Liberal Christians

[Leap]

we all have "pervasions, degenerations and failings", i.e. we are all sinners.

Indeed we do and we are. The difference is whether you repent or that, or try to persuade people to accept it...

 

[Albion]

The difference is whether you repent of that, or try to persuade people to accept it...

Hits nail right on the head! Accepting or justifying sin is not a virtue, and calling a sin what it is is not a sin of pride.

 

[Leap]

Hits nail right on the head! Accepting or justifying sin is not a virtue, and calling a sin what it is is not a sin of pride.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

Hits nail right on the head! Accepting or justifying sin is not a virtue, and calling a sin what it is is not a sin of pride.

 

[nhisname]

I believe that we will more than likely see the antichrist within the next 20 or less years, emphasis on less. I am glad about that but finding conservative Christians seems nearly impossible right now. As a single person it is hard to find men that are traditional with old fashioned values. It is somewhat depressing and I feel bad saying this but if I am to tell the truth from my own personal experience it is especially hard to find other women friends who have those values.

I have found it the same way. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only sane one around.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Not necessarily. There are a fair number of liberal "churches" looking to twist scripture to their ends - seeing you in that condition it would be reasonable to assume such about you. Personally I am sick of having liberals wave Bibles around claiming (falsely) that it allows and justifies their perversions, degenerations and failings, so I can well understand her response.

Sorry it took so long to come back. My computer monitor died and had to be replaced.

Maybe it will mean something that the woman who said this to me (that I was not worthy to read the Bible because I was pregnant and not married) was none other than the mother of the baby's father, who held me and only me responsible for the fact that I was pregnant. Of course she acknowledged that her son did have something to do with it, but ultimately it was my fault because "it's the girl's responsibility to fight off the roaming hands." We got married when the baby was three weeks old, and she refused to attend the wedding because "it's ten months too late."

Her son and I were faithfully attending a very conservative church, had been baptized, and were doing everything we could do to live for Christ, but she continued to judge. Where previously she had called us names I can't quote here, now she called us "hypocrites" and "sanctimonious holier-than-thou" when we refused to participate in some activity (such as bar-hopping) because it was against our new beliefs. She had no concept of being a new creation in Christ. She couldn't understand the way we were acting because as she saw it, she knew what we "really" were, witness the fact that the first of our three daughters was born before we were married.

Again I stress, this is not a typical example of a conservative, but some don't know better and would think so.

(That first marriage didn't work. He returned to his drug and alcohol addiction, and ultimately left me for another woman.)

 

[Leggomyegolas]

Wow, she must have not ever wanted to see her grandchild then, did she?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

^^She did have the good sense not to blame the baby. I'm thinking here of that episode of The Waltons (season 7, episode 3) where a single mother moved to town, and Corabeth wouldn't let her daughter be friends with a "love child," as if it were the child's fault.

 

[Leap]

Maybe it will mean something that the woman who said this to me (that I was not worthy to read the Bible because I was pregnant and not married) was none other than the mother of the baby's father, who held me and only me responsible for the fact that I was pregnant.

Perhaps you should have said that from the beginning, rather than lead people to believe that things were other than what they are.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Perhaps you should have said that from the beginning, rather than lead people to believe that things were other than what they are.

I was only trying to make a long story short. At first I didn't realize it made a difference exactly who said that to me. As a matter of fact, why does it? If she had been a perfect stranger, say someone who saw me reading the Bible in the doctor's waiting room or something, would this have given her the right to judge me? It seems to me a stranger would have had even less room to say such a thing, since a stranger would have had no way to know whether I was repentant or not.

Would anyone here actually tell a person living a sinful lifestyle, who begins reading the Bible, that they have no right to do that, and the sight of them reading it offends you? Would anyone here even think a teenage unwed mother is "too far gone" to repent and be saved, as my former mother-in-law apparently did? I sincerely hope not. I don't care what the sin, Jesus saves.

 

[lismore]

Hits nail right on the head! Accepting or justifying sin is not a virtue, and calling a sin what it is is not a sin of pride.

It depends how it is said. The bible says 'speak the truth in love'. Telling the truth but giving hope.

If truth comes across with a hateful attitude people will be left without hope of repentance.

 

[Albion]

It depends how it is said. The bible says 'speak the truth in love'. Telling the truth but giving hope.

Well, sure. You can say it with pride and arrogance, but (as I was saying) the mere fact of calling a sin a sin is not automatically prideful.

If truth comes across with a hateful attitude people will be left without hope of repentance.

I agree.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Well, sure. You can say it with pride and arrogance, but (as I was saying) the mere fact of calling a sin a sin is not automatically prideful.



I agree.

Just so. And as Lovebirds experienced it, and as Leap said it here, that's how it came across, not as calling for repentance, but as holier-than-thou arrogant, prideful condemnation.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I understand Leap's disgust at using the Bible wrongly, to justify sin. But that isn't what I was doing. That Bible I was reading is what convicted me of sin, and it wouldn't have had a chance to, if my former mother-in-law (or anyone, I still don't think it really matters who said that to me) had succeeded in convincing me I had no right to read it.

When I was living with my child's father, not married, I honestly thought the church ceremony and "piece of paper" were not necessary to be "married in God's eyes," as we considered ourselves to be. I reasoned that Isaac took Rebekah into his mother's tent, and she became his wife. I thought, "Well, we've done that much," and considered us married. Reading the Bible led me to the woman at the well, and Jesus Christ telling her, "The man you now have is not your husband." Light bulb went on. Just because you're living with a man doesn't mean you're "married in God's eyes." So, we got properly married.

People who know me, know that I come from a family who calls themselves Christian, because they acknowledge the historical existence of a man called Jesus of Nazareth. But they water it down with "all paths are valid" and are just as likely to quote Deepak Chopra as they are the Word of God. I was still in my teens and was living as I'd been brought up to live, but thought I was a Christian. The Bible brought me to repentance. Now, if I was too sinful to qualify to read it, because we shouldn't give what is holy to dogs, how would that have happened?

 

[A New Dawn]

I was only trying to make a long story short. At first I didn't realize it made a difference exactly who said that to me. As a matter of fact, why does it?

Making a difference in who she is doesn't correlate with her having the right to say it to you. No one should say it to you, but she did so because, in her eyes, you corrupted her son and put him in bondage. In her eyes, you trapped him. In her eyes, you were evil. I highly doubt that anyone else would say that to you. I really hope that you see how who she is makes a lot of difference. A lot of guy's mothers feel this way when the woman gets pregnant out of wedlock.

That Bible I was reading is what convicted me of sin, and it wouldn't have had a chance to, if my former mother-in-law (or anyone, I still don't think it really matters who said that to me) had succeeded in convincing me I had no right to read it.

Often, God use those times in our lives when we are at our lowest to do his mightiest work!

 

[Norah63]

Conservative Christian meaning they are saving something?
Having read down thru the posts, for the most part,
and learned a lot of what people think makes one conservative, it's just good old fashioned right and wrong for me.
Not complicated, it's do able for all. Confess your faults one to another and rightly divide the Word of God.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Those who decide it is ok to drink in moderation

Wait, what exactly is the problem with drinking (I assume you mean alcohol) in moderation, meaning: Drinking alcohol, but not aiming to get drunk? There is no basis in Scripture for assuming that the drinking of alcohol in and of itself is a sin. On the contrary: Wine is often used as a symbol of blessing*

Oh, and yes: I'm conservative too.




* And don't give me that "It just means grape juice!"-baloney.....it's an insult to my intelligence, as well as your own.

 

[Rubiks]

Yeah, I'm a conservative Christian as well. Liberal Christian can be saved, in my opinion.

 

[TrutherAU]

Actually as an aussie poster I am a tad confused. All the conservatives here are making a big deal about liberals yet they will accept libertarianism as a good thing since both GOP & Libertarian political party are rightwing & fully acceptable to conservative american christians.
However you do all realise the difference between liberal and libertarian is actually wafer thin you actually get many of the same policies thus results in society if you accept libertarianism or vote for libertarian politicians.
You do realise there are left wing libertarians & right wing libertarians the difference is free markets or not so free markets.
However so far as morality is concerned both libertarian factions are even more permissive than liberals. So all those moral hang ups christians hate they support homosexuals,uber feminism,abortion,incest(a mans property rights all important)freedom for perverts etc.. pple like anton lavey and alistair crawley were also known to be cutting edge libertarians I suppose you all know who they are or perhaps you should research them.

 

[Albion]

Actually as an aussie poster I am a tad confused. All the conservatives here are making a big deal about liberals yet they will accept libertarianism as a good thing since both GOP & Libertarian political party are rightwing & fully acceptable to conservative american christians.
However you do all realise the difference between liberal and libertarian is actually wafer thin you actually get many of the same policies thus results in society if you accept libertarianism or vote for libertarian politicians.

Thank you. Now we know the problem. It is that you do not understand that in this country "Liberal" means "Democratic Socialist." It no longer has even the slightest connection to Classical Liberalism, which is most often associated these days with the word "Libertarian." I can well imagine that this might be confusing.

As a side note, the Libertarian Party chose the name only by a very close vote, defeating "Freedom Party" and several others similar to that.

Modern Liberalism in North America not only does not have anything to do with Libertarianism, but it is actively hostile to it. I have the general feeling, although I'm not very familiar with Australian politics, that the word "Liberal" has a totally different meaning in your country.

On the other issue you were having trouble with...this is one that sometimes also confuses Americans. That is the situation by which Christians, concerned about moral issues, support the Libertarian Party which tends towards allowing people to live their own lives, even when their lifestyles are not what many of us consider moral or even smart. But the thing to keep in mind there is that while we may strongly support -- or oppose -- certain behaviors, voting to have a police state in order to enforce that judgment is another matter.

Let's take an example. Some of us may be strongly opposed to gambling for various reasons, but should we bar someone else from gaming who can afford it and finds it to be their only real entertainment? I'd say "no." That's the nature of a free society--not imposing one's own values upon others by force--even as we may attempt to persuade them of the beauties of our own view. I should also add, for anyone concerned about Christians voting Libertarian when the latter would not prohibit certain sins if given the opportunity, that IMO Libertarianis is the only political cause that can protect freedom of religion in this country. That's because it defends freedom generally.

And then you have also made some statements that are simply incorrect. There's this: "both GOP & Libertarian political party are rightwing & fully acceptable to conservative american christians."

Not only are the GOP and the Libertarian parties not similar in policy and belief (although the Democrats have tried to claim, illogically, that the Republican Party has been captured simultaneously by both the Tea Party and Libertarians), but the view of Libertarians towards the GOP is somewhere between coolness--thinking it the lesser of two evils at best--and loathing.