What exactly is a liberal Christian?

[MissFirerose]

I hit "liberals" with facts. You hit "Buck72" with emotion because I step on the toes of liberals, not Polycarp or Firerose...just liberals.

I have yet to see any facts from you. At the most, I see ranting, and personal attacks, not at just liberals but at me as an individual.

“France, because they are the epitome of spinelessness and shame...just noticed your signature, how appropriate.”

“I am becoming dumber for discussing this with you.”

Yeah, those are facts alright. Not personal attacks in the least.

Are you French? Have you not noticed that France sets a new standard of gutlessness and cowardice at every turn of opportunity they have? This is a nation that seemingly acts with eager anticipation to comply with the desires of their enemies while resisting with inexplicable hostility to the the desires of their friends...and to what gain!?
Yes, right you are that France has done nothing. That is what they do best in a major crisis: NOTHING.

Does it matter? Human beings are human beings, no matter where they come from. Like it or not, we in the US are not the only ones living here. Even if I don’t agree with things the French have done in the past, I’m hardly going to go off on a rant about them. Do you think you’re going to change an entire country just because you called them shameful and spineless? What good does it to, besides emit hate into our atmosphere? There’s enough of that already, please don’t add to it.

Who do you figure they support more: Kerry (a pacifist) or Bush? Turn on the brain and let it warm up a minute before answering, we both know what the answer is...Al Qaeda wants an America that does not try to destroy them. Democrats are all about surrender because they lack the stomach for war and do not like the international political mess it makes because they want to roll over this country to be ruled by the international community.
(Wake up alarm going off....*)

So.. if I’m against war.. then I’m automatically on the terrorist’s side? … and I suddenly want to be ruled by the “international community”? Personally, I don’t see the point of having US soldiers over in Iraq at the moment. But hey, if you’re all for mindless killing, knock yourself out.

I said READ YOUR BIBLE, I did not say that you have not read your Bible. I have to keep reading it, I cannot read it blithly and then say: "I have read it, I am finished". Stop the auto-reply that I imply when I do not imply. Please, I'm working in context here, a tough item I realize for most that hold to non-context.

The thing would be not to bring up the topic of telling someone to “read their Bible” as you put it, in the first place. The way you put it, simply “read your bible” implied that I didn’t, and I found that offensive. I will not attempt to examine your personal faith and relationship with God, please show me the same curasy.

Quote me, from any post where I say: "Miss Firerose is on the wrong side". You cannot because I have not said that.

“We're talking MAJOR dichotomy here. Please be sure you are on the correct side”.

What “side” are you talking about, I’m genuinely interested.

Again with the "imply" clause. No, I did not imply, you miscontrue.

France, because they are the epitome of spinelessness and shame...just noticed your signature, how appropriate.
Linking my signature to what you said about France links me to what you said about France. It’s rude, immature and untrue.

I know many, most in my own family, and I win every single debate, because they debate emotion, I debate fact.

I personally believe they may just gave up on trying to converse with you. When you come off so aggressive, it taxes on people’s nerves.

I agree. It was Patrick Henry that declared: "Give me ambiguity or give me something else!". No, wait...he said: "Give me liberty, or give me death!". That is not ambiguity, that is clear conviction. That is something liberals do not have, they pin down their thesis like one nails jelly to a wall...not very easily.

Yet, if you think liberals or conservatives can be defined by one single “thesis”, you must not be very familiar with either group. There is no one “liberal” or one “conservative.” We do not take a standardized test that places us into our own divisions.

Too bad the Bible does not support that. Eve was open to new ways, which is why she listened to satan in Genesis 3:1. I am merely pointing out the danger here Firerose. God does not change, people do.

So looking at God in a different way equates to listening to Satan?

To a fault...they lose the entire point of sin, repentance, and obedience.

I doubt you can see into the hearts of thousands of liberals. I can only see into my own.

Ummm...it has been written for us. No need to search.

Christians are always searching for the truth, it’s never complete. Do you think the Bible you hold in your hands is the same as it was in the past? Just recently, some people are saying the gospel of Thomas is a fake. Go back 100 years and no one would think such a thing. Like it or not, the Bible is evolving with us.

Show me scripture for THAT one! You can't, it does not exist but in the fantasy of liberal christians. Maybe Gene Robinson can teach us all about that one.

There was no such thing as a “liberal” or “conservative” back in Biblical times, or at least not to the extent that we know of today. If anything, Jesus would have been considered a liberal though.

Madness.

Madness equates to something that doesn’t coincide with one’s personal beliefs.

Yeah, see above.

All I saw was few choice metaphors, and some more ramblings on how we liberals have no sense of decency and the like.

Et tu Firerose? Look at who is giving me advice...you cannot even get past the notion that you COULD BE wrong here.

Where did I say I was right? If you’re referring to me saying “I have”, I meant in regards to trying to understand my interpretation of it.

I admit I could be wrong, but I have the Bible to check myself against...thanks be to God!! I have been slammed many, many times by the word, but unlike most liberals, I submit to it and pray not to change God, or the Bible, but instead to change ME!

So if you found a passage that said to kill babies, would you? Would you think in the slightest that it may be wrong?

Funny, I'd say the same thing about you, but that would be too "mean-spirited" of me.

Word of the day: HYPOCRITE.

I never insulted you directly, I only made remarks about fundamentalists in general. You _directly_ linked me to some of your insults.

You have now lost my respect, what thin strand you held as part of my willingness to "tolerate" your ravings.

My ravings? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you never _had_ any respect for me to begin with. What, with the constant insults and whatnot.

Elitist liberalism seeks to destroy the precious life and replace it with a control mechanism by which all that is beautiful, lovely and pure is removed as an offence to the profane, because the profane has a greater right to exist than does the pure.

Liberals think:

I’m glad you know exactly what every single liberal thinks, as if we have some sort of huge, hive type of mind and can’t think for ourselves.

You do not even know me. I'm a drummer in a rock band, I have more fun than most. I also use my brain when it comes to issues of great importance.

Was I directly referring to you? No.

Lacking in faith!? It is by faith I accept the FACT that God created the heavens and the earth is six days. You look for proofs like Thomas, who did not act according to faith, but according to sight.

Once again, not referring to you directly, it’s my own personal obsevation. If you thought it fit you, then that’s not my problem.

Do me a favor sweetie and spare me the "faith" bit. I live my faith. Liberals live by feeling.

My name is not “Sweetie”. Please do not patronize me, and don’t attempt to tell me what I live by, or what thousands of others do.

WRONG. Liberals want to "update" the Bible. It is quire contemporary and does not need to conform to the OP/ED in Teen Beat magazine, or whatever it is you read to get your ideas from...certainly not in your own.

The Bible is constantly updated. (The Gospel of Thomas was taken out, nearly 20 books *the Apocrypha* are missing from the KJV, different versions of the Bible differ in the books they included. Whether or not you think they all are authentic is another topic.) How can you say that it’s a constant stability. And what’s with the Teen Beat magazine. I may be younger than you, but don’t try to undermined my intelligence with snide remarks.

I am becoming dumber for discussing this with you.
Liberalism celebrates: Humanism, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. All cling to evolution for their doctrinal lifeboat to support their godlessness and control.

So instead of responding in a mature matter, you insult me (yet again), and the only actual remark that bears any sort of vague relevance to the paragraph above is a list of totally unsupported claims made by you.

You are one to talk Firerose. You have YET to back up anything you rage on about. I quote the Bible in my discussions to the point of dragging the text across the Hebraic Hermenutical Exegisis, something you can neither grasp nor comprehend.

What have I raged about? I have discussed everything in a calm and mature manner, even when you continue to insult me, as you did yet again.

Ditto.

Where have I been rude to you? I can list a bunch of places you have insulted me, my faith, my ideals, and my intelligence. Where have I done the same to you?

I will gamble my eternal soul on the premise the Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Everything else that contradicts it is a LIE

Or misunderstood. Everything is not black and white.

 

[seebs]

I will gamble my eternal soul on the premise the Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Everything else that contradicts it is a LIE.

Hmm.

I would have bet on Jesus being the Word of God. And unless the Bible is Jesus, that sort of means that the Bible isn't the Word.

But if the Bible is the Word of God, it should be true, and if it's true, then Jesus is the Word, because the Bible says so, but then we'd have a contradiction.

It seems this can be resolved only in two ways:

1. Idolatry. We worship the Bible. This is popular.
2. We acknowledge that the Bible is the words of God, not the Word of God. This subtle distinction solves everything.

Secondly, I have a concern: You say "LIE", but a lie must be a knowing mistruth. Is there no possibility that some things are merely mistakes?

Also, who, exactly, determines which of several interpretations of the Bible to trust? Should I be asking preachers? Scholars? Language experts? The man on the street? God?

If it's God, then we should assume that any two people doing this would get the same results... unless there's some possibility of error.

Here's the question, then: How do you determine, when you disagree with someone about what the Bible says, which of you is in error?

 

[seebs]

I would like to humbly ask that the folks participating in this discussion slow down a bit, take a few steps back, and, before each paragraph, stop and ask yourself if what you're about to write is intended to glorify God, glorify yourself, or glorify people who think like you do. Trying to prove that you're right doesn't glorify God; seeking the truth earnestly together does.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

Not to get off the subject.... but I noticed that earlier on in the thread that liberal christians usually are evolutionists as well... Obviously there is some grey area as to what liberal christians beleive in general as whole, but I am curious as to how many liberals actually do beleive in evolution as oppossed to creation.

 

[trunks2k]

Not to get off the subject.... but I noticed that earlier on in the thread that liberal christians usually are evolutionists as well... Obviously there is some grey area as to what liberal christians beleive in general as whole, but I am curious as to how many liberals actually do beleive in evolution as oppossed to creation.

Most likely because the conservative christians are likely to take the bible literally and reject anything that goes against it. While the liberal christians tend to see the bible as different parables and stories with a godly meaning behind them.

example

Stament: "Evolution is the best explaination for the diversity of life on earth"

Conservative Xian reaction: "Is NOT! Genesis said god created man! we did not evolve from monkies!"

Liberal Christian reaction:"The evidence supports evolution. The story in genesis is not meant to be taken literally. It simply shows that god was directly involved in our creation, that we are, in essence, "good", and that god loves us."

 

[Katmando]

Perhaps the defining characteristic of liberal Christians is that they are comfortable with ambiguity and diversity. They realize that life is a complex spiritual journey, and that each person on that journey is confronted with unexpected revelations and unique experiences. Liberal Christians therefore welcome a variety of approaches to understanding God, and are open to new ways of talking about the divine. Religious questions are seen as complex, and answers only tentative. Certain that "now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12), liberals are cautious about making dogmatic statements or claiming to have a monopoly on the truth. They see the search for truth as an ongoing task, rather than one that has already been completed. Perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are each given equal footing in determining Christian faith.


Fundamentalism is reading the references to potentialities within the human spirit as historical events. It is reducing a beautiful metaphor to a newspaper article. It is a way for people to control people's spiritual yearnings, to say only they have the answer.

Elitist-fundamentalism allows its followers to de-humanize those not part of the 'in group'. This begets 'ethnic cleansing', and aggressive, repressive movements like the Christian Coalition and Colorado for Family Values. It is a weed that can spring up in any garden, and must be rooted out and thrown into the fire.

The most famous definition of fundamentalism is H. L. Mencken's: a terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun. There's something to this. Fundamentalism is too fearful, too restrictive, too lacking in faith to provide a home for the human spirit to soar or for human societies to blossom.

Fundamentalists spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed. Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase “overcoming the modern” is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.

Fundamentalists deny history in a radical and idiosyncratic way. Fundamentalists know as well or better than anybody that culture shapes everything it touches: The times we live in color how we think, what we value, and the kind of people we become. Fundamentalists agree on the perverseness of modern American society: the air of permissiveness and narcissism, individual rights unbalanced by responsibilities, sex divorced from commitment, and so on. What they don't want to see is the way culture colored the era when their scriptures were created.
Good biblical scholarship begins by studying the cultural situation when scriptures were written in search of their original intent, so that we can better discern what messages they may still have that are relevant for our lives. But if fundamentalists were to admit that their own scriptures are as culturally conditioned as everything else, they would lose the foundation of their certainties. Some scholars see evidence that St. Paul, for instance, had severe personal hang-ups about sex that may account for his harsh teachings about homosexuality and women. Many biblical scholars treat some of Paul's teachings as rants rather than revelations. But for fundamentalists, their scriptures fell straight from heaven in a leather-bound book, every jot and title intact.

But the task of liberals is much, much harder. To be a liberal, to be an awake, responsive, and responsible liberal—that can take, and that can make, a whole life.

Nice cut n paste job(s) Some of which taken from a Unitarian sermon.

For those interested in what Unitarians believe:

The UUs hold a variety of liberal views about God: Some do not believe that He is a Person, but instead claim He is an impersonal spirit, a natural force, or a principle. Some even claim that He is a created being, not supernatural. Others even deny His existence completely.

The UUs deny the deity of Christ -- that He is not God and Savior, but only a good man and teacher. They claim that the apostles and other Christian writers added to the Scriptures the teachings concerning Christ's atonement for sin.

The UUs teach that the essence of salvation is character development ("deeds not creeds"), rather than faith in Jesus Christ alone -- the "social gospel" reigns supreme in UU. This belief allows every person to do whatever is right in his own eyes as long as he is sincere about it (including homosexual behavior -- UU became the first denomination to call for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages [Associated Press:6/25/96]; as early as 1970, UUs called for an end to discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals, and in 1980, UUs resolved that homosexuals should be ordained.).

The UUs hold the "universalist" belief that no one will be eternally condemned. They, therefore, deny the existence of hell, claiming it is unreasonable for a loving God to send people to a place of eternal torment. They believe that we suffer the consequences of sin in this life only.

<><

 

[jonmck]

.
The basics being those things included in the Nicene Creed? I'm not able to recite that without feeling like a hypocrite. I also don't focus on a heavenly reward My beliefs are in place because they work right now. So, I wonder where that leaves me in your universe of Christians?

Hmmmm - this is my first post so excuse my noobieness!!!

A lot of the posts from liberals have reffered to this - not foccussing on a heavenly reward - it works for me now.

However Colossians 1 says our faith in Christ and love for others come from our hope in heaven - not the other way round. If we 'ignore' heaven, why is Christianity any different? Why not be a new ager? Or a heathen?

A previous post made the point that if people believe the basic tenets of Christianity that is fine - Satan believes these too. We are saved through faith in Christ alone. Once that is in place, heaven is our reward - nothing can change that.

We are called to work out our salvation and we will stumble - whether liberal or evangelical. But I feel we will stumble more if we reduce the Bible to a good book, with myths which teach good lessons for life.

Christianity is more than that - it is becoming a new creation. The Spirit shows us the truth, and reveal the Word to our hearts. Many posts have said we have to see the message for the people at the time. Of course, but does that mean the message at the time was not true? There is no reason to assume that. We cannot just lift the whole Bible into our time - we have to understand what how it applies today. But that does not meanwe say it is true, rather than The Truth. If we do, we relegate Christianity to another religion. It very definately is not - Jesus is the only way to get to God.

Again we don't then hate our friends and neighbours who don't believe - did Jesus do that? Evangelicals DO get this wrong. But the key is remembering our heavnly reward

 

[jonmck]

Hmm.



Also, who, exactly, determines which of several interpretations of the Bible to trust? Should I be asking preachers? Scholars? Language experts? The man on the street? God?

If it's God, then we should assume that any two people doing this would get the same results... unless there's some possibility of error.

Here's the question, then: How do you determine, when you disagree with someone about what the Bible says, which of you is in error?

You are so right - the problems come when humans get involved!!! We are called to use our minds, but our minds are sinful - very sinful. When we think about the things of God, we inevitably taint it with our own thoughts, history etc...

If we disagree, we pray, we search the Word, and we try to agree. But there will always be problems - bcs we are sinful. The apostles disagreed too and they were right there.

The trick is learning that there will be diffs - and learning to live and love around them

 

[seebs]

I think that, for some people, the book becomes a barrier to becoming a new creation, because they start putting it on too much of a pedestal; others don't pay enough attention to it. The exact balance is probably a personal thing.

 

[Patristic]

Most likely because the conservative christians are likely to take the bible literally and reject anything that goes against it. While the liberal christians tend to see the bible as different parables and stories with a godly meaning behind them.

This reminds me of the struggle the 2nd and 3rd century Church went through as it attempted to forment itself within the Roman empire. The gnostics allegorized a vast majority of the Bible and believed that Scripture was nothing more than a compilation of stories with mystical meaning. The orthodox on the other hand believed the Scriptures were primarily literal, but also believed in allegorical and spiritual interpretations as well. As Origen said, Scripture interpretation can be divided into three levels: literal, allegorical, and spiritual. I think the whole liberal/conservative seems to be nothing more than a 21st century revisitation of the 2nd century struggles between the gnostics and the orthodox.

 

[MissFirerose]

Nice cut n paste job(s) Some of which taken from a Unitarian sermon.

For those interested in what Unitarians believe:

The UUs hold a variety of liberal views about God: Some do not believe that He is a Person, but instead claim He is an impersonal spirit, a natural force, or a principle. Some even claim that He is a created being, not supernatural. Others even deny His existence completely.

The UUs deny the deity of Christ -- that He is not God and Savior, but only a good man and teacher. They claim that the apostles and other Christian writers added to the Scriptures the teachings concerning Christ's atonement for sin.

The UUs teach that the essence of salvation is character development ("deeds not creeds"), rather than faith in Jesus Christ alone -- the "social gospel" reigns supreme in UU. This belief allows every person to do whatever is right in his own eyes as long as he is sincere about it (including homosexual behavior -- UU became the first denomination to call for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages [Associated Press:6/25/96]; as early as 1970, UUs called for an end to discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals, and in 1980, UUs resolved that homosexuals should be ordained.).

The UUs hold the "universalist" belief that no one will be eternally condemned. They, therefore, deny the existence of hell, claiming it is unreasonable for a loving God to send people to a place of eternal torment. They believe that we suffer the consequences of sin in this life only.

<><

I may agree with their views on fundamentalists, but that doesn't mean that I agree with everything they believe. Is that really such a hard concept to understand? But, I do agree with the idea of universal salvation and rights for discriminated people. And I'm not the only one who cuts and pastes here. I try to avoid it, but I do get sucked into it now and then.

 

[Katmando]

I may agree with their views on fundamentalists, but that doesn't mean that I agree with everything they believe. Is that really such a hard concept to understand?

No, it is not a hard concept to understand. I was not saying what you believe I just wanted to point out the source. With so many religions out there trying to hijack Christianity we need to be aware of the source.

Although I do find it ironic though how some will give Buck72 a hard time for quoting scripture but not give it a second thought when one quotes from someone that would not be allowed to post in the "Christian only" forums.

But, I do agree with the idea of universal salvation and rights for discriminated people.

Universal Salvation proclaims that God will save all people and that everyone is going to Heaven. A nice thought but unfortunately one I do not agree with. If this was the case there would of been no need for Jesus to go through what he did and that is what I believe is exactly what some would want us to believe.

And I'm not the only one who cuts and pastes here. I try to avoid it, but I do get sucked into it now and then.

There is nothing wrong with cut and pasting I do it my self. But the the way it was used here it appeared they where your own words. I meant nothing against you, I just felt that in this case it should be pointed out.

 

[MissFirerose]

No, it is not a hard concept to understand. I was not saying what you believe I just wanted to point out the source. With so many religions out there trying to hijack Christianity we need to be aware of the source.

Actually, if you read up on the history of Christianity, you'll see that many of the themes that we think are of as authentically Christian origin actually came from other religions, such as Christmas for example. If you don't believe me, and I doubt you would, just go to a library and do some research on the history of Christmas.

Although I do find it ironic though how some will give Buck72 a hard time for quoting scripture but not give it a second thought when one quotes from someone that would not be allowed to post in the "Christian only" forums.

No, I have no problem with him quoting scripture. I do have a problem with him directly insulting me though, but that's another story. Actually, the open discussion and debate section of CF is open to Christians and non Christians, so your point is moot. On another point, one can have a view of Christianity that may not be concidered mainstream and still be a Christian. Just look at all the divisions there are that are accepted, there are thousands in the Protestant division alone.

Universal Salvation proclaims that God will save all people and that everyone is going to Heaven. A nice thought but unfortunately one I do not agree with. If this was the case there would of been no need for Jesus to go through what he did and that is what I believe is exactly what some would want us to believe.

Many different theories on the atonement have been developed throughout history, here's a few of them. They're discussed more thoroughly here.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/ths506a.html

Sorry for cutting and pasting, (again), but it was way too much information to try and type.

THE PENAL-SUBSTITUTION THEORY (most common)
This view takes seriously the Scriptural depictions of God's holiness and righteousness, finding expression in His judicial wrath. It takes seriously the Biblical description of man's depravity and inability to save oneself. It takes literally the statements that Christ died in man's place (Exodus 13:1-16; Leviticus 16:20-22; Isaiah 53:4-12; Mark 10:45; John 3:17; Galatians 3:13 among others). This view is only post modern evangalical.

THE RANSOM THEORY
Christ offered Himself as a ransom to Satan, and Satan accepted the ransom without realizing that he would not be able to retain his hold on Christ because of the latter's divine power and holiness. . . Thus the souls of all men - even of those in hades - were set free from the power of Satan.

ANSELM OF CANTERBURY AND THE SATISFACTION THEORY
Instead of God owing to the devil, Anselm's thrust was that man owed something to God. Anselm saw sin as an not rendering to God what is His due, namely the
submission of one's entire will to His. Hence, to sin is to dishonour Him. To imagine that God could simply forgive us in the same we forgive others, is to have not
considered the seriousness of sin.

PETER ABELARD AND THE MORAL-INFLUENCE THEORY which is To the showing of his justice - that is, his love - which, as has been said, justifies us in his sight.
In other words, to show forth his love to us, or to convince us how much we ought to love him who spared not even his own Son for us. . . Now it seems to us that we have been justified by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God in this way: through this unique act of grace manifested to us. . . he has more fully bound us to himself by love; with the result that our hearts should be enkindled by such a gift of divine grace,
and true charity should not now shrink from enduring anything for him

THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY
As God's law states "the soul that sins shall die" strict justice requires the eternal death of sinners. Simply forgiving could not uphold the law. The death of Christ, then, was a public example of the depth of sin and the lengths to which God would go to uphold the moral order of the universe. The effects of His death do not directly bear on us as Christ did not die in our place, but rather on our behalf. The focus was not saving sinners but upholding the law.


As you can see, there is more than just the common substitution theory for why Christ died on the Cross. I'm not saying they're correct, but they are theories, nonetheless. I am currently re-evaluating my views on the atonement theory, and religion and spirituality in general.

There is nothing wrong with cut and pasting I do it my self. But the the way it was used here it appeared they where your own words. I meant nothing against you, I just felt that in this case it should be pointed out.

Yes I suppose I should have posted a link, but I was tired, and I forgot. In the case of what I posted however, it was just a particular view on fundamental Christianity, and nothing about personal views about the atonement or/and salvation.

 

[Katmando]

Actually, if you read up on the history of Christianity, you'll see that many of the themes that we think are of as authentically Christian origin actually came from other religions, such as Christmas for example.

This looks like a Strawman to me.

Actually the origin of CHRISTmas is the birth of Christ. As for why it is celabrated when it is I am already aware of.

If you don't believe me, and I doubt you would, just go to a library and do some research on the history of Christmas.

Why would I not believe you? Do you have something to hide?

Now you are telling me to go to the library. Should I be insulted? I bring this up since you felt that Buck72 was insulting you for telling you to read the Bible.

Actually, the open discussion and debate section of CF is open to Christians and non Christians, so your point is moot.

Actually I mentioned "the Christian only forums" and not the "the open discussion and debate section". You must beilieve in the Nicene Creed
to post in the "Christian only forum". My point was you have to believe in something to be a christian and CF has drawn the line with the Nicene Creed.

On another point, one can have a view of Christianity that may not be concidered mainstream and still be a Christian. Just look at all the divisions there are that are accepted, there are thousands in the Protestant division alone.

How would you define Christiananity?

As you can see, there is more than just the common substitution theory for why Christ died on the Cross. I'm not saying they're correct, but they are theories, nonetheless.

When I get a little more time I would like to read what have posted.

I am currently re-evaluating my views on the atonement theory, and religion and spirituality in general.

I hope and pray that God will lead you and the you will hear him.

I do not know how much involvment you have with the Church of Today but I would be very cautious if I where you.


God Bless <><

 

[MissFirerose]

This looks like a Strawman to me.

How? I was giving an example.

Actually the origin of CHRISTmas is the birth of Christ. As for why it is celabrated when it is I am already aware of.

Yes, Christmas has evolved to represent the birth of Christ, and that's what it means to me, but the specific day it was on has Pagan origins. When I first found this out I was rather disturbed, for I had never heard of such a thing before.

Why would I not believe you? Do you have something to hide?

No, it's just most people wouldn't believe why Christmas is celebrated on the day it is. There are no Biblical references to the specific day of his birth.

Now you are telling me to go to the library. Should I be insulted? I bring this up since you felt that Buck72 was insulting you for telling you to read the Bible.

I was making a suggestion for where it would be easier to find out for information on the history of Christmas. The way in with Buck presented that I should read the Bible implied that I was somehow ignorant in the topics what we were discussing in depth. I have never brought up the topic of the history of Christmas with you, so I don't know how much you know of the history of it, that's why I mentioned it. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Actually I mentioned "the Christian only forums" and not the "the open discussion and debate section". You must beilieve in the Nicene Creed to post in the "Christian only forum". My point was you have to believe in something to be a christian and CF has drawn the line with the Nicene Creed. How would you define Christiananity?

I don't see what my personal beliefs have to do with the topic at hand, but I'd be happy to share them with you if you'd like. My beliefs are never set in stone, because they are constantly evolving especially when the Holy Spirit brings up something new for me to think about.

I define Christianity as the religion of the logic of love. I see the Bible as being divinely inspired but not error free, I look at it from a symbolic view instead of a literal view. I see Jesus as representing the way human beings should live. I see his challenge to us to each bear our own crosses as not a challenge to believe in a set of rules or a certain creed, but to live as he did, and try to the best of our ability to follow in his footsteps. I believe that if someone knows love, they know Jesus and God, and likewise, someone can know the Bible and not know Jesus or God.

"For he that loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." For he that knows love knows God, for "God is love." (Romans 2:14-15, 28-29; 13:8; Math 9:13, Romans 13:10, Colossians 3:14, John 13:34,35; Eph 3:19 1 John 4:18-21; 1 John 4:1-3))

When I get a little more time I would like to read what have posted.

It's really quite interesting, as the history with any religion is.

I hope and pray that God will lead you and the you will hear him.

Thank you for your concern, but I assure you, than I can hear him just fine.

I do not know how much involvment you have with the Church of Christ but I would be very cautious if I where you.

I'm not sure if you meant to, but please do not patronize me. I believe that God is not found just within churches and other institutions of worship, but in everything around us. I do not have to belong to a certain sect to know him. However, I do enjoy going to church, but that is beside the point.

God Bless <><

The same to you, my friend.

 

[Katmando]

How? I was giving an example.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

My Position was that we need to be cautious where our information comes from. You make this point about Christmas being celebrated on a pagan holiday which in turn was trying to distort my point. So I point out that it seems like a straw man but still countered your Christmas theory. But It still does not discount that I feel it is wise to be aware of where our information comes from.

The way in with Buck presented that I should read the Bible implied that I was some how ignorant in the topics what we were discussing in depth. I have never brought up the topic of the history of Christmas with you, so I don't know how much you know of the history of it, that's why I mentioned it. I'm sorry if I offended you.

No I was in no way offended. In your profile you mention you like to debate but it seems that you easally take things as an attack (see Below).

I'm not sure if you meant to, but please do not patronize me. I believe that God is not found just within churches and other institutions of worship, but in everything around us. I do not have to belong to a certain sect to know him. However, I do enjoy going to church, but that is beside the point.

No I was not trying to patronize you.

Also I meant Church of Today and not Church of Christ. Very big difference. As one has Christian beliefs and the other does not necessarily.

I don't see what my personal beliefs have to do with the topic at hand, but I'd be happy to share them with you if you'd like. My beliefs are never set in stone, because they are constantly evolving especially when the Holy Spirit brings up something new for me to think about.

I define Christianity as the religion of the logic of love. I see the Bible as being divinely inspired but not error free, I look at it from a symbolic view instead of a literal view. I see Jesus as representing the way human beings should live. I see his challenge to us to each bear our own crosses as not a challenge to believe in a set of rules or a certain creed, but to live as he did, and try to the best of our ability to follow in his footsteps. I believe that if someone knows love, they know Jesus and God, and likewise, someone can know the Bible and not know Jesus or God.

"For he that loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." For he that knows love knows God, for "God is love." (Romans 2:14-15, 28-29; 13:8; Math 9:13, Romans 13:10, Colossians 3:14, John 13:34,35; Eph 3:19 1 John 4:18-21; 1 John 4:1-3)) It's really quite interesting, as the history with any religion is.

It fits the topic because you claim you are a liberal Christian so your beliefs as a liberal Christian fit the topic.

Thank you for sharing.

<><

 

[MissFirerose]

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.



My Position was that we need to be cautious where our information comes from. You make this point about Christmas being celebrated on a pagan holiday which in turn was trying to distort my point. So I point out that it seems like a straw man but still countered your Christmas theory. But It still does not discount that I feel it is wise to be aware of where our information comes from.

Ah okay, thanks for explaining it further for me.



I suppose I misunderstood what you were saying, because I responded with the Christmas topic not because of you saying we should be cautious to see where information comes from (something that I agree with, BTW) but to you saying that many religions have hijacked Christianity. I brought up the Christmas thing because a lot of the customs that come along with it (mistletoe, the candles, the tree, gifts etc) were incorporated from other religious holidays from that time, so we have in fact, “hijacked” other religions, to a degree. Maybe not in the sense of beliefs, but in customs at least.



Here's an excellent site with way more information than I could ever supply you with. http://www.holidays.net/christmas/story.htm

No I was in no way offended. In your profile you mention you like to debate but it seems that you easally take things as an attack (see Below).

Yes, I suppose I do. But that doesn't change the fact that I still like to debate. I do not however enjoy when mature debates get de-evolved into mud-slinging flame fests, as is often the case at times.

No I was not trying to patronize you.

Okay, thanks.

Also I meant Church of Today and notChurch of Christ. Very big difference. As one has Christian beliefs and the other does not necessarily.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. At the moment I'm still looking to find a church where I feel God the most, preferably with a small congregation and a good youth group.

It fits the topic because you claim you are a liberal Christian so your beliefs as a liberal Christian fit the topic.

Well in that case, it's fine.

Thank you for sharing.

<><

Sure, no prob.

 

[Buck72]

So.. if I’m against war.. then I’m automatically on the terrorist’s side? … and I suddenly want to be ruled by the “international community”?

War is NEVER a good thing, but if you are attacked and stand there while your enemy destroys you because you are "against war", you lose the fight by default, and therefore give control of your life to your enemy.

We were attacked on 9-11. Thank God we had a President at the big desk that was not afraid to roll up his sleeves and set the enemies of this country on fire. The enemies of the United States are terrified of us because unlike the last eight years prior to 9-11, we refused to be tolerant of murderous huns killing Americans.

The unification and interdependence (surrender) of America to the international community is the ultimate goal of liberalism. That is why the Democrats are so violently out of their ever-loving minds...it took them years under Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton to foster the international community, and with one Republican, we told the international community to bugger off while we go take care of business.

Democrats hate an independent, winning America. They cheer for the enemy and rail against the President, while they claim to know how to REALLY win the war...they only know how to lose.

Personally, I don’t see the point of having US soldiers over in Iraq at the moment.

Neither do I. I was just there a couple of weeks ago. I'd love to see our troops come home, but there is work to do to rebuild and help them establish a self-governing, legitimate government. We have been connected electricty, running water, sewage, and gradually returning the country to the Iraqi people. CNN won't tell you that because Ted Turner (husband of Hanoi Jane) and company only report the bad news about our administration, unless they are covering the MadDean, or the foul-mouthed pacifist Kerry campaign.

But hey, if you’re all for mindless killing, knock yourself out.

Mindless killing:

1. September 11, 2001 (4,000 dead Americans)
2. Abortion (40 MILLION dead Americans) - a genocide.

Try again with the "mindless killing"...that is very amusing.

When you come off so aggressive, it taxes on people’s nerves.

You're right. I apologize. Often it is easy to reply too quickly, perhaps we would all fare better to pause before posting a reply. I'll keep working on that. Please do the same (ie: "mindless killing").

Yet, if you think liberals or conservatives can be defined by one single “thesis”, you must not be very familiar with either group.

As a WHOLE, liberals support:

1. Tax increase to cover MASSIVE spending increases; rather the redistribution of wealth from working families to the non-working dependents of the government. My daughter cries when her Daddy leaves on a 3-month overseas deployment so that the money he works hard to earn can be taken by the government to feed the kid across town while her Daddy deals drugs, steals cars, and shoots cops for a living.

2. Soft posture of crime. This propogates violent crime exponentially. The fact that John Lee Malvo is still allowed to respirate is a crime in itself. He should be executed on the spot, in a public display to criminals across the country that there will be no tolerance for violent crime. If the fear of punishment outweighs the thrill of the act, we'll eliminate crime.

3. Abortion. More mindless killing, not of the enemy, but of the innocent. Big difference here.

4. Gun-Control. The little devils at Columbine broke about 40 gun laws. More gun laws will not stop the criminals, just the civilians that do not want to be the victims of violent crime that are (thus far) sort of "free" to carry a weapon on their person. I carry several, and will not negotiate with a criminal - ever.

5. Lunatic Enviromentalism. Kyoto Treaty - the effort of liberals to liberate you from your car and home. Global warming is such a joke that even Gore can't describe with a straight face. Environmentalists want CONTROL, they do not care about the environment, just the power of control. This is a major key into globalism.

6. Censure of Free Speech. Liberals are so "tolerant" they cannot tolerate anyone that so much as suggests intolerance of any kind. Bible-believing Christians are a favorite target (Hey! Sounds like this forum!!) as liberal lawyers villify Judge Moore for posting a *horrid* stone monument with engravings of: "do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, do not commit adultery." - things most liberals have to be tolerant of right? Meanwhile in my hometown of Boulder, CO (The People's Republik of Boulder) the downtown branch of the public library (where kids go for storytime) had a proud display of multicolored "male-organs" strung about, paid for by the National Endowment for the Arts...another liberal money-pit for my tax dollars.

7. Gay marriage. Creation itself makes this a rather bizarre matter, nevermind what the Bible CLEARLY says. Now we have gay clergy, and child-molesting clergy too.

I could go on, and on, and on. Those who are Christians and not bothered by these things I find to be "odd" at the very least.

There is no one “liberal” or one “conservative.” We do not take a standardized test that places us into our own divisions. So looking at God in a different way equates to listening to Satan?

***TOPIC POINT***

If Eve was trusting the word of God, she would have known satan was lying to her, she was being "open" to new ideas because SHE WANTED THE FRUIT. People that want gay sex are open to new ideas about God, people that want an abortion are open to new ideas about God, people that want to sleep around before they marry (or after for that matter) are open to new ideas about God....see a trend!? :o

I doubt you can see into the hearts of thousands of liberals.

Of course not, I only see actions. The gay bishop is NOT standing in Christ because he is seeking his own, not God's. I do not have to see his heart to figure that out. Could he be saved? That is between him and God, but let me point out: Christ's own love Him more than they love themselves.

Do you think the Bible you hold in your hands is the same as it was in the past?

Absolutely.

Just recently, some people are saying the gospel of Thomas is a fake. Go back 100 years and no one would think such a thing.

Thomas!? There is no Thomas Book in the Bible. Maybe that is the problem. Check out the KJV. The Apocrypha may be a good bit of writing, but it did not make the final cut...how much control does God have over His word anyway? Maybe He decided the 66 books were all that He wanted? The Apocrypha was not inspired? Who is in control here?

Like it or not, the Bible is evolving with us.

No, no, no, no, no. Where did you get this!?

Heb 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings;

Read my signature...no Chirac for me, just Jesus.

There was no such thing as a “liberal” or “conservative” back in Biblical times, or at least not to the extent that we know of today.

There is always establishment, and anti-establishment. Pro and Con, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong. These opposites perpetuate throughout human history.

If anything, Jesus would have been considered a liberal though.

In some sense, yes. But he did not "CHANGE", ie: LIBERATE (being a liberal) anything from the OT, He brought it to life and held everyone to a higher standard than what they thought. He quoted the OT again and again and again.

Today's liberal theology lowers standards in order to not exclude anyone no matter how vile they may be. The vile ones they'll say are "fundamental, angry white men like Buck72".

So if you found a passage that said to kill babies, would you? Would you think in the slightest that it may be wrong?

What is this...? Where does the Bible command me to kill babies?

Perhaps you'd enjoy the following Biblical evidence to destroy abortionists' ideology:

Exo 21:22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

Exo 21:23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

No baby killing here...only in the annals of liberal theology is that permissible.

 

[MissFirerose]

War is NEVER a good thing, but if you are attacked and stand there while your enemy destroys you because you are "against war", you lose the fight by default, and therefore give control of your life to your enemy.

Yes, I whole heartedly agree with that. Sorry, at first I thought you were in support of having US troupes over in Iraq, which I do _not_ support at the moment, since I see nothing good coming from it.

We were attacked on 9-11. Thank God we had a President at the big desk that was not afraid to roll up his sleeves and set the enemies of this country on fire. The enemies of the

United States are terrified of us because unlike the last eight years prior to 9-11, we refused to be tolerant of murderous huns killing Americans.

I agree that we should have a good defense, but I don't see the point of attacking first, unless of course, we are being threatened.

The unification and interdependence (surrender) of

America to the international community is the ultimate goal of liberalism.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the total surrender of America is the goal of liberalism. Where do you get that from, and do you have any unbiased effidence? None of the liberal people I know want such a thing. Maybe the ones in the government do, but none of the normal people do. Yet, Republicans are not without their problems as well. The fact is, neither democrats or republicans are perfect. For one thing, look what happened to our national debt when Bush senior came into office. Clinton totally eradicated it, but then when Bush Jr. came into office, he totally used it all up. I know the military gives him a bit of an excuse, but still. It was nice to not have our country in debt for once.

Neither do I. I was just there a couple of weeks ago. I'd love to see our troops come home, but there is work to do to rebuild and help them establish a self-governing, legitimate government…

Let's leave the runners out of it, since it's obvious we won't agree, and I see no point in arguing over something like that. But anyway, wow, you were over there?? Weren't you afraid you'd get killed or something? I would be. It is a mess there now, sadly. Hopefully we'll be able to help them with government. The one thing that I do think was good was getting Husain out of power though.

Mindless killing:



1. September 11, 2001 (4,000 dead Americans)

2. Abortion (40 MILLION dead Americans) - a genocide.



Try again with the "mindless killing"...that is very amusing.

9/11 was horrible, but the US isn't without fault either. We've killed thousands of people from other countries. The bottom line is, killing is bad, whatever the nationality is of the victims.



The "mindless killing" I was referring to was found in the Bible. Here's a few verses for example.



Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.

Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.

Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.

I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.

Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.

Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.

Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.



I seriously can not understand how a loving God would allow and sometimes order the slaughter of hapless babies and innocent people. It boggles my mind. The conclusion that I have come to, about verses with this type of nature, is that they are not from a divine source, but a human one. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

You're right. I apologize. Often it is easy to reply too quickly, perhaps we would all fare better to pause before posting a reply. I'll keep working on that. Please do the same (ie: "mindless killing").

I’m sorry because I know I got heated as well. I’ll work on keeping my tounge in check. I’m not sure what you mean by “mindless killing” in regards to keeping the heat down.

As a WHOLE, liberals support:

I could go on, and on, and on. Those who are Christians and not bothered by these things I find to be "odd" at the very least.

And yet.. there are extreme right wing Republicans that want just as terrifying things. I think the thing to learn from is that any extreme is bad.

***TOPIC POINT***

If Eve was trusting the word of God, …

I’m pretty sure comparing Eve to modern day liberals is a straw man. I know I’m not going to change your mind about whether or not being gay is sin, but I would like to point out that not that long ago, people used to have the same views on inter-racial marriages. The verses in the Bible that were used to condone segregation were used wrongly so, and I’m sure in the near future the Christians that do the same thing for gays will realize it. You don’t have to agree with me, I’m sure you won’t, but it is a probable future.



On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. The court stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."



As you can see, that opinion has certainly changed, and the parallels between it and the oppression of the right for gays to marry is painfully obvious.

Thomas!? There is no Thomas Book in the Bible. Maybe that is the problem. Check out the KJV.

It’s the “Gospel of Thomas”, and I don’t believe it was ever considered cannon. It is quite interesting to look at though; I hope to find a copy one day.


The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Unless it is merely a collection of materials that mainly were drawn out of the Biblical gospels, as seems unlikely for most if not all of Thomas' sayings, then Thomas is the most important historical source for knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth that exists outside of the Bible. It is the most significant manuscript ever found for the history of earliest Christianity.


From here:

http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.html



Here’s another very in depth source for information on it. It also has countless other books that you can study.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

how much control does God have over His word anyway? Maybe He decided the 66 books were all that He wanted? The Apocrypha was not inspired? Who is in control here?

That’s just the thing, we don’t know. It could be that God planned the entire thing out, or it could be human errancy. I would agree with the later, especially since there are even contractions in the remaining cannon books of the Bible.

No, no, no, no, no. Where did you get this!?

Allow me to rephrase it better. The Bible evolved in the past. Yes, it’s not being changed now, because everything is set in stone on what is allowed in and whatnot. But, when it was first assembled, there was a lot of debate over what was to be added. I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen all within a short time span as well, so that would be considered “evolving” to me.

There is always establishment, and anti-establishment. Pro and Con, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong. These opposites perpetuate throughout human history.

But liberalism is not anti establishment, it is not evil, nor wrong. If you were to ask someone in Biblical times if they were a conservative or a liberal, I’m sure they wouldn’t know what you were talking about.

In some sense, yes. But he did not "CHANGE", ie: LIBERATE (being a liberal) anything from the OT, He brought it to life and held everyone to a higher standard than what they thought. He quoted the OT again and again and again.

Yes, but he behaved a lot like a liberal would.



Many liberals are against war and want world peace. What did Jesus have to say about wars and world peace?

---"Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)

---"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9)

---"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)

Many liberals believe in social programs. What did Jesus have to say about social programs?

---"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:21)

Most liberals think that all people, no matter what race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation, should be treated equally. What did Jesus say about treating people equally?

---"Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:39)

---"Do to others what you would have them do to you." (Matthew 7:12)

---In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus praised the morality of a hated foreigner over his own countrymen. (Luke 10:30-37)

Many liberals believe that the rich have a duty to help out the less fortunate. What did Jesus say about the rich and their financial success?

---"It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23,24)

---"You cannot serve both God and Money."(Matthew 6:24)

---"Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12:15)

Liberals are very much in favor of helping out the less fortunate. Did Jesus say anything about this?

---"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." (Luke 14:13,14)

What is this...? Where does the Bible command me to kill babies?

I quoted them already. Sad isn’t it?

Perhaps you'd enjoy the following Biblical evidence to destroy abortionists' ideology:

No baby killing here...only in the annals of liberal theology is that permissible.

I wasn’t referring to abortion at all, I was referring to the passages I listed before.

Well, thanks for the reply.

 

[Polycarp1]

Good morning, Buck!! Of course I do not hate you -- you are, like many another, my brother in the Lord. The post you objected so vehemently to was intended to stress the points that I see as the ones Jesus (and in two cases Paul) made most strongly, with the first paragraph intended as a "shocker" -- I included the "weasel clause" "if I interpreted Scripture literally" intentionally, because the passage in question is one where Jesus was obviously speaking hyperbolically. But my point is that if one starts condemning and casting out on doctrinal grounds, there is Scripture to say that he who judges on those grounds should be judged in the same way as he judges others -- i.e., condemned and cast out. Fortunately, neither you or I is the judge of another's salvation, and our Judge is one so merciful that He gave His Life that we might have new life in Him.

With regard to your post about particular issues a few posts up in this thread, I'd first refer you to Mr Cheese's comment earlier in the thread about there being a difference between someone who is theologically liberal and someone who is politically liberal -- though there is a significant overlap, there are people who are one but not the other. However, let me address the seven issues you raised one by one, with my personal take on them, which you are welcome to shoot down:

1. Tax increase to cover MASSIVE spending increases. I do not personally agree with this. However, Mr. Bush's methodology of running up a deficit to cover his own massive spending increases while lowering taxes seems not to have the desired effect of stimulating business to produce more tax revenue at the lowered tax rate. I submit to you that it is our Christian duty, individually, to give for the help of the poor and downtrodden, without judging whether they are "worthy" of such help. Whether it is our corporate duty as a society under a democratic government to do so is an issue on which Christians may have varying ideas. Libertarians would say no, statist liberals yes. I personally believe that we have the responsibility to prevent harm coming to those who cannot provide for themselves, and that it is proper to offer those who can "a hand up, not a handout" because I have seen with my own eyes how debilitating it can be to be in a position where it takes all you can do to barely make ends meet, without crisis situations requiring extra money (which always happen).

2. Soft posture of crime. Criminals commit crime because they have needs and wants that they can easily fulfill by criminal acts, and because they have no social responsibility to recognize why what they do is deemed criminal by the law-abiding public. "Get tough on crime" programs end up costing us big time for incarcerating those who could be rehabilitated, and instead training them to be better at their crime. Something that impacts heavily on those who do have the capacity for change, to force them into rehabilitating themselves, and protects us from those who have gone beyond the realistic expectation of rehabilitation, would be my preference. Very few existing programs have desired impact, though.

3. Abortion. Purely and simply, I have only encountered one or two people who were "pro-abortion." Those of us who are pro-choice take the attitude that it is the right and responsibility of the woman who has been impregnated to decide what will be done with her own body. IMHO, her moral choice over 99% of the time ought to be to carry the baby she has started to term -- but I believe it to be her choice to make the moral commitment to do so, not something we are entitled to force on her.

4. Gun-Control. I personally support the Bill of Rights -- all of it, including the Second Amendment. But I do see a serious problem there, and I don't have an answer to it. Law-abiding citizens are guaranteed the right to have weapons, and in some wilder areas they need such weapons. Calling a sheriff an hour away will not protect the person living up in the mountains, especially if what is menacing him or her is wildlife. But in the large cities there are people prepared to take the law into their own hands and criminal elements prepared to terrorize others for their benefit -- and that is what the gun control laws seem to target, other than the sob stories about the eight-year-old who got his father's improperly stored gun and killed his friend with it. I think citizens need a way to be protected from those groups, and I don't know what the answer is. I'd hope someday that right-to-bear-arms advocates and gun-control advocates might get beyond the rhetoric and try to address the problems that each side raises, because they are real issues that deserve the best that both sides have to give.

5. Lunatic Enviromentalism. Yes, I've seen extremism, on both sides. I grew up 40+ years ago in a small Eastern city on a river so polluted that quite literally nothing could live in it. Cleaning that up was a good move. I'm seeing major companies attempting to enter into public lands that were explicitly set aside for public enjoyment and the protection of the plants and wildlife there, for a quick buck. And I'm seeing people so hot on single-issue politics that they oppose things with obvious public benefit on the basis of some supposed deleterious impact on some species. There's no quick and dirty answer to this -- a middle ground needs to be defined and agreed to by a consensus. BTW, "global warming" is neither disproven nor proven -- those who say one way or the other are selectively mining the data to support their preconceived prejudices. I will offer you one fact -- insofar as anyone can tell, the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska and the Yukon has been frozen over as long as anyone can tell. There is now a large patch of open water there. Climatic trends are getting slowly but significantly more extreme -- that's part of what I'm doing in North Carolina. In the first 40 years that I lived there we had one significant power outage from weather; I was about eight at the time. Then in the last eight years I lived there, we had four multi-day outages from severe weather. So I moved south to an area that was growing and where we had friends -- and which was historically (a) subject to a snowfall about one year in three, and (b) significantly affected by a hurricane about one year in six or seven. In the five years we've been here, we've had snow four winters and three serious hurricanes. That tells me that weather is changing significantly for the worse. Am I a radical tree-hugger? No way. But I think we need to honestly look at the long term effects of what we do as a country, and what we let our larger corporations do.

6. Censure of Free Speech. I agree with you that there are some bizarre applications of the law going on. It would take a long time and a whole string of posts to argue the issues here -- but suffice it to say that I see a difference between what people have the right to say and do, and what they ought to say and do as a part of a courteous society, never mind what God may want -- because I don't think we have the right to enforce our (differing) opinions on what God wants on others who do not believe in Him. It's their problem if they violate His laws; all we may ethically do is warn them.

7. Gay marriage. First, it's none of my business what gay people choose to do, and if marriage is established as a legal institution, as opposed to the religious covenant before God which Christians believe it is, then they should be equally entitled to enter into it. It is not a slippery slope, because there is a specific line that they draw -- "consenting adults" -- a dog, a child, or a toaster cannot give informed adult consent. Polygamy is a quite different ball of wax -- it is not the union of two people. And I've seen nothing in Scripture to suggest to me that God's salvation is restricted from gays -- except that passage in Corinthians, which I take to condemn homosexual fornication for thoughtless sensual pleasure, along with a possible reading implying those who patronize boy prostitutes enslaved by panderers, a significant industry in First Century Corinth.