My reasons for “liberal” over “conservative” Christianity - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-23-2003, 11:04 PM   #46
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Okay, Scarletwine, I understand.

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

Thanks for your help, everyone. Carry on.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-23-2003, 11:15 PM   #47
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 10:07 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 07-23-2003, 11:16 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-23-2003, 11:40 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:07 PM
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 is offline  
Old 07-23-2003, 11:44 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-23-2003, 11:50 PM   #51
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 12:19 AM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:07 PM
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 12:49 AM   #53
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 01:30 AM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 07-24-2003, 04:18 AM   #55
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:07 AM
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
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 09:16 AM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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 is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 09:18 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.

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 is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 09:25 AM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 09:30 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Normal my pet peeve

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
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.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 10:58 AM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Re: my pet peeve

Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4


or woman.
__________________

__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com