Liberal and Conservative

[RestoreTheJoy]

Now we have reached Ipsie Dixit. You do not get to dictate the meaning of marriage.

It looks like we have hit the end to this conversation. Have a pleasant day RestoreTheJoy. I enjoyed our exchange.

Nor do you get to dictate the meaning of marriage. God already has that job, though men are attempting to take it over.

 

[durangodawood]

It is you who are hand waving away reality. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Always was, and always will be, current legal status change notwithstanding....

Thats just factually wrong. Marriage now includes gay couples.

Perhaps youre talking about what you would prefer marriage to mean?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Now we have reached Ipsie Dixit. You do not get to dictate the meaning of marriage.

A marriage between one man and one woman as the trational biblical marriage isn't exactly the truth. It's more of a farce that intentionally ignores the other EIGHT different biblical marriages defined in the bible and all of these marriages were permitted by God. The marriage between one man and one woman is only one type of marriage defined in the bible. And if anyone is destroying the sanctity of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman, it isn't same-sex couples. It is actually men and women, including Christians, who have been divorced and remarried once, twice or more times. But since homosexuality has become the pet sin of so many evangelicals, the other sexual sins (such as fornication, lust and adultery), have been conveniently disregarded and often times just ignored.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Thats just factually wrong. Marriage now includes gay couples.

Perhaps youre talking about what you would prefer marriage to mean?

I have always thought that religion should be kept on a short leash in marriage or even left out of the marriage entirely. I honestly think there would be a lot less patriarchal sexism and male chauvinism in marriage if certain religions were left out of the equation. I think that's especially true concerning the patriarchal centered marriages I've seen among evangelical Christians over the years.

 

[RDKirk]

A marriage between one man and one woman as the trational biblical marriage isn't exactly the truth. It's more of a farce that intentionally ignores the other EIGHT different biblical marriages defined in the bible and all of these marriages were permitted by God. The marriage between one man and one woman is only one type of marriage defined in the bible. And if anyone is destroying the sanctity of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman, it isn't same-sex couples. It is actually men and women, including Christians, who have been divorced and remarried once, twice or more times. But since homosexuality has become the pet sin of so many evangelicals, the other sexual sins (such as fornication, lust and adultery), have been conveniently disregarded and often times just ignored.

Interesting graphic.

I would point out, though, that any bride who couldn't prove her virginity had a moron for a mother, according to how the proof is constructed by the Law.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is an obvious, I think, rift in the Protestant Church. There are conservatives, who apparently believe the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God. And there are liberals, who seem to believe we are bound to nothing the Bible says. Has anyone ever wondered if there is some middle ground?

There are (me) who believe scripture, and it carries the liberal message
of treating all others as you would wish to be treated. In other words
sin is how you define it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Interesting graphic.

I would point out, though, that any bride who couldn't prove her virginity had a moron for a mother, according to how the proof is constructed by the Law.

Oh...I thought you said mormon.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not protestant, but I think you forgot the nuances. Most people lean one way or the other, but few subscribe to the whole package of either liberalism or conservatism.

I think outside the package.

 

[Dave-W]

There are (me) who believe scripture, and it carries the liberal message of treating all others as you would wish to be treated.

Why should equity be considered a “liberal message?”

If you want to be treated better than others, that is not conservative, it is just plain selfish.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why should equity be considered a “liberal message?”

If you want to be treated better than others, that is not conservative, it is just plain selfish.

Granted.
Because conservatives dream of women being silent in church and holding no authority positions?

 

[Dave-W]

Granted.
Because conservatives dream of women being silent in church and holding no authority positions?

This law and order conservative has no such dreams.

Mysogenist does not equal conservative; at least not in my book.

 

[SkyWriting]

This law and order conservative has no such dreams.

Mysogenist does not equal conservative; at least not in my book.

Then you're a social liberal. Don't panic!

 

[Albion]

Granted.
Because conservatives dream of women being silent in church and holding no authority positions?

Do they? Or is that more of a liberal talking point and not true in real life?

 

[Dave-W]

Then you're a social liberal. Don't panic!

Not really.

 

[Albion]

This law and order conservative has no such dreams.

Mysogenist does not equal conservative; at least not in my book.

And by the way, consider the political figures who have been, in recent years, the most viciously attacked for daring to take a leadership position in government--Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Kirstjen Nielsen (the Homeland Security secretary), Sarah Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Betsy DeVos, etc. Even Mrs. Trump who gets snarled at for the most trivial and contrived reasons. The mysogenists who went after each of these people certainly were not conservatives.

 

[Paidiske]

Do they? Or is that more of a liberal talking point and not true in real life?

Like so many things, I find it to be true of some people in real life.

 

[Albion]

Like so many things, I find it to be true of some people in real life.

...and they are to be characterized as "conservatives" for that reason???? That, after all, is the topic (Liberal and Conservative), not Women's Ordination.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do they? Or is that more of a liberal talking point and not true in real life?

You may say Fanatical Conservatives if you wish. That's appropriate.

 

[SkyWriting]

And by the way, consider the political figures who have been, in recent years, the most viciously attacked for daring to take a leadership position in government--Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Kirstjen Nielsen (the Homeland Security secretary), Sarah Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Betsy DeVos, etc. Even Mrs. Trump who gets snarled at for the most trivial and contrived reasons. The mysogenists who went after each of these people certainly were not conservatives.

A resent post claims Trump is lying again because he said Obama's yard fence is 10 foot when it looks more like 7.5 ft to me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/resi...aws.com/public/JA3BMDWZZAI6NIHG2UBNM5I3ZA.jpg

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem with liberals theology is that is argue from a position of emotions and it make use of people's lives as an argument to undermine Christian ethics and moral.By emotions I refer to this kind of argument : how can you be so coldhearted as not to accept these two mens love for one another. Why do you hate love?!

As a radical liberal, I never use an emotional appeal.
Scripture says to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.
This is the foundation of the Law of Moses and of the teachings of the prophets.
If Luther disagrees, then his writings are tossed out the stained glass window. But not in anger.