What exactly is a liberal Christian?

[TScott]

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.

It would have been much easier to give your

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.

as an example of a strawman. Perfect!

 

[Fideist]

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.

A point of information. This forum is not a "Christian only" forum.

 

[TScott]

A point of information. This forum is not a "Christian only" forum.

No it's not, in fact it's the LIBERAL THEOLOGY forum. Seems like quoting a Unitarian sermon would be what one should expect.

 

[rod brake]

I believe politically in government social programs, trade unions, increased funding for education, that the tax cut was a stupid idea when you have a war planned that is going to cost in the billions. I believe theologically that there is a trinity, that God intercedes in this world; that he created this world by the power of his voice, but that he took a really long time to do it; why, who knows, it is up to Him. I believe that we are to do the best we can with what we are given, that we should take care of the beam in our own eye before worrying about the speck in our neighbor's. That our neighbor is the homosexual, the choir soloist, the poor, the Muslem, the Baptist, the Catholic, the Buddist.
And I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God came down from heaven to die on a cross for my sins. And while I was (am) still a sinner that he saved me.

Well, I'd agree with most of the above, translated into British terms (e.g. Ibelieve in old Labour, the welfare state, the NHS, Government action to keep unemployment down, and relatively high levels of taxation to pay for it all (and yes, I am a taxpayer). Theologically, being a liberal means regarding reason as the penultimate authority, rather than the Bible (the evangelical view) or church tradition (the Roman and Anglo-Catholic view). Note that I said penultimate authority - the ultimate authority for any kind of Christian must be God. The arguments are over how God primarily speaks to us.

 

[Fideist]

No it's not, in fact it's the LIBERAL THEOLOGY forum. Seems like quoting a Unitarian sermon would be what one should expect.

Frankly, I'd prefer it to some of the less sophisticated attempt by conservatives to stir things up.

 

[Buck72]

Thanks for the reply Polycarp, I'm pleased to say that I thought your response was lucid, well-put and interesting.

I never said that you "hated me", just that it seemed that the threat of censure was rather strong for taking a strong stand against unbiblical activity (ie: abortion, gay bishop):

The Bible says a LOT of stuff -- including a passage that would, if I took it literally, require that I go to Erwin and demand that you be banned from this board.

Needless to say, of course we have differences. I simply cannot find anyplace in either the Word or nature where homosexuality or abortion is acceptable, yet there are a host of folks that name Christ as LORD, yet seem to be remarkably out of step.

To answer Fireroses's comparison of the church "ban" on interracial marriage to today's gay marriage outrage, allow me to interject something from the Bible to prove we're looking a a different set of circumstances:

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

"One blood". That is the Biblical stance. Racism is a human invention based on evolutionary miscomparisons. The only race I am aware of is the human race, what difference does it make what skin color you are!? BTW, sorry to point this out, but the biggest racists alive are in the Democratic forum. The rest of us would love to get past this, but liberal programs like Affirmitave Action and the school voucher frackus keep skin color on the decision ballot.

How about we ELIMINATE skin color from all matters of discussion and start dealing with people, and leave the epidermis out of it.

God created Adam (wonder what color he was?) and from him came all peoples. Interracial marriage has been occuring since the dawn of time. Gay marriage is a subject of the 21st century...sadly in the church as well.

1. Tax increases - one of the Democratic candidates wants to increase spending by $3 TRILLION. Are you willing to pay for that? Bush's spending on the military was to cover the previous administration's GUTTING of the military while simultaneously increasing their operations tempo for humanitarian missions (and presidential support missions) by 500%!!! Bush has had the larger part of his policy dictated to him by 9-11. Clinton inherited the Reagan economic propserity (based on tax cuts and a strong military), Bush inherited Clinton's "bar tab" after eight years of frivolity and wanton excess. I was witness to this as an airlift pilot. We carried celebrities, friends, family, contributors, reporters all over the world while they partied like rock stars in palatial suites and accumulated gifts and excesses like you would not believe, plus we passed customs without so much as a courtesy check. I cannot fly to Iraq and back with a full-blown customs inspection, yet we offloaded loot-toting civilians by the hundreds without so much as a nod from customs...this is one of about four dozen events I witnessed from '95-'01. Bush travels with extreme modesty and is a dignified, noble gentleman with a disciplined staff and a modest, functional entourage. The rest of his administration reflects his integrity.

2. Soft posture on crime:

Ecc 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.

Prisons and rehabilitations are EXPENSIVE. Rope and bullets are cheap...and EFFECTIVE.

3. Abortion:

I have no problem with a woman's right to choose. She has that right you know, she can choose to abort her body anytime she wishes. But she does not want to abort her own body, she wants to abort someone ELSE'S body!!

All people that favor abortion have already been born.

4. Poland has gun-control. It is also on Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, which has a lot to say about the limitations of government and a free society governed by an elected body of representatives vice a body of elitists career politicians (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et al) that feel only they have the right to a decisive role in the lives of their "constituents" (servants?).

Gun control is securing your weapon from children and accidental discharge, and also hitting where you aim. That is all there is to it.

5. Environmentalism: This is huge. I'd be happy to discuss this elsewhere, but for the short; most people do not have the facts, and if anyone knew how jacked up the Kyoto Treaty is, they'd be marching on Washington in droves.

 

[Buck72]

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.

Don't give me too much credit to the "soft side". I was all about bulldozing that country last year, but the military's job is done, let's go home and re-group for the next one. Let the civilians rebuild (except France and Russia).

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.

Miss Firerose. Did you ever hear about 9-11? The Muslim horde attacked first...I'm amazed that we haven't run a pre-emptive strike on the entire Middle East; Saudi, Iran, Syria, Yemen...the whole cursed place.

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?

I have lots of evidence with greater legitimacy that any "evidence" for evolution (had to interject...sorry, back to topic). The entire Clinton admistration was replete with it.

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.

Okay, but please do your homework into the real motives of the liberal politicians. Their agenda is hidden behind their liberal programs that pay off the ignorant with "entitlements" (paid for by my tax $) so that they do not notice the signing over of our national parks to the UN, the hand-off of the Panama Canal to China, the MASSIVE reductions of our military presence overseas, our military force, and our nuclear force. It goes on and on.

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.

I hate to keep arguing with you, I really do...but this is not even remotely correct...not even in the correct hemisphere.

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

I'm going to post a thread dedicated to each of these verses. You'll soon discover through a clear study of the Bible that these killings, though tragic, are not "mindless", nor are they carte blanche "commandments" to run amok killing babies. Stay tuned...

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.

You'll have a bigger problem with Revelation...it is going to get much, much worse. He made the world, reached out to save the world when it turned against Him, and will ultimately destroy the world with fire. It is because He is loving that He does this...more on that later.

I’m sorry because I know I got heated as well. I’ll work on keeping my tounge in check.

Forgiven. Jesus is wonderful like that isn't He?

I’m pretty sure comparing Eve to modern day liberals is a straw man.

No, no straw man, nor unilateral liberal comparison, my topic point was against those (liberals, and everyone else) that look for alternative messages from God, so long as they say what they want/need to hear to appease the conscience...ie: the Forbidden Fruit.

Careful sister, there is a lesson here for ALL of us. Please do not miss it just because mean 'ol tempermental fundamental conservative Buck says so. I did not write Gen 3, just quoted it.

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.

Please see the post to Polycarp...man invented racism.

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

You know, I support many things with the finances God has given, it is His money anyway, so I to share the blessing of doing this very thing.

What I resent is the FORCED taxation of my income to feed and clothe a person that REFUSES to work. I say let them starve, and I am not alone here:

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

2Th 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you,

2Th 3:8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;

2Th 3:9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.

Taxes should support the expense of government ONLY, not hand-outs, or entitlements, or social security, or the cursed National Endowment for the Arts ...if we could actually HAVE the money we earned, imagine what we could do with it!?

What would you do with a 40% raise?

 

[EliasEmmanuel]

Miss Firerose. Did you ever hear about 9-11? The Muslim horde attacked first...I'm amazed that we haven't run a pre-emptive strike on the entire Middle East; Saudi, Iran, Syria, Yemen...the whole cursed place.

Okay, um.....

I'm sorry, but last I checked, being attacked by a militant terrorist group supported by the former Afghani government is not the same thing as being attacked by Iraq. Especially since said terrorist organization was not at all fond of the Iraqi regime.

"The Muslim Horde"?

What I resent is the FORCED taxation of my income to feed and clothe a person that REFUSES to work. I say let them starve, and I am not alone here:

The irony is, with as many churches as there are in america, if we were taking care of the poor (who do not, naturally, consist solely of people who "refuse to work"... speaking of straw man) like we were commanded to, welfare wouldn't be an issue.

Jesus is wonderful like that isn't He?

Might want to check out Jesus' equally wonderful commands regarding care for the poor and treatment of one's enemies.

Hint: they're not "kill them before they kill us" or "let them starve".

(and yes, I know that verse about how if a man does not work he shouldn't eat. But since America is not simply overrun by horribly lazy people, I'm referring to all the other ones)

No, I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal, I just read my Bible.....

 

[Katmando]

Okay, um.....

I'm sorry, but last I checked, being attacked by a militant terrorist group supported by the former Afghani government is not the same thing as being attacked by Iraq. Especially since said terrorist organization was not at all fond of the Iraqi regime.

The facts are that Iraq pre-emotively struck Kuwait in 1991 and this war is still not over. The US went in and liberated Kuwait and Iraq made an agreement not to only destroy all of the chemical and biological weapons but to prove it. Well as we all know Iraq did not hold up to there side of the agreement. So after more than a dozen U.N. resolutions to get him to comply we went in to prove it on our own. The choice was Iraqs to make. We did what we said what we would do. They did not.

The irony is, with as many churches as there are in America, if we were taking care of the poor (who do not, naturally, consist solely of people who "refuse to work"... speaking of straw man) like we were commanded to, welfare wouldn't be an issue.

I totally agree with you there. But talk about free choice, shouldn't it be our choice where our money goes and yes us Christians should do more on our own.



<><

 

[Fideist]

The facts are that Iraq pre-emotively struck Kuwait in 1991 and this war is still not over.

But Iraq was not behind the attack on the WTC. Iraq, under SH was basically a secular government. The people who attacked us did not like that fact and as a result, were not allies with Hussein. Quite the contrary.

 

[Katmando]

But Iraq was not behind the attack on the WTC. Iraq, under SH was basically a secular government. The people who attacked us did not like that fact and as a result, were not allies with Hussein. Quite the contrary.

You are correct there are no facts that I am aware of that support Iraq had any part of the attack on the WTC. But on 9/11 we did learn that we are more vulnerable than what we thought. If a small group like Al Queada could kill thousands, what could an out of control dictator like Saddam Hussein do? Al Queada had the element of surprise one benefit we did not want Iraq to have.

 

[Fideist]

You are correct there are no facts that I am aware of that support Iraq had any part of the attack on the WTC. But on 9/11 we did learn that we are more vulnerable than what we thought. If a small group like Al Queada could kill thousands, what could an out of control dictator like Saddam Hussein do? Al Queada had the element of surprise one benefit we did not want Iraq to have.

On 9/11 we found out that we're a lot more vulnerable than we thought - to extremists of any stripe who are willing to die in order to inflict damage. Muslims are a long way from being the only extremists that resent the US and it's government. And that would include citizens of the US itself, some of whom declare that they are Christians.

 

[Katmando]

On 9/11 we found out that we're a lot more vulnerable than we thought - to extremists of any stripe who are willing to die in order to inflict damage. Muslims are a long way from being the only extremists that resent the US and it's government. And that would include citizens of the US itself, some of whom declare that they are Christians.

Yes, Timothy McVeigh is one and the government took action with him as well. Also there are extremist Muslims but not all Muslims are extremists.

 

[Fideist]

Yes, Timothy McVeigh is one and the government took action with him as well.

Sorry. As well? His guilt was proved, not just alleged or supposed.

Also there are extremist Muslims but not all Muslims are extremists.

Which is probably part of the reason Eliasemmanuel objected to the 'Muslim horde' comment in Buck's post. Alleging that because some terrorists are Muslims and therefore the attack on the WTC was an attack by all, or even most Muslims, seems quite specious to me. Granted it is difficult to see any separation between Muslims and the politics of the Middle East, especially as concerns the US; but that is hardly a reason to cast the attackers as the Muslim horde. Terrorists, do not a horde, make. Moreover it has been pretty well established that Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attack. Yet we still have people attempting to make it sound as if Muslims, terrorists and Iraqis are one and the same.

 

[Buck72]

*NEWSFLASH*

The fact that Muslims habitually practice terrorism; blowing up busses, airplanes, and discoteques, should serve to raise a "clue flag" to the entire world that, for the most part is NOT raised because of aggressive efforts by our own liberal newsmedia to bury the facts under a mountain of liberal, brotherly love and push the propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace.

Islam is not a religion of peace, anyone who says otherwise is either ill-informed, or a liar.

Also, the fact that TSA does not target the extra security checks of Arabs at the airport is proof that this nation does not have the first clue of how to provide adequate security for our citizens. If liberal Clintonite Norm Mineta, would get over his flashbacks of 1941 (incarceration of the Japanese-Americans supported by the liberal Democrats under Roosevelt) and start PROFILING potential terrorists instead of having 80-year old grandmas remove their orthepedic shoes for "security" (sic)...maybe then the word would get around the terror cells and they'd go back to the dunes.

Oh, but I can hear the reply: "You're just being a racist!"; yeah, here's where I get it from:

If 15 of 19 terrorists that destroyed almost 4,000 lives, and transformed the ENTIRE WORLD for the sake of "allah" (sic); that is not called "racism", that is called: MINIMALLY OBSERVANT.

That is my beef with the liberals; weepy emotional impulse competing with the hard facts.

 

[Fideist]

That is my beef with the liberals; weepy emotional impulse competing with the hard facts.

I thought I'd answer this first to put things in perspective. The hard facts are that the average conservative Christian American is not all that well educated, particularly in terms of history. Many could also use some help in current events.

The fact that Muslims habitually practice terrorism; blowing up busses, airplanes, and discoteques, should serve to raise a "clue flag" to the entire world that, for the most part is NOT raised because of aggressive efforts by our own liberal newsmedia to bury the facts under a mountain of liberal, brotherly love and push the propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace.

A lot of people who have undergone religious or political repression, real or perceived, regardless of religious affiliation have practiced terrorism. The KKK, the IRA, a couple of underground movements in Italy, the Basques, Viet Minh, any number of groups in Africa and on and on. The only difference is that we as westerners are now focused on this particular group. And we're focused on them because they didn't attack somebody else. We knew about these very same terrorists when they were assassinating people in Egypt, and there was absolutely no cry on the part of westerners to stop them.

Islam is not a religion of peace, anyone who says otherwise is either ill-informed, or a liar.

Unsupported assertion. False dichotomy. Irrelevant conclusion.

Also, the fact that TSA does not target the extra security checks of Arabs at the airport is proof that this nation does not have the first clue of how to provide adequate security for our citizens. If liberal Clintonite Norm Mineta, would get over his flashbacks of 1941 (incarceration of the Japanese-Americans supported by the liberal Democrats under Roosevelt) and start PROFILING potential terrorists instead of having 80-year old grandmas remove their orthepedic shoes for "security" (sic)...maybe then the word would get around the terror cells and they'd go back to the dunes.

The American society is an open one. It is very important to keep things in balance. Too much focus on any particular issue can cause harm in other areas - unintended consequences. To go any farther down the road than has been traversed in the name of security, endangers our fourth amendment rights.

Oh, but I can hear the reply: "You're just being a racist!"; yeah, here's where I get it from:

Nobody has said anything about racism.

If 15 of 19 terrorists that destroyed almost 4,000 lives, and transformed the ENTIRE WORLD for the sake of "allah" (sic); that is not called "racism", that is called: MINIMALLY OBSERVANT.

No, it is called terrorism. It is borne of suppression, real or perceived, and is carried out by enraged, poorly educated people who think the answer to everything lies in the application of force on the other guy.

 

[MissFirerose]

Miss Firerose. Did you ever hear about 9-11? The Muslim horde attacked first...I'm amazed that we haven't run a pre-emptive strike on the entire Middle East; Saudi, Iran, Syria, Yemen...the whole cursed place.

Please do not insult my intelligence by asking such a question. If I live in USA, which my icon implies, I obviously know of 9/11. I was not referring to that paticual event, I was talking about in general.

I have lots of evidence with greater legitimacy that any "evidence" for evolution (had to interject...sorry, back to topic). The entire Clinton admistration was replete with it.

Which is? Besides for Genesis, which we could easily be interpreting/translating incorrectly, there is none. For example, the original phrase that 'day' was derived from in Genesis was something like 'for ages'. I can't remember it specifically. If you want I can attempt to look it up for you.

Okay, but please do your homework into the real motives of the liberal politicians. Their agenda is hidden behind their liberal programs that pay off the ignorant with "entitlements" (paid for by my tax $) so that they do not notice the signing over of our national parks to the UN, the hand-off of the Panama Canal to China, the MASSIVE reductions of our military presence overseas, our military force, and our nuclear force. It goes on and on.

Do you have one shred of unbiased evidence for this? How am I supposed to know that it's not just hot air?

I hate to keep arguing with you, I really do...but this is not even remotely correct...not even in the correct hemisphere.

The graph clearly shows that both Bush and his father messed up our national deficite, which Clintion, a democrat, had actually fixed:

Careful sister, there is a lesson here for ALL of us. Please do not miss it just because mean 'ol tempermental fundamental conservative Buck says so. I did not write Gen 3, just quoted it.

But you did link it to something that _you_ interpreted as being related.

Please see the post to Polycarp...man invented racism.

Just like he invented homophobia.

What I resent is the FORCED taxation of my income to feed and clothe a person that REFUSES to work. I say let them starve, and I am not alone here:

I think if I saw anyone staving, I would give them food, regardless of if they were my enemy, whether they deserved to be fed or not, or any other criteria. But that's just me.



Thanks for the reply.

 

[EliasEmmanuel]

The facts are that Iraq pre-emotively struck Kuwait in 1991 and this war is still not over. The US went in and liberated Kuwait and Iraq made an agreement not to only destroy all of the chemical and biological weapons but to prove it. Well as we all know Iraq did not hold up to there side of the agreement. So after more than a dozen U.N. resolutions to get him to comply we went in to prove it on our own. The choice was Iraqs to make. We did what we said what we would do. They did not.

It's a little odd to enforce a UN policy against the will of the UN, but that's neither here nor there....

My point was, Buck cited 9/11 as the act of aggression that provoked Gulf War 2.

Of course there's also the issue of a decade of sanctions against Iraq that cost the lives of more than 1/2 million Iraqi children, but again that may be another topic entirely....

I totally agree with you there. But talk about free choice, shouldn't it be our choice where our money goes and yes us Christians should do more on our own.

Statistically, the vast majority of people who partake of welfare are on it for no more than a few months. That said, having a say in where all my tax money goes would be great, but the specifics seem a tad problematic.

 

[EliasEmmanuel]

The fact that Muslims habitually practice terrorism; blowing up busses, airplanes, and discoteques, should serve to raise a "clue flag" to the entire world that, for the most part is NOT raised because of aggressive efforts by our own liberal newsmedia to bury the facts under a mountain of liberal, brotherly love and push the propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace.

I'm not entirely sure how this relates, but in any case....

Basic logic dictates that the acts of extremists cannot be used as a guage of the overall character of a particular group. Heck, look at Catholic-Protestant aggressions in Northern Ireland, or the ethnic conflicts in Somalia (Somalia was hailed as a great missionary success for years, as almost all of the country professed Christianity). Those, combined with Abortion Clinic bombers and folks like Fred "God Hates F*gs" Phelps, might certainly lead one to the conclusion that Christianity is not a religion of peace. But the fact is that all of the above are acting in a way that is INCREDIBLY contrary to biblical teaching. The same could be said of militant islam, as while the Koran does dictate that there is a time to go to war, this "smite the infidel" thing the militants do isn't covered in that. In fact the Koran teaches that Muslims should leave the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) alone.

And speaking of contrary to biblical teaching, didn't Jesus essentially teach "liberal brotherly love"?

That is my beef with the liberals; weepy emotional impulse competing with the hard facts.

As opposed to angry jingoism competing with hard facts.... that's my beef with conservatives (tho admittedly not all); people who've made Rush Limbaugh and John Wayne their role models instead of Jesus.

Which is why I don't claim either side. Truth is bigger than both. But that's another rant.....

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Foamed by Buck:

The fact that Muslims habitually practice terrorism; blowing up busses, airplanes, and discoteques, should serve to raise a "clue flag" to the entire world that, for the most part is NOT raised because of aggressive efforts by our own liberal newsmedia to bury the facts under a mountain of liberal, brotherly love and push the propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace.

Habitually? Habitually?

My country has some 1.6 million Muslims. We have seen no acts of Muslim terrorism on our own soil that I can recall off the top of my head, and only a handful of our citizens involved in such acts abroad.

Your use of "Habitually" to describe this proportion beggars belief.