Still pondering . . .
A Christian that has what is considered a liberal view-point in relation to politics (say, socialism or anarchy, among others),
so, is this to say that political views define the boundary of what is and is not liberal Christianity?
isn't that giving a lot of power to politics?
rather, shouldn't my approach to Christianity define how I express my political desires?
for example, I hold that Christianity necessarily conflicts with politics, that Christians ought not to seek political office, or to resolve issues through political means, that there is no such thing as a Christian politician because the fundemental values of the two systems diametrically oppose one another.
is that view point liberal or conservative? does it make any sense to apply such labels at all?
theology (Armenianism seems to be the liberal view these days, though there are others), science and religion (theistic evolution, among others), or so on.
i am familiar with the Calvin/Augustine VS Wesley/Armenius debate.
if there is such a thing as a true orthodoxy to Christianity, and if it could be shown that Calvin is further off that than Wesley, then isn't it Calvinism that's liberal and not Armenianism?
just questioning how such labels get set when, it seems to me, that the setting is arbitrary.
They tend to head towards "liberty," and will generally accept at least others who are liberal (though they may not agree with them), and many will accept conservatives, though some push back if a conservative starts it.
I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Are you saying that 'liberals' are less dogmatic than 'conservative'?
Thanks for bearing with me and helping me talk out these questions.