My reasons for ?liberal? over ?conservative? Christianity

[melon]

God doesn't take sides. But we certainly have the resonsibility to choose His side.

Which is precisely what I am doing.

Melon

 

[Scarletwine]

"My point, I think, is that I don't believe God "takes sides" as many people would have us believe that God does. God is compassionate towards both the unborn and toward the mothers of the unborn equally. God understands the suffering of the families of murder victims and the suffering of murderers. I think that trying to take a God who can do all things, knows all things, and loves everyone and trying to fit this God into human political molds is a mistake at best and a sin at worst."

I do have an idea what BVS means. My family and my husband's are Lutherans. My father-in-law died several years ago and my mother-in-law remarried a Southern Baptist. He is a wonderful man, however she is floored by what comes out of her Sunday school teachers mouth (no offense meant to others here, just repeating what they told me last weekend). They are always taking about "are you saved" ect. But he told his class that he has been taking to his neighbor and he hopes "that Roman Catholic" can still be saved.
She was absolutely floored. I'm not saying they are typical of all SB, but they are for the ones I've met. Even though they are some of sweetest nicest people I've met. They maintain a religious superiority that is very repugnant to me.
She is leaving the church and as it so conservative is risking her marriage. They don't wear pants in church and women don't talk back, ect. She will be seen as a slur on Duane. Her husband thinks I'm horrible for contrdicting my hubby in public.
I'd appreciate Nb's or 80's thoughts. (seriously as I have no idea how to counsel or help her).

 

[80sU2isBest]

Actually melon, the very first time I ever heard "new world order" was indeed in a religious context, not political.

Now that that's out of the way, on to more important matters.

I realize now that I responded to you incorrectly. In my attempt to defend myself and my freinds and family who are also conservative Christians, I responded in anger, and that was very wrong. I apologize. Maybe I should give understanding a try.

But melon, maybe you should, also. I have never called you a nonChristian. I have never ridiculed you for being a homosexual. I have never belittled you, nor have I ever condemned you. You know these things to be true.

And melon, I have tons of Christian friends, people who identify themselves as Christians, and I can guarantee you that most of them never would, either. I live with conservative Christians. I do indeed know them better than you.

And what about those who belittle homosexuals, those who practice hatred toward homosexuals? What I do know about them is that (a)They are Christians in name only, having no relationship with the Lord, or (b) they do not let the Holy Spirit live through them. It's really that simple, melon.

So why do you judge all conservative Christians by the actions of a very vocal few who are obviously not walking the path Christ intended for them? Melon, I've read about some pretty lewd things that go on at gay parades (half naked women practicing s&m in the streets, etc.). But I know that all homosexuals are not like that. Would you want me to judge you on the basis of what those very vocal homosexuals do and say?

Melon, I believe that homosexual sex is wrong. Most of my friends do, also. But that doesn't mean that we hate those who practice homosexual sex. I know many people who are involved in sinful practices left and right. But does that mean I hate that person? No, no, no.

So, why am I automatically labeled a bigot and a pharisee for thinking that a certain thing is wrong, when I have never presented that belief in anything but a respectful manner? Why do you rail against me and my conservative beliefs so much?

 

[80sU2isBest]

[BI do have an idea what BVS means. My family and my husband's are Lutherans. My father-in-law died several years ago and my mother-in-law remarried a Southern Baptist. He is a wonderful man, however she is floored by what comes out of her Sunday school teachers mouth (no offense meant to others here, just repeating what they told me last weekend). They are always taking about "are you saved" ect. But he told his class that he has been taking to his neighbor and he hopes "that Roman Catholic" can still be saved.
She was absolutely floored. I'm not saying they are typical of all SB, but they are for the ones I've met. Even though they are some of sweetest nicest people I've met. They maintain a religious superiority that is very repugnant to me.
She is leaving the church and as it so conservative is risking her marriage. They don't wear pants in church and women don't talk back, ect. She will be seen as a slur on Duane. Her husband thinks I'm horrible for contrdicting my hubby in public.
I'd appreciate Nb's or 80's thoughts. (seriously as I have no idea how to counsel or help her). [/B]

scarletwine, I can't really comment on the particular situation, but I will let you know what I believe about "being saved".

The reason Christians want others to be "saved" is not because of any feeling of superiority. We believe we have found the greatest treasure there is to posssess and out of love for others, we share our faith because we want others to share in that treasure.

Being saved is what I call "being born again". Jesus himself said that no man can come to the Father unless he be born again. When Nicodemus asked Christ how a man can be born twice, Nicodemus was thinking Christ was talking of physical birth. But Christ told him he was talking about a Spiritual rebirth. Christ later told his disciples that after he had descended to Heaven, he would send the "counselor" (the Holy Spirit) to be with them. Paul and others made very clear what "being born again" is. It is when the old nature, that sin nature that every person is born with is put to death, and the new nature is given to a person. That new nature is the Holy Spirit. This only occurs when people confess their sins to God and ask God for forgiveness and decide to follow Christ. At that moment, their spirits are made perfect, and that perfect condition of the spirit (not the flesh) is the only thing that allows them into Heaven. So God is not playing some big cosmic game of "hmmm, who shall I let in today?". The only spirits he lets into heaven are those spirits that are perfect. And only those spirits that have been washed in the blood of Christ are perfect. The reason that only perfect spirits can abide in Heaven? Because darkness and light cannot abide together; God cannot abide in the presence of sin. It is against His own spiritual nature as God.

 

[pax]

So there's no overarching problem with Roman Catholics being saved in general? As long as Catholics seek the forgiveness of God for their sins and want to follow Christ, just as the Christians that 80s is describing do, then they are just as saved as their more conservative brothers and sisters?

 

[BVS]

80's,
The church as a whole, and when I say that I mean most organized denominations of the Christian Church Catholic, Methodist, Baptist etc., especially here in the South has done nothing but judge, turn their back, and ostercize homosexuals in the church.

Until recently the Church turned their back on the plague of AIDS because it was thought of as a gay disease. Christians should have been the first to reach out and help these people, but instead they turned their back and judged these individuals.

They've excluded them as leaders in the church.

Lobbied in the banning of gay marriage.

How can you not see why people feel the way they feel.

And then they say we aren't homophobic and we don't hate you, but we believe you're wrong. What's that about?

What if I were to say; "I don't hate conservative church goers, but I think you are all sinners for what you believe. Now if you don't practice what you believe then that's fine, but as soon as you practice what you believe you're wrong. And I'm going to make it illegal for you to practice those beliefs."

Would that make it better?

 

[80sU2isBest]

So there's no overarching problem with Roman Catholics being saved in general? As long as Catholics seek the forgiveness of God for their sins and want to follow Christ, just as the Christians that 80s is describing do, then they are just as saved as their more conservative brothers and sisters?

I suppose some might think that Roman Cathloics can't be saved. But I think those people are ignorant of the word of God. I personally know some Roman Cathlolics that are born again.

 

[pax]

Okay, cool.

I wasn't being sarcastic, just so you know. I really wanted to know what you thought about that.

 

[Scarletwine]

can come to the Father unless he be born again. When Nicodemus asked Christ how a man can be born twice, Nicodemus was thinking Christ was talking of physical birth. But Christ told him he was talking about a Spiritual rebirth. Christ later told his disciples that after he had descended to Heaven, he would send the "counselor" (the Holy Spirit) to be with them. Paul and others made very clear what "being born again" is. It is when the old nature, that sin nature that every person is born with is put to death, and the new nature is given to a person. That new nature is the Holy Spirit. This only occurs when people confess their sins to God and ask God for forgiveness and decide to follow Christ

But you see we do that every Sunday. We ask for forgiviness of our sins and "confess our sins" and verify our belief in the Apostle or Nicede *****. We don't need to be a special denomination to achieve that. This is why I believe fundamentaltist are thae farthest from God as you can get.
In my mind and that of many other denominations Jesus came to soften Gods messageg as well as save the world.

edited to add;

Maybe this doesn't belong in this forum but maybe does.

Mine is not a frivilous reply but a quest for understanding.
I believe Jesus' message overrides all of the freakin old Book and God wanted it so.

You still didin't answer my question about other religions vs your own.

 

[80sU2isBest]

80's,
Until recently the Church turned their back on the plague of AIDS because it was thought of as a gay disease. Christians should have been the first to reach out and help these people, but instead they turned their back and judged these individuals.

They've excluded them as leaders in the church.

Lobbied in the banning of gay marriage.

How can you not see why people feel the way they feel.

You're right, Christians should have been the first to help with the AIDS disease, rather than judging...and I've got a luittle secret for you...man many Christians are involved in fighting AIDS.

And as far as what you've seen "in the south", do you forget that I am from the DFW area, also? I have seen what you are talking about, but is not the dominant spiritual behavior in this area.

As far as excluding gays from leadership in the church, I have to say I agree with that. If I believe that homosexual sex is wrong, I could not support a sexually active homosexual for a leadership role in the church, just as I would not support a sexually active unmarried person for a leadership role in the church.

 

[pax]

It's not fair to generalize all fundamentalist Christians that way, Scarletwine, and you know that.

80s is doing the best he can with limited backup.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Okay, cool.

I wasn't being sarcastic, just so you know. I really wanted to know what you thought about that.

Oh I definitely know you weren't being sarcastic.

 

[80sU2isBest]

This is why I believe fundamentaltist are thae farthest from God as you can get.

You still didn't answer my question about other religions vs your own.

The definition of "fundamentalist Christian" is a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I'm curious then as to why you think fundamentalists are "the farthest thing from God".

As far as not answering the one question, I guess it was because I didn't know you were asking a question about other religions vs. my own. Would you mind asking it again, please?

 

[Scarletwine]

It's not fair to generalize all fundamentalist Christians that way, Scarletwine, and you know that.

80s is doing the best he can with limited backup.

Excuse me but there were about 3 responses in the time I was thoughtfully typing mine. I neither said anything nasty to 80's or NB, just asking for clarification. Sorry if anybody was insulted.

 

[Scarletwine]

80's,

Seriously no disrespect meant, even if my blunt manner comes across that way.
I guess it comes from the way fundamentalist write off all people that do not believe their teachings as "not Saved" not allowed into heaven.
My heaven doesn't lock out Catholics, Jews, ect.

 

[pax]

Okay, Scarletwine, I understand.

I just don't want to see this thread derailed, that's all.

Thanks for your help, everyone. Carry on.

 

[Scarletwine]

The definition of "fundamentalist Christian" is a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I'm curious then as to why you think fundamentalists are "the farthest thing from God".


Because the Fundamentalist I know negate the New Testament for the old Testament.
What that means to me is they are afraid of the freedom and the social change Jesus is supporting. if he supported the Phariasis(?) they wouldn't have killed him.
To me to reenact the Christ choice with the Pharisees, we have boughten intoooooo Satan as money that doesn't help people.

 

[BVS]

You're right, Christians should have been the first to help with the AIDS disease, rather than judging...and I've got a luittle secret for you...man many Christians are involved in fighting AIDS.

And as far as what you've seen "in the south", do you forget that I am from the DFW area, also? I have seen what you are talking about, but is not the dominant spiritual behavior in this area.

As far as excluding gays from leadership in the church, I have to say I agree with that. If I believe that homosexual sex is wrong, I could not support a sexually active homosexual for a leadership role in the church, just as I would not support a sexually active unmarried person for a leadership role in the church.

Oh I know many Christians are involved in fighting AIDS, but I'm saying the Church as a whole. I'm saying in the 80's and 90's you saw a very very small percentage of the organized church do anything about the fight. And still "the Church" still isn't quite where it should be on this fight, but it's getting there.

Oh yeah I know you're in this area. But I've been all over in the South, Dallas is pretty "liberal" compared to a lot other cities I've lived in or have experience with. Maybe I'm just unfortunate, but I've seen this as the dominant behavior in Texas, except maybe Austin and Dallas.

Let me ask you this; Would you exclude a divorced man or woman who is now remarried from having a leadership role in the church? Many would interpret this as being an adulterer...

 

[80sU2isBest]

Deoends on the cause for the divorce. If he/she is divorced because the spouse cheated on them, no, I would not exclude him/her from a leadership role, if he/she is the right person for that role.

 

[80sU2isBest]

The definition of "fundamentalist Christian" is a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I'm curious then as to why you think fundamentalists are "the farthest thing from God".


Because the Fundamentalist I know negate the New Testament for the old Testament.

I don't know any Christians who negate the New Testament. I've never seen it in my life. The New Testament was about Jesus. How could a "Christian" negate that?

However, just because Christians are no longer under the "curse of the law" does not mean that the Old Testament was a pack of lies, or not to be revered as the word of God as well as the New Testament. The OT's "law" served its purpose...it prophecied Christ and pointed to the need of having Christ as Savior.

 

[BVS]

Deoends on the cause for the divorce. If he/she is divorced because the spouse cheated on them, no, I would not exclude him/her from a leadership role, if he/she is the right person for that role.

But you would otherwise?

Assuming yes, that would be quite a different answer than most churches. I've been to a lot of churches where this is not policy. Many churches including yours probably have divorced and remarried individuals in learship positions.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I would definitely exclude anyone who was remarried who had gotten divorce simply because they didn't "feel like being married anymore".

However, everyone makes mistakes. If someone had committed a sexual sin in the not too close past, and had repented of the sin and evidence of their life showed that they were not involved in that sin anymore, I might vote for `em, depending on the individual case...

I am very committed to integrity in the leadership positions at church. And I would be equally as hard on heterosexuals as I would be on homosexuals. Leadership in the church is very important.

 

[BVS]

I would definitely exclude anyone who was remarried who had gotten divorce simply because they didn't "feel like being married anymore".

However, everyone makes mistakes. If someone had committed a sexual sin in the not too close past, and had repented of the sin and evidence of their life showed that they were not involved in that sin anymore, I might vote for `em, depending on the individual case...

I am very committed to integrity in the leadership positions at church. And I would be equally as hard on heterosexuals as I would be on homosexuals. Leadership in the church is very important.

Now I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point because I don't believe you and I are going to find agreement on the idea of whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

I agree integrity in leadership positions at a church is very important to me as well. But given you're definition above, you are for using a hierarchy of sin in your judgement as to if this person is fit for the position. If you had a position that was being sought after by two individuals; one a homosexual that all his life has been active in the church and a highly committed Christian and a divorcee who recently got remarried and just joined the church after his divorce, you would vote for the divorcee because you would feel his sin is less than the other man. Even though the other man is obviously the higher qualified.

I believe this to be one of the biggest differences between a "liberal" and a "conservative" Christian, is that the conservative side seems to not be able to get past labels and judgements. Christ spoke about not having a hierarchy of sin, being all God's children, he who's free of sin cast the first stone, all of this and so much more. After all of this and how so many speak about being Christ-like, they use man's judgements to base these types of decisions on. Look who Christ chose as his disciples liars, thieves, betrayors, etc. and we can't choose our church leaders the same way? Out of love, rather than judgement.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree integrity in leadership positions at a church is very important to me as well. But given you're definition above, you are for using a hierarchy of sin in your judgement as to if this person is fit for the position. If you had a position that was being sought after by two individuals; one a homosexual that all his life has been active in the church and a highly committed Christian and a divorcee who recently got remarried and just joined the church after his divorce, you would vote for the divorcee because you would feel his sin is less than the other man. Even though the other man is obviously the higher qualified.

I believe this to be one of the biggest differences between a "liberal" and a "conservative" Christian, is that the conservative side seems to not be able to get past labels and judgements. Christ spoke about not having a hierarchy of sin, being all God's children, he who's free of sin cast the first stone, all of this and so much more. After all of this and how so many speak about being Christ-like, they use man's judgements to base these types of decisions on. Look who Christ chose as his disciples liars, thieves, betrayors, etc. and we can't choose our church leaders the same way? Out of love, rather than judgement.

Exactly. Good point.

Angela

 

[Klaus]

1st of all "liberal" and "conservative" wasn't a political direction for me in this discussion, just values.
And i have no problem to feel liveral and conservative at the same time.


80sU2isBest:
1. i guess you are right at that point but "giving it to the poor" seems to be common sense in the life of jesus

2. i was trying to say not only conservatives are hypocrats - you can find them everywhere.

3. well if they do it they sound like hyprocrats to me

4. no - it's just difficult to fight against someone when you remember "what you do to the least you do to me"

BonoVoxSupastar: you're absolutely right, jesus wouldn't vote neither for clinton nor for bush
Also he would understand both sides, it would make absolutely no sense to put jesus below a political leader

paxetaurora: excelent

80sU2isBest: I agree with you, i'm also sure we can find true cristians in every church - also oudside of the churches, of course we can also find hypocrats in all these areas. Life would be so easy if all who were right would be in one club and all the evil-doers in the other

Klaus

 

[80sU2isBest]

I agree integrity in leadership positions at a church is very important to me as well. But given you're definition above, you are for using a hierarchy of sin in your judgement as to if this person is fit for the position. If you had a position that was being sought after by two individuals; one a homosexual that all his life has been active in the church and a highly committed Christian and a divorcee who recently got remarried and just joined the church after his divorce, you would vote for the divorcee because you would feel his sin is less than the other man. Even though the other man is obviously the higher qualified.

Actually, I never spoke of hierarchy of sin, nor implied it. The reason I would differentiate between the two instances of divorce, is because one of the two is definitely not a sin. If a person gets a divorce because the spouse was unfaithful, that is not a sin. Jesus said that himself.

 

[80sU2isBest]

1st of all "liberal" and "conservative" wasn't a political direction for me in this discussion, just values.
And i have no problem to feel liveral and conservative at the same time.

Klaus

I've noticed that about you. Your ideas do indeed seem to be based on values rather than political affiliation. That's a good thing.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Look who Christ chose as his disciples liars, thieves, betrayors, etc. and we can't choose our church leaders the same way? Out of love, rather than judgement.

Christ had an ability to do something we can't do...look in to the heart and see what a man is all about. Paul gives guidelines on who can be in Elder and Deacon positions, and men of no integrity are out. If a person shows no sign of being a man of integrity, there ain't no way I'm voting him into a leadership role. Put a thief into a deacon role - The man who handles the offering? No way. Put an ex-thief in another leadership role? Possibly, depending on the kind of man he is now.

And I'm not judging others, just going by the guidelines and what is best for the church. Back in 1990, I was involved in a wrong sexual relationship. No way would I have been qualified to be in leadership in the church.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

my pet peeve

Christ had an ability to do something we can't do...look in to the heart and see what a man is all about. Paul gives guidelines on who can be in Elder and Deacon positions, and men of no integrity are out. If a person shows no sign of being a man of integrity, there ain't no way I'm voting him into a leadership role. Put a thief into a deacon role - The man who handles the offering? No way. Put an ex-thief in another leadership role? Possibly, depending on the kind of man he is now.

or woman.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Re: my pet peeve

or woman.