Competing World Views Of Religious Liberals And Conservatives

[Msterbeau]

http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/1716.shtml

I thought this was a great article. It's written by a someone in the UU (Universalist Unitarian) church and attempts to explain the differences between religious liberals and conservatives in order to provide a basis for understanding and tolerance... but not capitulation.

Since the article is written by a liberal I wonder if the conservatives here think they're religious view is accurately portrayed? What does anyone think of the article overall?

[Blackmail]

http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/1716.shtml

I thought this was a great article. It's written by a someone in the UU (Universalist Unitarian) church and attempts to explain the differences between religious liberals and conservatives in order to provide a basis for understanding and tolerance... but not capitulation.

Since the article is written by a liberal I wonder if the conservatives here think they're religious view is accurately portrayed? What does anyone think of the article overall?

It's a horrible op/ed with gross generalizations and the "polls" give no evidence to support it. Then it blames the "right" doing what it preaches against, well the whole article blasts the religious right for telling people how to live then the article condemns those same people for doing "immoral" things like viewing pornography.

Religion is not conservative or liberal. The religious right (er, the far right) are pretty silly, but so is the author of this opinion piece.

He also completely sidesteps the abortion issue, wich is convenient, I suspect his views are incomaptible with scripture. Thus he has no standing to talk about anything Christian Faith related.

[Shade Everdark]

It's a horrible op/ed with gross generalizations and the "polls" give no evidence to support it. Then it blames the "right" doing what it preaches against, well the whole article blasts the religious right for telling people how to live then the article condemns those same people for doing "immoral" things like viewing pornography.

Religion is not conservative or liberal. The religious right (er, the far right) are pretty silly, but so is the author of this opinion piece.

He also completely sidesteps the abortion issue, wich is convenient, I suspect his views are incomaptible with scripture. Thus he has no standing to talk about anything Christian Faith related.

I would tend to agree that the lack of any real supporting evidence to some of the author's claims is pretty egregious.

On the other hand, he has just as much right as any Christian to talk about Christian faith. Just because his interpretation of scripture may differ from yours, or the Lutherans, or Catholics, or Baptists, or whatever other 'authority' you might choose to point to, doesn't necessarily make it invalid.

[Steven]

ill have to give this a read over and respond....

[BrassFusion]

Can't be fucked to read the whole thing, but I found some nice quick looking bullet points:

* We can hold families together without insisting that everyone make the same choices we do.

* We can teach children to find a committed life full of meaning while leaving them the freedom to confront a future beyond our imagination.

* We can carry forward the traditional values of justice and compassion.

* We can accept and learn from other belief systems without refighting the Crusades or the Thirty Years’ War. The so-called clash of civilizations need not climax with Armageddon.

Duh. That's pretty much basic human rights. Only problem is, the assholes who are ruining this country for everyone else don't even have the capacity to see human rights as a general condition instead of something that should just apply to flavor of the month, ethically speaking.

I forgot to take my cynicism pill today.

[Blackmail]

I would tend to agree that the lack of any real supporting evidence to some of the author's claims is pretty egregious.

On the other hand, he has just as much right as any Christian to talk about Christian faith. Just because his interpretation of scripture may differ from yours, or the Lutherans, or Catholics, or Baptists, or whatever other 'authority' you might choose to point to, doesn't necessarily make it invalid.

What? There is absolutely no interpretations in many parts of scripture, have you read the entire new testament? In your opinion, would someone be able to call himself a christian if he thought murder was ok? The fact is that there are certain things you can believe that would automatically disqualify you from calling youself a Christian.

[Steven]

I skimmed this article over angle hair pasta and italian sausages and thought it was well written and pretty balanced . I'll comment on it a bit more after I give it due dilligence but overall I recognized a sense of decency and humility in the writing.

I personally, do not feel obligated to identify myself with any particular sect or religeous movement or agenda within the halls of christendom, which seems to be a contradiction in the eyes of some of my peers and at times paints me as a castaway.

But I dont feel conflicted, I simply know why im here and do what I feel I am called to do, everythign else to me is a monumental and very humanistic waste of time. There are millions of christians walking in circles in search of their burning bush instead of realizing that they were born into it allready.

And there is truth to the insinuation that the inner ranks of the christian right are breaking down. I am thankful for this, yet saddened by it. Thankful that the weekenders who use christianity as a social circle are finding their methodologies to be finite in terms of insight and empowerment, because either you can stand or you cannot in this world. But saddened to see so many "beleivers" to have such (in my opinion and I'm just some dude) a shallow understanding of the nature of God and the potency of the image of Christ. This too however I see as biblical, as CHrist prophesied the day would come when he would turn his worshippers away saying "I never knew you, away from me you workers of lawlessness....."

On the flipside, I do indeed reject a relative approach to truth and to things of divine nature, and to me, that seems like a contradiction and again from time to time ostracizes me from my peers and would be friends because again, it is difficult for them to understand and their own ideals at times may insist that i make some sort of declaration to embrace their side, since I obviously do not condone their enemies....

this is all interesting stuff, and I'm glad I'm not that deep, or I'd be terribly conflicted. Christ himself said that the greatest man who ever lived ate locusts and wild honey and dressed in camel skins.

maybe there is hope for me......

[BrassFusion]

What? There is absolutely no interpretations in many parts of scripture, have you read the entire new testament? In your opinion, would someone be able to call himself a christian if he thought murder was ok? The fact is that there are certain things you can believe that would automatically disqualify you from calling youself a Christian.

There is ALWAYS interpretation and meaning beyond words.

[phee]

There is ALWAYS interpretation and meaning beyond words.

I must agree... written and spoken language is extremely ambigious

[Blackmail]

There is ALWAYS interpretation and meaning beyond words.

stop obfuscating the point. This is like when you keep saying "we should always question the government" long after the 911 conspiracy nuts have already been proven wrong. You can pretty much justify or explain anything away using the semantics you use.

"I am a Christian. I believe killing innocent people is good. I believe Jesus never existed. Scripute is open to interpretation."

See how easy it is?

[BrassFusion]

I don't think the guy who wrote that article ever said the second or third phrase. Maybe the first. And... what the hell is Scripute?

[Shade Everdark]

stop obfuscating the point. This is like when you keep saying "we should always question the government" long after the 911 conspiracy nuts have already been proven wrong. You can pretty much justify or explain anything away using the semantics you use.

"I am a Christian. I believe killing innocent people is good. I believe Jesus never existed. Scripute is open to interpretation."

See how easy it is?

Quite frankly, I find this specious to the point of being insulting to my intelligence. Yes, there are certain basic tenets to every religion that are central to its ethics and morals. But c'mon. Are you really trying to tell me that, in order to be a Christian, I'd have to believe that the world was literally created in 144 hours (that's six days, not counting the day of rest). Or that I'd have to believe that Joshua literally knocked down the walls of Jericho by blowing on a horn, or better still, that he defeated Gibeon by making the earth stop rotating on its axis? There are certainly those who believe all that to be literally true, but there are far more Christians out there, I'd wager, who don't believe these things and all the other stuff in the book, to be literally true at every verse and chapter.

Now, quit insulting my intelligence before it decides to lodge a complaint with the moderators. It has friends on the mod staff, you know. (This was a joke, in case one is too literal-minded to tell the difference.)

[sinmantyx]

He also completely sidesteps the abortion issue, wich is convenient, I suspect his views are incomaptible with scripture. Thus he has no standing to talk about anything Christian Faith related.

Sorry to go on a bit of a tangent before I actually read the article; but exactly HOW can someone's views on abortion be incompatible with scripture? It doesn't say anything about it. Even "life at conception" is a relatively new theological concept. Seriously, quote me some scripture that has anything to do with abortion. I'm seriously wondering if there is something I missed.

As far as killing...people who call themselves Christians condone state-sponsored killing all the time. In order to justify themselves they interpret "Thou shalt not kill." as "Thou shalt not murder." and then define "murder" very narrowly. I mean Christian Identity people claim to be Christians.

[sinmantyx]

The article was great. Speaking as someone who has been on both sides of that fence (raised in a rural conservative church and now a UU), it totally make sense. As far as the charge that the author was making generalizations...he was, but they were backed with specific examples. I highly doubt that he feels that he was speaking for everyone on either side.

I'm sending this article to my sister Julie. I recently had a discussion with her about Gay marriage. Here is an excerpt:

Julie: "I don't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue. It's also ludicrous to say that people against gay marriage somehow hate gays."

Marian: "But far reaching defense of marriage amendments across the country have hurt gay families, including denying health care benefits to same-sex partners and family members."

Julie: "If they would quite pushing, stuff like that wouldn't happen. If you don't think marriage is in trouble, you aren't paying attention."

Marian: "I highly doubt gays are the reason marriage is in trouble."

Julie: "Well, of course not."

I'm going my memory, but that was the gist of it. I didn't have my wits about me long enough to say...so you just admitted that gay marriage is just a scape-goat for the break-down of straight marriage? Gay marriage has nothing to do with it, but you fight against it to feel like you're "doing something"?!

Wow. Seriously, at least for MANY people, I think the author hit it on the head. At least my sister and I agree with one thing....the extremist they put on TV (on both sides of the so-called so-named trumped-up "culture war") are CRAZY.

[sinmantyx]

It's a horrible op/ed with gross generalizations and the "polls" give no evidence to support it. Then it blames the "right" doing what it preaches against, well the whole article blasts the religious right for telling people how to live then the article condemns those same people for doing "immoral" things like viewing pornography.

The author was quoting an *evangelical* author (Sider) who used those statistics in his book. The author did not claim that "the right" was not practicing what it preached; but that some Christians are seeing an apparent "moral decay" in their own ranks and are frustrated and angered by it.

When you say "the whole article blasts the religious right for telling people how to live then the article condemns those same people for doing "immoral" things like viewing pornography" you are missing the ENTIRE point. The thesis of the paper is that: The "right" is upset that the "right" is doing immoral things and blaming the "left"; so instead of waving the "freedom banner" everywhere, maybe the "left" should explain to the "right" that we have MANY of the same values as the "right" does. The ideological "war" may be won by promoting the understanding that "lack of prescription does not equal dereliction" instead of allowing the media to paint the "left" as hedonists.

woot! I totally just thought of that!

Repeat after me:

Lack of Prescription is NOT Dereliction!

Lack of Prescription is NOT Dereliction!

.

.

.

...and just to fuel your need to discuss abortion. I read a great article the other day (I believe it was in TIME) about a religious group and a family planing doctor (who performs abortions) actually JOINING FORCES by having periodic meetings to understand one another and reduce the number of abortions. This team-up happened after a zealot was basically stalking the "abortion doctor" and the doctor picked up the phone and called the crazy-lady's pastor. To her surprise, the pastor apologized for the stalkers behavior and opened a dialog with her. They certainly don't agree on everything, but they have enough shared goals to actually do something real. I think that's pretty cool.

[BrassFusion]

it's a very catchy rallying cry, but the majority of the audience wouldn't know what it means...

[sinmantyx]

it's a very catchy rallying cry, but the majority of the audience wouldn't know what it means...

goddamnit

[Blackmail]

I don't think the guy who wrote that article ever said the second or third phrase. Maybe the first. And... what the hell is Scripute?

This post cheapens the thread. You keep attacking side points instead of the basic point.

[Blackmail]

Quite frankly, I find this specious to the point of being insulting to my intelligence. Yes, there are certain basic tenets to every religion that are central to its ethics and morals. But c'mon. Are you really trying to tell me that, in order to be a Christian, I'd have to believe that the world was literally created in 144 hours (that's six days, not counting the day of rest). Or that I'd have to believe that Joshua literally knocked down the walls of Jericho by blowing on a horn, or better still, that he defeated Gibeon by making the earth stop rotating on its axis? There are certainly those who believe all that to be literally true, but there are far more Christians out there, I'd wager, who don't believe these things and all the other stuff in the book, to be literally true at every verse and chapter.

Now, quit insulting my intelligence before it decides to lodge a complaint with the moderators. It has friends on the mod staff, you know. (This was a joke, in case one is too literal-minded to tell the difference.)

Abortion falls under the basic tennants. If you believe otherwise, you have not read scripture. Your argument is fundamentally flawed as theologans the world over have already dismissed this line of thinking. Read my next response for evidence.

[BrassFusion]

This post cheapens the thread. You keep attacking side points instead of the basic point.

Attacking what now?? I'm serious... I really don't know what Scripute is. I'd assume maybe you meant "scripture," but... I wouldn't want to misinterpret you.

[BrassFusion]

Abortion falls under the basic tennants. If you believe otherwise, you have not read scripture. Your argument is fundamentally flawed as theologans the world over have already dismissed this line of thinking. Read my next response for evidence.

The basic tenants in my housing complex are some pretty beefy guys, I gotta say. Abortion crumbles under the might of their fists like a red-headed stepchild.

And just because Theo and Logan think Shade's wrong doesn't mean anything. It's not like Theo or Logan are theologians, right?

[Blackmail]

Sorry to go on a bit of a tangent before I actually read the article; but exactly HOW can someone's views on abortion be incompatible with scripture? It doesn't say anything about it. Even "life at conception" is a relatively new theological concept. Seriously, quote me some scripture that has anything to do with abortion. I'm seriously wondering if there is something I missed.

There was no such word as abortion in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek at the time of the new testament. However, there is literally hundreds of references to the unborn in Scripture. It is absolutely no coincidence that all Christian denomonitations are opposed to abortion aside from either newer religions or adventists who approve it in certain cases.

This is very simple and the point is made here:

http://www.solport.com/references/abortion/Scriptures.htm

"The implicit argument is quite simple: Only two points need to be proved to conclude that abortion is wrong.

A) The Scriptures clearly state that murder is wrong. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another human.

B) The Bible is filled with examples showing that unborn children are considered human beings.

If points A and B are both found to be true, then Q.E.D., the Bible implicitly repudiates abortion. If either of these points is found to be untrue, then this argument is invalid."

If you would like, I can dig up all the exact passages reffering to the unborn as life. There isn't much left open to interprate or debate on this issue. Sure, you guys can make all the posts you want, but peple who have studied this fr more in depth than you or I have already written these thesis's.

Certainly though, the author never mentions abortion and perhaps I was making a leap to assume his views on abortion since it was never stated. I just have my own suspicions on why it wasn't mentioned.

As far as killing...people who call themselves Christians condone state-sponsored killing all the time. In order to justify themselves they interpret "Thou shalt not kill." as "Thou shalt not murder." and then define "murder" very narrowly. I mean Christian Identity people claim to be Christians.

You too are obscuring the point I wasn't trying to make. When I said Cristian can not support murder (as it is a basic christian law) I assumed everyone here would be adult enough to know I was talking about killing as in murder.

[Blackmail]

The basic tenants in my housing complex are some pretty beefy guys, I gotta say. Abortion crumbles under the might of their fists like a red-headed stepchild.

And just because Theo and Logan think Shade's wrong doesn't mean anything. It's not like Theo or Logan are theologians, right?

again, spelling errors have nothing whatsoever to do with the thread. Don't you have to go practice speaking French?

[BrassFusion]

Thou shalt not... murder?

Heh. Sorry I'm being such a bitch about this, but I just can't see how the Bible should be anyone's moral compass. How can ANYONE have a moral compass independent of his own brain?

Christ... I used to be anti-abortion back when I was a young teen, and I wasn't even christian. I just thought it was "wrong" to kill "babies..." I had this nasty phobia about death. My grandpa had just died and I think that tipped it off. I even went vegetarian for like a year.

Gosh. I was crazy.

[sinmantyx]

Oh gosh..I should *really* be going to bed, but I am SO curious how being anti-abortion is somehow a scriptural "basic tenant". I guess you could go the "Thou shalt not kill/murder", but then you have to link that to abortion which is frankly a stretch (especially considering that the Catholic church through that fetuses had an "animal or vegetable" soul until the "kicking time" for a great many years). I think there is a law explained somewhere that you needed to pay a fine or something for beating a pregnant woman causing the death of her fetus. It was considered a crime. That is also a large stretch. "Basic Tenant" I don't get.