagreeing with these beliefs etc).

I for instance, i believe abortion to be wrong (sorry i am not trying to turn this into a debate about abortion, it was the first thing that came to mind and it is a conservative belief i suppose i still hold to). If i was elected to a position where i could decide whether it is banned or not, i would hold a vote on it, if voted in favour it would be set in law, if against then it would not, but at least i would have held true to my values and beliefs by trying to change it. If you get voted for and do not follow what you believe, you are already a hypocrite, so how can you be trusted to keep the promises to your electorate if you can not hold true to yourself.

Liberals have beliefs which they wish to be imposed as such on to society as much as conservative Christians have beliefs they wish to impose as such.

Conservative Christians would be against contraception, i am not, but the liberal position of allowing contraception is a belief as much as the conservative christrian one, so a person who is voted in on their pro-contraception stance in a government is asking them to make that view heard in the hope of it being made law. Imposing beliefs un-democratically is wrong... i think that is what i am trying to say

 

[BVS]

Conservative Christians would be against contraception, i am not, but the liberal position of allowing contraception is a belief as much as the conservative christrian one, so a person who is voted in on their pro-contraception stance in a government is asking them to make that view heard in the hope of it being made law. Imposing beliefs un-democratically is wrong... i think that is what i am trying to say

Sorry but that doesn't make sense to me, first of all I contraception really is only a Catholic thing.

But let's pretend it's not. Allowing those to protect themselves is not imposing a belief, it's a precaution to protect the whole. Denying that is based purely on religious beliefs and not the belief of what's best for the mass populous. I see a huge difference.

 

[BVS]

Is that all three, or any one of the three?

I would say at one time or another all three.

Also, does "takes every word of the Bible as a literal word spoken from God" include the consept of the Bible as infallible.

Yes. And I think the difference lies in the fact that many will view God as infallible but don't believe the humans who "recorded" this history to be the same.

 

[LJT]

Sorry but that doesn't make sense to me, first of all I contraception really is only a Catholic thing.

Sorry it was just a mix-up..i am getting very sleepy at the moment

But let's pretend it's not. Allowing those to protect themselves is not imposing a belief, it's a precaution to protect the whole. Denying that is based purely on religious beliefs and not the belief of what's best for the mass populous. I see a huge difference.

I think i just picked a bad example to use...as i am for contraception...and even if i wasn't it does not effect my individual morality as i could chose not to use it (and i know this then kinda goes against my anti-abortion stance, i just view that as a loss of life which we should all be concerned with, where contraception is just a prevention measure)

Umm at the moment i can not really think of anything else i could use in that scenario instead...too tired If anyone wants to suggest something i am open to takers

 

[BVS]

Since Muslims and traditional Jews also share a belief in absolutes, this seems to be a bit general.

You know I've seen you do this in many other threads, anytime conservative Christianity is even brought up you automatically jump to other religions. Well what you say is true, but that's not what this thread is about.

The point that was trying to be made is that CCs will not be able to see science and their beliefs comingle or see that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do will see salvation. They believe in black and white and can't see gray.

 

[nbcrusader]

There are some interesting points and principles here. I'd love to keep on going, but I don't see a forum as the best place to discuss.

 

[stammer476]

I think it's very hard if you're someone who takes her/his faith seriously, not to let it affect the decisions you make and the values you hold. And since so much of legislation is about choosing laws in line with your values, it's hard to leave your beliefs behind at the ballot box.

It seems to have the effect of saying there are places God should not be, and if you're of the mindset that God shouldn't be put in a box, then it's hard to say "HERE I will use my faith, HERE I won't."

You bring up some excellent points. I think in our caricature of conservative Christians, we forget that these are still just regular people who don't always know where to draw the line between faith and action. It's not easy to always make the correct judgement between living your faith and respecting other people's freedoms. It's a thin line. I wish we'd remember that more.

 

[MadelynIris]

What category would you put, say:

CS Lewis?

Martin Luther (very politcally active if you consider the times)

Martin Luther King Jr

Bono?

 

[BVS]

What category would you put, say:

CS Lewis?

Don't really know anything outside a few readings of his.

Martin Luther (very politcally active if you consider the times)

He was extremely liberal for his time, he was breaking away from the church and creating a divide very similar to the one we have today.

Martin Luther King Jr

People were using Religion to justify slavery and segregation, his views and teachings were extremely liberal. They still are for many, the idea that we're all God's children still hasn't sunk into many "christians" heads.

Bono?

Bono's political actions have been for that of a general mankind, not just "his own".

But I don't understand the questioning. No one said you couldn't be politically active. There's a big difference from what these individuals above did or do and fighting to deny gay people the right to marry or to make sure your 10 commandments are in the courthouse.

MLK and Bono fight for equality and it didn't matter what religion or beliefs the people held. MLK didn't want equality just for black straight Christians...

 

[Irvine511]

What category would you put, say:

CS Lewis?

Martin Luther (very politcally active if you consider the times)

Martin Luther King Jr

Bono?

not as sure of the others as i am of Bono, but the difference between these people (as i understand them) is that they use Christianity as a source of freedom and liberation and equality, rather than a tool of social control; they seek to try and tap into that otherness, the sense of "we are all god's children" rather than trying to remake the world into their own literalist interpretations of the Bible rooted in the idea of a rules-oriented diety.

 

[Liesje]

not as sure of the others as i am of Bono, but the difference between these people (as i understand them) is that they use Christianity as a source of freedom and liberation and equality, rather than a tool of social control; they seek to try and tap into that otherness, the sense of "we are all god's children" rather than trying to remake the world into their own literalist interpretations of the Bible rooted in the idea of a rules-oriented diety.

Exactly, which is why I get confused when people assume a Calvinist = an ultra conservative or fundamentalist Christian. Exactly the opposite is true if you actually look at the actions and teachings of Luther and Calvin.

 

[nathan1977]

You know I've seen you do this in many other threads, anytime conservative Christianity is even brought up you automatically jump to other religions. Well what you say is true, but that's not what this thread is about.

I'm not sure what other posts you're referring to... not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure you've got the right guy. I don't remember posts to that effect, but it's possible.

My whole point was that people who dislike conservative Christianity for the reasons above (absolutes, sexual mores, molding faith into action), may find that they dislike a whole lot more than just conservative Christianity, since there are such traditions in other cultures and faith systems -- so perhaps there are deeper, more Christianity-centered reasons for the resentment/anger/what have you.

Bono said once in an interview, "Saying Clinton likes rock and roll is like saying Clinton likes books. It's what's inside the books that count." What is inside conservative Christianity that riles people?

But I'm far more interested in the Calvinist aspect of this thread, so I digress.

 

[briarrose]

To some it doesn't matter, but to Calvinists it does b/c usually people who don't think the distinction matters err on the side of assuming infallibility is the same as inerrancy (not the other way around). I can explain it better privately if you'd like.

I still think inerrancy and infallibility are the same thing. This is what dictionary.com said:

inerrancy-Freedom from error or untruths; infallibility: belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

infallibility- 1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

You can e-mail me if you want- briarrose24@juno.com

or IM

shell52080

 

[anitram]

What is inside conservative Christianity that riles people?

Well, I don't have a Jew or a Hindu shoving their opinions down my throat through legislature.

It is Conservative Christian groups in North America especially, who are organized and attempting to legislate their beliefs to the mainstream. They are infringing on my rights, because I do not share their faith. Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc, have not behaved in such a way in the society in which I live and therefore they do not "rile" me up. Once they insist I don't turn on a lightbulb on Friday night or give up my beef burger, we'll talk.

 

[Liesje]

I still think inerrancy and infallibility are the same thing. This is what dictionary.com said:

inerrancy-Freedom from error or untruths; infallibility: belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

infallibility- 1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

Trust me, it's not. Dictionary.com didn't make up the theology surrounding the two terms. I'll ellaborate later since I can't remember specifics and my class notes are at home.

 

[TheQuiet1]

I'm just curious to here what comes to mind when you guys hear "conservative Christian".

I'd think what the heck does that mean? Then I'd assume that it's some kind of American thing. The middle classes of the USA who complained about the 'wardrobe malfunction' at the Superbowl, that kinda thing (I'm not saying they were wrong to complain BTW but if it was a publicity stunt, the complaints would be exactly what she was banking on).

But in the UK, perhaps I've been living with my head in the sand as it were, but you just don't hear those sort of phrases attached to Christians. Occasionally you might hear the term 'fundamentalist' but anything other is very rare. You're all just lumped into one band here: Christians, with perhaps a bit of a denominational distinction sometimes too.

As for the "what do I consider myself" part that a lot of people have included in their answers, I just don't know. Really I don't. I aren't really comfortable with discussing my own personal beliefs so I won't go into all that. But I don't think I'd call myself a liberal but on the other hand I don't know if I could be called a traditionalist either. It's just all so confusing isn't it? (I'd just written down a whole load of confusing waffle then realised I'd be contradicting my whole 'don't like to talk about my beliefs' thing so I deleted it so that's why this post ends rather abruptly!)

 

[Liesje]

The middle classes of the USA who complained about the 'wardrobe malfunction' at the Superbowl, that kinda thing (I'm not saying they were wrong to complain BTW but if it was a publicity stunt, the complaints would be exactly what she was banking on).

 

[BVS]

My whole point was that people who dislike conservative Christianity for the reasons above (absolutes, sexual mores, molding faith into action), may find that they dislike a whole lot more than just conservative Christianity, since there are such traditions in other cultures and faith systems -- so perhaps there are deeper, more Christianity-centered reasons for the resentment/anger/what have you.

I think you have a big misunderstanding of the issue. First of all sneaking in the little "sexual morals" is completely uncalled for are you saying that liberal Christians or even liberals in general don't have sexual morals?

Secondly the reason CCs get such focus in here is they are the loudest in western civilization. You don't hear of conservative Jews yelling to keep 10 commandments in court houses, or calling for a ban on gay marriage, or demanding prayer and creationism in school.

I may disagree with many of the beliefs of CCs, but I don't have to agree with everyone within my faith. What I disagree with is their actions, their insisting on forcing their beliefs on others.

 

[Irvine511]

Secondly the reason CCs get such focus in here is they are the loudest in western civilization. You don't hear of conservative Jews yelling to keep 10 commandments in court houses, or calling for a ban on gay marriage, or demanding prayer and creationism in school.

as a side note, i believe that the Jewish view on homosexuality is that it cannot be a sin, because sin must be actively and willfully chosen, and since homosexuality is not, then it cannot be a sin.

now, please continue ...