How to get through to Conservatives?

Albion said:

Hmm. Those are strange comments if meant seriously.

Conservatives by nature are more tolerant of other people than are Liberals. Liberals are usually "tolerant" only to the extent of tolerating those causes and people that agree with their socio-political perspective.

It doesn't take remarkable powers of observation to recognize that Liberals are frequently viciously intolerant of those who don't share their biases and worldview. And this is entirely understandable, when you think about it. Modern Liberalism is oriented towards intellectual conformity, coercive governmental policies, and a hostile attitude concerning the existing social order--whatever it might be at any given place and time.

Click to expand...

The bolded portion seems to be true also of the right wing "christian world view" be mindful when pointing the finger.

I think the main difference between conservative and more generous (liberal) christians is that "mercy" is the core of understanding of scriptural concepts, in that God first of all is merciful and by virtue of character is love. This shapes liberal understanding of scripture. There are people in both liberal and conservative circles that don't use scripture and rehearse prejudices, but it is important that the key to all scripture is the golden rule, if an interpretation does not conform to this image .. it isn't of God.

Michael Collum said:

The bolded portion seems to be true also of the right wing "christian world view" be mindful when pointing the finger.

Click to expand...

There are those on both sides, if we're straightforward about this. However, my point is still correct IMHO.

Liberalism IN GENERAL and BY ITS NATURE is less tolerant than Conservatism. Sure, you can point to the ever-popular whipping boy in these kinds of discussions--the religious Fundamentalist. But that was not the focus of the OP and it isn't the definition of a Conservative.

And BTW, there is a tremendous difference between being against gay political activists, homosexual activity...and homosexuals themselves. Most Conservatives are quite respectful and 'live and let live' when it comes to gay acquaintances. I can't say that about Liberals vis-à-vis members of the social groups that they don't approve of.

. nvm.

Michael Collum said:

hmmm i'd suppose to get through to conservatives ... the ideology of liberal and conservative would need to be less polarized so people "in the middle" considering all ideas would actually feel welcome on either side. When a divide like that exists, the bridge group of people just end up being another separate group.

Click to expand...

This. To reach anybody you have to make an attempt to see where they're coming from and engage them as people instead of part of this monolithic group you disagree with. Conservatives and liberals and moderates all vary widely.

Marius27 said:

Not on this planet.

Is there a reason you're attacking liberals on the liberal forum?

Click to expand...

I'm not.

I was merely pointing out that the attack on Conservatives was not based on accurate information. But in deference to your feelings, I will say no more about that.

Albion said:

There are those on both sides, if we're straightforward about this. However, my point is still correct IMHO.

Liberalism IN GENERAL and BY ITS NATURE is less tolerant than Conservatism. Sure, you can point to the ever-popular whipping boy in these kinds of discussions--the religious Fundamentalist. But that was not the focus of the OP and it isn't the definition of a Conservative.

And BTW, there is a tremendous difference between being against gay political activists, homosexual activity...and homosexuals themselves. Most Conservatives are quite respectful and 'live and let live' when it comes to gay acquaintances. I can't say that about Liberals vis-à-vis members of the social groups that they don't approve of.

Click to expand...

I'm not a political activist, so I have no experience with this in a political context. I can only say that in our church, liberals would be happy to coexist with conservatives. The recent SSM change specifically provided for people who disagreed. Conservatives are unwilling to be in a Church where anyone ordains gays or conducts SSM.

The accusations of intolerance I've seen use what I'd consider a weird definition. It's considered persecution if they can't enforce their views on others. I would personally prefer allowing a transition period during which conservatives could avoid dealing with gays if they want to. But before the recent change, there was certainly no equivalent of this. The liberal equivalent of Kim Davis could certainly not have gotten away with signing marriage licenses for gays, nor were liberals allowed to ordain gay pastors.

Albion said:

There are those on both sides, if we're straightforward about this. However, my point is still correct IMHO.

Liberalism IN GENERAL and BY ITS NATURE is less tolerant than Conservatism. Sure, you can point to the ever-popular whipping boy in these kinds of discussions--the religious Fundamentalist. But that was not the focus of the OP and it isn't the definition of a Conservative.

And BTW, there is a tremendous difference between being against gay political activists, homosexual activity...and homosexuals themselves. Most Conservatives are quite respectful and 'live and let live' when it comes to gay acquaintances. I can't say that about Liberals vis-à-vis members of the social groups that they don't approve of.

Click to expand...

In the data that your post has presented there are still pairings, social activists are like fundamentalists .. there are moderate liberals as well .

hedrick said:

I'm not a political activist, so I have no experience with this in a political context. I can only say that in our church, liberals would be happy to coexist with conservatives. The recent SSM change specifically provided for people who disagreed. Conservatives are unwilling to be in a Church where anyone ordains gays or conducts SSM.

Click to expand...

That's quite a generalization, Hedrick. Worse, it includes the usual Liberal line about opposition to gay clergy and SSM amounting to being hostile to gay people themselves. That is a terribly unfair judgment to make of the typical Conservative who, in reality, is not at all like that.

But on the other hand, the fact that a Liberal is castigating Conservatives for holding to the traditional theology of Christianity in a time of radical change would tend to confirm what I said about the dubious nature of the claim that Liberals are so tolerant, wouldn't it?

Note: I was told by another poster that the "Whosoever will, may come" forum is not for "Whosoever" but that I should not comment on Liberalism here. As a result, I'm hoping not to receive any more challenges that deserve a response from me on this thread. I'd appreciate it if you'd take this to another forum if you want to continue the exchange with me. Thanks.

Marius27 said:

I didn't say you can't post here, I just said it's not the place to attack liberals and call them the most hateful people you've seen.

Click to expand...

Having never called them "the most hateful people I've ever seen" or anything close to that...

I'm encouraged by what you say there, but you can also see that what one person thinks is an interesting counterpoint gets characterized as something much darker by some other reader, who then may be motivated to report it as an attack. It's difficult to know what counts as posting in fellowship and what's an assault on a "safe house" (or even what these so-called "safe houses" are supposed to be ).

Marius27 said:

It is being hostile to gay people. They're deemed inferior for certain positions or institutions just because of who they are.

Click to expand...

That's quite an assumption. The facts...and the evidence...is otherwise.

Marius27 said:

What do you mean? What evidence?

Click to expand...

There's no basis for saying "they're deemed inferior" just for being who they are. I have been fairly close to the debates conducted in the churches (such as Hedrick's) in recent years when considering changes in marriage and ordination; I've read and heard plenty, and what you wrote is not anywhere near an accurate thing to say.

Albion said:

That's quite a generalization, Hedrick. Worse, it includes the usual Liberal line about opposition to gay clergy and SSM amounting to being hostile to gay people themselves. That is a terribly unfair judgment to make of the typical Conservative who, in reality, is not at all like that.

Click to expand...

I'm reporting the experience of the PCUSA and other churches that have permitted ordination of gays and SSM. I've said nothing about hostility to gay people. I reviewed my posting pretty carefully to make sure I was claiming only what I've actually seen. I said that conservatives were unwilling to be in a church where anyone ordains gays or does SSM. That is substantiated by the conservative congregations leaving the PCUSA and other churches after they legalize ordination of gays and SSM. It's not enough for us to protect the ability of a congregation to choose their own leaders and not perform SSM. They don't want to be in a church where anyone does it. I don't see how you can dispute that.

I'm not castigating conservatives. I've already said that I'm sympathetic to them, and would like to avoid doing anything to eject or otherwise penalize them. However I don't want them to be able to prohibit churches that want to ordain gays and marry them from doing so. I think you're seeing hostility that isn't there. Is it really a personal attack on you that I don't want you to be able to stop my congregation from ordaining a gay elder?

I think my attitude is more typical of mainline congregations than Marius27's is. However if I were a gay person, and had experienced exclusion for years my attitude might well be a bit more radical. (Note my word choice carefully. I am not claiming hate or anything else. Just that gays were excluded from leadership and other positions. That's an objective statement, not a personal attack.)

hedrick said:

I reviewed my posting pretty carefully to make sure I was claiming only what I've actually seen. I said that conservatives were unwilling to be in a church where anyone ordains gays or does SSM.

Click to expand...

They'd be similarly unwilling to be in a church that changed ANY of the historic doctrines and practices of Presbyterian Christianity, isn't that so?

The PCA and OPC weren't formed by former members of your church because of what it chose to do at this summer's convention! Or because of SSM. The departures from the PCUSA over its decision, several generations back, to distance itself from the Westminster Confession led to other members' departures. The church has been losing Conservative members for decades...and not because of gays.

This kind of incessant focus upon Conservatives as though gay issues are the be-all and end-all of traditional theology is IMHO unfair and inaccurate.

Albion said:

There's no basis for saying "they're deemed inferior" just for being who they are. I have been fairly close to the debates conducted in the churches (such as Hedrick's) in recent years when considering changes in marriage and ordination; I've read and heard plenty, and what you wrote is not anywhere near an accurate thing to say.

Click to expand...

There certainly is a basis. Churches have said that gays are morally inferior for years. Not to mention being inappropriate to be leaders. You can argue that there's a Biblical basis, but you can't argue that you weren't saying that gays are inferior.

Marius27 said:

Yes there is. Most people on this board say SSM marriage isn't a real marriage

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that the persons involved in such arrangements are inferior, let alone inferior
"just because of who they are."

Such overheated rhetoric, sweeping generalizations, and imprecise wording is part of the problem with this subject, I think.