|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:02 am
Conservative Christians seem to have us beat when it comes to terms of identity.
So I ask this question: How do we define ourselves as a group and as individuals? Do we have an equivalent defining praxis like the Conservative Christians do with thier insistence on the contruct of sexual purity? Where do we draw the line in that we are distinct from secular movements though we share common goals?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:57 am
rmcdra Conservative Christians seem to have us beat when it comes to terms of identity. So I ask this question: How do we define ourselves as a group and as individuals? Do we have an equivalent defining praxis like the Conservative Christians do with thier insistence on the contruct of sexual purity? Where do we draw the line in that we are distinct from secular movements though we share common goals? Maybe trying to draw that line that you will not vote nor force into legislation that will control people into doing what you think is moral. Instead of forcing or voting in to force people to not abortions/pre marital sex, maybe just come out and say that you will vote for/support legislation for the education of X. Also, maybe make the distinction that you will not support X politician because he is solely a Christian. Maybe say that you will support X because of his economical views. Seems to me, that several people solely seem to support X person because X person says that they are Christian, when their views and what they vote for don't seem very Christ like. That is just my opinion and observation, so take it for what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:20 am
jaden kendam Maybe trying to draw that line that you will not vote nor force into legislation that will control people into doing what you think is moral. Instead of forcing or voting in to force people to not abortions/pre marital sex, maybe just come out and say that you will vote for/support legislation for the education of X. Also, maybe make the distinction that you will not support X politician because he is solely a Christian. Maybe say that you will support X because of his economical views. Seems to me, that several people solely seem to support X person because X person says that they are Christian, when their views and what they vote for don't seem very Christ like. That is just my opinion and observation, so take it for what you will. Those are some good observations and opinions. I hope to hear some more from others here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:37 pm
I refuse to be defined. That's probably the first issue with being known for a set ideal, as I am constantly re-educating myself and as such, my ideals change with my level of education.
But, yes, one ideal that will likely never change is that I refuse to enforce others to live by my morality when such actions have no effect on me. Obviously, I am in favor of laws being enforced to keep murderers and thieves off the streets, as I like living and having all of my stuff. But Sunday laws? What legal adults are allowed to marry? What someone else is allowed to do with their own body(be it anything from decoration to destruction)? I cannot and will not attempt to control another's morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contralto in a Corset Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:33 pm
rmcdra Conservative Christians seem to have us beat when it comes to terms of identity. So I ask this question: How do we define ourselves as a group and as individuals? Do we have an equivalent defining praxis like the Conservative Christians do with thier insistence on the contruct of sexual purity? Where do we draw the line in that we are distinct from secular movements though we share common goals? Perhaps it is better that we don't try to publicly define ourselves by a set of rules of conduct or guidelines (Old Testament...?) Also, there's the issue of reconciling the distinctions of the group with that of the individual (which happens in any case when people gather). As long as we keep our eyes on the God-shaped ball, the distinctions will let themselves be known. The elephant in the room though is dispelling the "liberal Christian as weak in faith" myth. There is something severely wrong in American when, unless you are militant and blatant with your faith your deemed to not have any. I know Christ came to bring a sword and all that, but it was meant to defend not attack. Unfortunately modern culture has a tendency towards hyper-sensationalism and you're either in it or you're not. (btw, i'm not wink )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 11:25 am
I identify the liberal Christians as having a different sort of faith altogether. There is too much of an emphasis in Faith instead of works, whereas I differentiate myself with "Faith without Works is dead", as it says.
It's not about good deeds, or about faith, but good deeds as an active part.
As a Christian, I put my political support behind who will help the most people, who will feed the hungry, heal the sick, ect, as I do my part to do what I can myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 9:18 pm
Gjornia X rmcdra Conservative Christians seem to have us beat when it comes to terms of identity. So I ask this question: How do we define ourselves as a group and as individuals? Do we have an equivalent defining praxis like the Conservative Christians do with thier insistence on the contruct of sexual purity? Where do we draw the line in that we are distinct from secular movements though we share common goals? Perhaps it is better that we don't try to publicly define ourselves by a set of rules of conduct or guidelines (Old Testament...?) Also, there's the issue of reconciling the distinctions of the group with that of the individual (which happens in any case when people gather). As long as we keep our eyes on the God-shaped ball, the distinctions will let themselves be known. The elephant in the room though is dispelling the "liberal Christian as weak in faith" myth. There is something severely wrong in American when, unless you are militant and blatant with your faith your deemed to not have any. I know Christ came to bring a sword and all that, but it was meant to defend not attack. Unfortunately modern culture has a tendency towards hyper-sensationalism and you're either in it or you're not. (btw, i'm not wink )I think that may be the source of the problem that I didn't even think of. That is so horrible that if you aren't a raving lunatic going on about the end of the world or being a Biblotor, you aren't considered a "true Christian", and it comes from both ends too which blows even worse. But yeah your right, public defining isn't necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:20 am
Well I think the problem is that if you're going liberal, and taking the bible and what it says and being critical of it, and assuming everything in it is up for discussion and is some kind of allegory, than you take all the kind of power that comes with being a christian. If the first century christians were radical, went out were killed and it boosted them, they flipped the world upside down as a group of illiterate followers, they had to believe what they believed, and they accepted it with all they were, they put it in their hearts and they were victorious. If you look at the first seven books of the OT, from gen, ex, lev, num, deu, johsua, and judges, the point was the law, following it with your heart not your actions, so that your actions would reflect your heart for god, Joshua's theme was victory through faith and judges was failure through compromise. with compromise comes failure and death, the full armor of god from Ephesians wouldn't work without all its parts and dedication, without the belt of truth that comes from believing all christ said and jesus followed the OT to a tee, your pants fall dow, your sword drops, you're vulnerable, exposed, then you die. Without dilligence we will die, won't we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:28 am
Blood_Testimony Well I think the problem is that if you're going liberal, and taking the bible and what it says and being critical of it, and assuming everything in it is up for discussion and is some kind of allegory, than you take all the kind of power that comes with being a christian. If the first century christians were radical, went out were killed and it boosted them, they flipped the world upside down as a group of illiterate followers, they had to believe what they believed, and they accepted it with all they were, they put it in their hearts and they were victorious. If you look at the first seven books of the OT, from gen, ex, lev, num, deu, johsua, and judges, the point was the law, following it with your heart not your actions, so that your actions would reflect your heart for god, Joshua's theme was victory through faith and judges was failure through compromise. with compromise comes failure and death, the full armor of god from Ephesians wouldn't work without all its parts and dedication, without the belt of truth that comes from believing all christ said and jesus followed the OT to a tee, your pants fall dow, your sword drops, you're vulnerable, exposed, then you die. Without dilligence we will die, won't we? I'm taking a nutshell crack at this. Yes I love nutshells. So by investing your faith in God and in the Bible wholeheartedly, by acting on God's word, you will, as a result, have all that you need to do what you need and your actions will speak for themselves as definition. Do I have this somewhat right? And say, concerning one's self with how to practice, how to perceive, how to interact, etc. as priority that it creates a stumlbing effect for carrying out God's work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:18 am
Splendid Sailor Venus Blood_Testimony Well I think the problem is that if you're going liberal, and taking the bible and what it says and being critical of it, and assuming everything in it is up for discussion and is some kind of allegory, than you take all the kind of power that comes with being a christian. If the first century christians were radical, went out were killed and it boosted them, they flipped the world upside down as a group of illiterate followers, they had to believe what they believed, and they accepted it with all they were, they put it in their hearts and they were victorious. If you look at the first seven books of the OT, from gen, ex, lev, num, deu, johsua, and judges, the point was the law, following it with your heart not your actions, so that your actions would reflect your heart for god, Joshua's theme was victory through faith and judges was failure through compromise. with compromise comes failure and death, the full armor of god from Ephesians wouldn't work without all its parts and dedication, without the belt of truth that comes from believing all christ said and jesus followed the OT to a tee, your pants fall dow, your sword drops, you're vulnerable, exposed, then you die. Without dilligence we will die, won't we? I'm taking a nutshell crack at this. Yes I love nutshells. So by investing your faith in God and in the Bible wholeheartedly, by acting on God's word, you will, as a result, have all that you need to do what you need and your actions will speak for themselves as definition. Do I have this somewhat right? And say, concerning one's self with how to practice, how to perceive, how to interact, etc. as priority that it creates a stumlbing effect for carrying out God's work? Well you got through the shell. You've got it, Hit the nail on the head and pinned it to the wood smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
