Maybe our Liberal Version of Christ is the right one?

[lismore]

Conservatives need a perfect, inerrant Bible. Liberals are more willing to recognize the authors were doing their best to communicate profound ideas given the language and symbols of their day.

Interesting

 

[divided sky]

I've been in some very conservative Christian circles in the past. I finally realised we were going round in circles. No matter what happened, what evidence or scripture to the contrary was presented we had to believe A,B,C.

I dont think I can be close-minded and be a Christian. There is so much more to learn, so much new ground to explore. As God said 'Come let us reason together'.

Why would God give us the capacity to reason and have a dialogue with him, if he didnt want us to use it?

Great post! And I agree, why would God give us the capacity to reason, to question, to be inquisitive if he didn't want us to use these things. I've always had the impression from the more fundy types that, as you said, you believe A,B,C no matter what you personally think. They'd say you're full of sin anyway, so you can't reason. You just have to believe A, B, C to get to Heaven. What a very limiting relationship with our God.

 

[Octorock]

I've noticed that indeed the biggest difference between conservatives in liberals is the manner in which the express their beliefs, rather than their actualy beliefs. I've noticed in tis sub-forum that people's beliefs can vary quite a bit in different areas, but people are willing to listen to each other's point of view and are maybe willing to consider it against their own. And people might still disagree, and they may say why the disagree, but they don't insist that they are absolutely right, and that the other person is absolutely wrong.

But every once in a while, you'll see a contribution to a thread from a more conservative poster, and the difference in attitudes is shocking. It'll be like "No, the bible says this, threfore you must believe my interperetation of this, are you choosing to ignore this verse? Are you picking and choosing what you believe" blah blah blah and it's very hostile and confrontational. That's the very attitude that eventually turned me away from the church. I'm only recently looking into returning to Christianity because I'm discovering for the first time that Christians aren't all like that, and there are open-minded, polite, liberal; Christians out there!

 

[dies-l]

I've noticed that indeed the biggest difference between conservatives in liberals is the manner in which the express their beliefs, rather than their actualy beliefs. I've noticed in tis sub-forum that people's beliefs can vary quite a bit in different areas, but people are willing to listen to each other's point of view and are maybe willing to consider it against their own. And people might still disagree, and they may say why the disagree, but they don't insist that they are absolutely right, and that the other person is absolutely wrong.

But every once in a while, you'll see a contribution to a thread from a more conservative poster, and the difference in attitudes is shocking. It'll be like "No, the bible says this, threfore you must believe my interperetation of this, are you choosing to ignore this verse? Are you picking and choosing what you believe" blah blah blah and it's very hostile and confrontational. That's the very attitude that eventually turned me away from the church. I'm only recently looking into returning to Christianity because I'm discovering for the first time that Christians aren't all like that, and there are open-minded, polite, liberal; Christians out there!

I used to think that this was a fair way to describe liberals and conservatives. However, the more of both that I meet, the more I realize that this is just not a fair generalization. There are obnoxious liberals who berate anyone who disagrees with them. There are gentle, tolerant, and compassionate liberals who accept and consider the viewpoints of others. There are obnoxious conservatives who insist that anyone who disagrees with them are wrong. And, there are gentle conservatives who will quietly respect your right to disagree with them and will accept and love you nonetheless.

My experience on these forums have shown me the most intolerant obnoxious and hateful people are about evenly divided between liberal and conservative. I would say the same, perhaps giving a very slight advantage to liberals, about the tolerant and accepting people I have run across. The difference, imo, really does come down to viewpoint, not attitudes. But, that's just one opinion.

 

[Octorock]

I used to think that this was a fair way to describe liberals and conservatives. However, the more of both that I meet, the more I realize that this is just not a fair generalization. There are obnoxious liberals who berate anyone who disagrees with them. There are gentle, tolerant, and compassionate liberals who accept and consider the viewpoints of others. There are obnoxious conservatives who insist that anyone who disagrees with them are wrong. And, there are gentle conservatives who will quietly respect your right to disagree with them and will accept and love you nonetheless.

My experience on these forums have shown me the most intolerant obnoxious and hateful people are about evenly divided between liberal and conservative. I would say the same, perhaps giving a very slight advantage to liberals, about the tolerant and accepting people I have run across. The difference, imo, really does come down to viewpoint, not attitudes. But, that's just one opinion.

Hmm, perhaps I have a lot to learn!

 

[dies-l]

Hmm, perhaps I have a lot to learn!

Really, I have found that some people are just naturally mean-spirited and intolerant. Others are kind and accepting. Most are somewhere in between. These traits seem to transcend all of the labels that we might try to stick on people.

 

[MattLangley]

I used to think that this was a fair way to describe liberals and conservatives. However, the more of both that I meet, the more I realize that this is just not a fair generalization. There are obnoxious liberals who berate anyone who disagrees with them. There are gentle, tolerant, and compassionate liberals who accept and consider the viewpoints of others. There are obnoxious conservatives who insist that anyone who disagrees with them are wrong. And, there are gentle conservatives who will quietly respect your right to disagree with them and will accept and love you nonetheless.

My experience on these forums have shown me the most intolerant obnoxious and hateful people are about evenly divided between liberal and conservative. I would say the same, perhaps giving a very slight advantage to liberals, about the tolerant and accepting people I have run across. The difference, imo, really does come down to viewpoint, not attitudes. But, that's just one opinion.

Arguably those people who aren't open to others beliefs aren't liberal... by definition conservative and liberal have those differences that were identified, that liberals are open to new and different ideas while conservatives conserve and hold on to existing and current ones.

Someone who doesn't have orthodox Christian views is not necessarily a liberal, they can be conservative to their new beliefs.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Arguably those people who aren't open to others beliefs aren't liberal... by definition conservative and liberal have those differences that were identified, that liberals are open to new and different ideas while conservatives conserve and hold on to existing and current ones.

Someone who doesn't have orthodox Christian views is not necessarily a liberal, they can be conservative to their new beliefs.

What dies-l is probably speaking of is people who are "tolerant" to the point of intolerance. They pride themselves on being accepting of all things ........ except when it comes to something that they don't actually accept. One of the more common targets (but not the only target) is "conservatism." What "conservatism" means for these people vary from individual to individual. However, when presented with that person or thing, they become no better than the people they claim to be better than.

It is the same attitude found in fundamentalist Christians or really hardcore militant atheists. It manifests slightly differently in each of the three cases, but the root is all the same: "you don't agree with me therefore you are hellbound/evil/stupid/irrational."

On all sides of the fence(s), these people are generally the minority. However, they tend to be a very loud minority, so it warps our perceptions of the group as a whole. As humans we tend to generalize an entire group based on the actions and sayings of those who are the loudest about said group. The source doesn't even have to be from within the group, it just has to be the loudest. Anti-Catholicism that spreads from one person to another in fundamentalist churches is a good example.

 

[dies-l]

Arguably those people who aren't open to others beliefs aren't liberal... by definition conservative and liberal have those differences that were identified, that liberals are open to new and different ideas while conservatives conserve and hold on to existing and current ones.

Someone who doesn't have orthodox Christian views is not necessarily a liberal, they can be conservative to their new beliefs.

Let's say that person A says to person B, "I believe that marriage is intended for one man and one woman and that active homosexuality is sinful." Person B responds, "how can you believe that?!?!? You are an intolerant jerk for saying such a thing!" Person A then responds, "I respect your right to disagree, and I respect that other people have differing viewpoints on the issue, which I am willing to consider, but this is what I believe."

By your definition, would A be the liberal and B the conservative?

 

[Octorock]

Let's say that person A says to person B, "I believe that marriage is intended for one man and one woman and that active homosexuality is sinful." Person B responds, "how can you believe that?!?!? You are an intolerant jerk for saying such a thing!" Person A then responds, "I respect your right to disagree, and I respect that other people have differing viewpoints on the issue, which I am willing to consider, but this is what I believe."

By your definition, would A be the liberal and B the conservative?

It depends on what you mean by "liberal" in this situation. As far as tolerance of other's viewpoints goes, person A is the more liberal. As far as interperetation of scripture goes, person B is possibly the more liberal one.

 

[dies-l]

It depends on what you mean by "liberal" in this situation. As far as tolerance of other's viewpoints goes, person A is the more liberal. As far as interperetation of scripture goes, person B is possibly the more liberal one.

In common usage of "liberal" and "conservative", Person B is the liberal. As someone who tends liberal, however, I would much rather discuss any important issue with person A, who, in this example is the more open minded tolerant one. I have seen this type of situation play out both ways. Some of the nastiest most intolerant comments that I have seen on CF have been from people advocating a liberal viewpoint. But, I see nastiness on the other side as well. Like I said, it seems to be about 50/50. And, there are quite a few liberals and conservatives who like to accuse the other side of being horribly intolerant.

 

[Octorock]

In common usage of "liberal" and "conservative", Person B is the liberal. As someone who tends liberal, however, I would much rather discuss any important issue with person A, who, in this example is the more open minded tolerant one. I have seen this type of situation play out both ways. Some of the nastiest most intolerant comments that I have seen on CF have been from people advocating a liberal viewpoint. But, I see nastiness on the other side as well. Like I said, it seems to be about 50/50. And, there are quite a few liberals and conservatives who like to accuse the other side of being horribly intolerant.

That is a fair arguement, and I have seen examples from both. Using myself as an example, as my beliefs started to change and I started having more liberal points of views, I received a lot of criticism from my peers. Over time, I became extremely bitter towards them, and actually became like the "intolerant liberal" that you described. In my mind, I only felt that way as a reaction to how intolerant I percieved them to be. I guess I ended up exactly the type of person that I myself hated. I like to think that I'm starting to grow out of that, finally.

 

[MattLangley]

Let's say that person A says to person B, "I believe that marriage is intended for one man and one woman and that active homosexuality is sinful." Person B responds, "how can you believe that?!?!? You are an intolerant jerk for saying such a thing!" Person A then responds, "I respect your right to disagree, and I respect that other people have differing viewpoints on the issue, which I am willing to consider, but this is what I believe."

By your definition, would A be the liberal and B the conservative?

Well since words do have definitions let me share the first definition for both liberal and conservative on dictionary.com and use that as a standard to figure it out:

liberal

favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

conservative

disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

So instead of coming in with a definition bias to the words and by looking at who says what and trying to -then- use the terms appropriately... person A doesn't represent a favor towards progress or reform, but doesn't reference a distaste to it, in being tolerant and believing people can have their own beliefs even if they are change or reformed suggests a slight leaning towards liberal... they do express some of what it means to be "conservative" and are disposed towards existing and/or traditional conditions though they are not trying to "limit change."

Person B seems to be "favorable to progress or reform" in a liberal perspective; however, this may be a misnomer since just because those same beliefs may be liberal to one person they may not be to another since that person may be trying to hold and conserve their own set of ideals and not be open to reform. On the other hand they are very much trying to "limit change." They are stuck in their own way of believing things and aren't very willing (at all) to consider a change to that thought... Change can be forward or backwards, it's when it's done for "tradition" sake it's conservative, while someone who wants to change towards an older way for other reasons may actually be quite liberal.

This is where a simpler definition of conservative and liberal makes it a lot easier:

Liberal - Embraces progressive or reforming conditions
Conservative - Chooses to preserve existing or traditional conditions

The actual conditions are not part of the definition. For example the condition of supporting gay marriage is not liberal, how a person holds to that condition can be liberal or it can in fact be conservative. Once a person becomes completely intolerant of someone else's ability to come to their own conclusion they cease being liberal (progressive and reforming, implicitly that means open to change) and starts to become conservative to their set of conditions.

 

[Octorock]

...yeah, that!

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

I think the difference between liberal and conservative is that liberals like to build a community naturally with an open arena of voices. They want to think for themselves and exercise a right to say how the community is operated. As pointed out previously by another poster here on C.F., Conservatives want a benevolent dictator. They need to see that, "authority flows from a top-down source and the buck stops somewhere". For the Protestants, the buck stops at the bible. For the Catholics, the buck stops at the Church or more visibly the pope. Conservatives aren't comfortable with community-building so they just keep appealing to the central authority. A good example of these differences coming into play was demonstrated here at C.F. For the first few years, Erwin filled the conservative vision very well by being the benevolent autocrat and conservatives were happy. When the liberals grouped together to have a voice, the conservatives saw this as subversion of authority. For the liberals it was just looking for somewhere to have a voice. Personally, it looks to me like conservatives as a group possess an authoritarian personality. The god of conservative communists is a political state on earth and the god of conservative christianists is a transcendent monarchial bully in the sky. The god or state is just a secondary consideration to fill the need for someone or something to tell them what to do. The thing they all have in common is taking authority for the truth rather than truth for the authority. When I read posts in conservative areas of C.F. or they come here to evangelize in WWMC, it is obvious to me their religion is not christianism, but rather authoritarianism.

 

[dies-l]

Well since words do have definitions let me share the first definition for both liberal and conservative on dictionary.com and use that as a standard to figure it out:

liberal


conservative


So instead of coming in with a definition bias to the words and by looking at who says what and trying to -then- use the terms appropriately... person A doesn't represent a favor towards progress or reform, but doesn't reference a distaste to it, in being tolerant and believing people can have their own beliefs even if they are change or reformed suggests a slight leaning towards liberal... they do express some of what it means to be "conservative" and are disposed towards existing and/or traditional conditions though they are not trying to "limit change."

Person B seems to be "favorable to progress or reform" in a liberal perspective; however, this may be a misnomer since just because those same beliefs may be liberal to one person they may not be to another since that person may be trying to hold and conserve their own set of ideals and not be open to reform. On the other hand they are very much trying to "limit change." They are stuck in their own way of believing things and aren't very willing (at all) to consider a change to that thought... Change can be forward or backwards, it's when it's done for "tradition" sake it's conservative, while someone who wants to change towards an older way for other reasons may actually be quite liberal.

This is where a simpler definition of conservative and liberal makes it a lot easier:

Liberal - Embraces progressive or reforming conditions
Conservative - Chooses to preserve existing or traditional conditions

The actual conditions are not part of the definition. For example the condition of supporting gay marriage is not liberal, how a person holds to that condition can be liberal or it can in fact be conservative. Once a person becomes completely intolerant of someone else's ability to come to their own conclusion they cease being liberal (progressive and reforming, implicitly that means open to change) and starts to become conservative to their set of conditions.

I think that these definitions support my original point. One can be in favor of progress and reform and still be a closed-minded bigoted jerk. One can be in favor of preserving existing conditions and be tolerant and open to other perspectives. Neither of these definitions implies that one or the other is inherently more tolerant or open-minded. I have always been tempted to say that the only truly tolerant and open minded position is that of the moderate, but then I am reminded that moderates too have the potential to go in either direction.

If we are going to have meaningful dialog, which I believe is necessary for the advancement of a civilized society, then we really need to stop talking about who is most tolerant and open minded and instead just practice being tolerant and open-minded. As soon as we make the claim that we are the tolerant and open-minded ones, we set the trap that we will inevitably fall into of becoming closed minded and intolerant.

 

[Casstranquility]

This line of thought intrigues me. I consider myself a liberal liberal, because I am so far out there that even most liberals think I'm nuts. Yet, I am also judgmental and rude to those who disagree- privately, anyway. So, is it right to think that I am conservatively holding a liberal viewpoint? Or has the whole idea of conservative and liberal been confounded? Ah, the issue is probably overdetermined.

Those that are gentle, loving conservatives-holding traditional views, are by nature loving, are not bitter nor resentful nor frightened of the opposite side. They, somehow, have found the Love of God in their beliefs and it has released them. They feel forgiven, not inferior or superior to others.
Those that are mean, rude, and possibly uncaring and hold traditional viewpoints do not feel forgiven, they do not feel loved, they hold their beliefs over others in order to feel better about themselves. Their beliefs have not freed them, rather they have been enslaved by them. Or, their past prevents them from accepting the love of Christ.

Love is the key, I think, in whether conservatives and liberals are open, inviting, and warm-hearted. Beliefs have an impact on how we feel about ourselves and the world in general, but they are not the only factors at play.

I, however, get confused when I find a loving conservative holding a belief like "we don't deserve to be in God's presence." I wonder how they can love themselves or anyone else with such a belief. I cannot. So, somewhere in me, I think they are stupid, not even understanding their own belief system and what it really means! But, what of what it means to them? Everything is different from another point of view. Humans are fascinating creatures, I have always thought.

I wouldn't stop thinking of myself as a liberal even though I am now closed-minded to believing in hell because of how it affects me and others. I have closed my mind because leaving it open on such topics leaves the door wide for doubt and self-hate and unbearable pain.

This is another funny thing to consider: What happens if all the currently "liberal" agendas become common, become the way things are, and no one questions the rightness of these ideas for many years, centuries even-when someone points out something wrong with these systems- they will be the new liberals! And those holding previously liberal ideas will be the conservatives!

Who are we really?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I would say that "liberal" and "conservative" are simply viewpoints. How you choose to react with those who disagree with you is part of and a reflection on your personality.