Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Ginger - when you speak of theology and doctrine - how do you define those terms?

    Also - I would maintain that there is a difference between a progressive Christian and a liberal one. Sadly the current FALSE political definition of liberal has been applied to the term when used in conjunction with theology and religion. The connection is tenuous at best - and on most levels nonexistent.
    All right I'll bite.What Is the Difference,in your opinion ,"difference between a progressive Christian and a liberal one ?"
    And secondly just how do you define the "the current FALSE political definition of liberal ?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    All right I'll bite.What Is the Difference,in your opinion ,"difference between a progressive Christian and a liberal one ?"
    And secondly just how do you define the "the current FALSE political definition of liberal ?"
    Noah Webster 1828
    LIB'ERAL, a. [L. liberalis, from liber, free. See Libe.]

    1. Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.

    2. Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.

    3. Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one's own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.

    4. General; extensive; embracing literature and the sciences generally; as a liberal education. This phrase is often but not necessarily synonymous with collegiate; as a collegiate education.

    5. Free; open; candid; as a liberal communication of thoughts.

    6. Large; profuse; as a liberal discharge of matter by secretions or excretions.

    7. Free; not literal or strict; as a liberal construction of law.

    8. Not mean; not low in birth or mind.

    9. Licentious; free to excess.

    Liberal arts, as distinguished from mechanical arts, are such as depend more on the exertion of the mind than on the labor of the hands, and regard amusement, curiosity or intellectual improvement, rather than the necessity of subsistence, or manual skill. Such are grammar, rhetoric, painting, sculpture, architecture, music. &c.

    Liberal has of before the thing bestowed, and to before the person or object on which any thing is bestowed; as, to be liberal of praise or censure; liberal to the poor.

    CLASSICAL LIBERALISM - (the definition of a political liberal at the time of the Founding Fathers) -
    Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism[citation needed]) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9].
    with how it is defined today -


    American Heritage
    adj.

    1.
    1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
    3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
    4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
    2.
    1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
    2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
    3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
    4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
    5.
    1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
    2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

    n.

    1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
    2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

    [Middle English, generous, from Old French, from Latin līberālis, from līber, free.]
    Notice the severe shift from a definition stressing freedom to one stressing revolution and deviation.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Noah Webster 1828



    CLASSICAL LIBERALISM - (the definition of a political liberal at the time of the Founding Fathers) -

    with how it is defined today -


    American Heritage
    Notice the severe shift from a definition stressing freedom to one stressing revolution and deviation.
    So from your own description we can conclude that liberalism has been a smoke screen to Communism.Keeping an open mind as in liberal thinking to progressive as in to a change in government .

    Obama is always talking about a change but he doesn't define what's to change ?The concept of Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism comes from the Communists .

    " In classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism."

    " Both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism. "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,305
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Although I grew up in the Episcopal Church, I have not stepped inside one since my father's funeral in 1997. So, I can't give an opinion about whether what you're saying is true or not-- "toss out" or "pervert" scripture, I think they are overly harsh criticisms to be giving from outside the building--unless your opinion is based on sitting in on mass for few weeks in a row.

    Regarding, "their version of him": I would say that any person's concept of God is a deeply personal and complicated thing. To suppose to know and fully understand another person's spiritual beliefs is somewhat arrogant. That would mean seeing into their head and their heart. To say their practices differ from your's is one thing, but to actually imply their concept of God is wrong simply because it is not in line with your's, this is something I've always had a problem with.
    I sit on the vestry of an Episcopal Church parish and I am a member of several Anglican organizations who are attempting (however futile that may seem) to redirect the church back to a more Biblically focused doctrine. I am am speaking from a position "inside the building" deep in side the building.

    As for a their version of God and Jesus, there are personal relationships with the Lord and Creator, however, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have defined characters and natures that are not up for interpretation. They are who they are. God has a loving side and a wrathful side. The Episcopal Church stresses the loving side yet denies the wrathful side. They say God is about inclusion of all, which He is, but on His terms. God says that all are welcome who repent of their sins and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and believe that he died on the cross and was resurrected. To get around this the Episcopal Church redefines sin based on society's concept of right and wrong. What was a sin 2000 years ago is still a sin today regardless what the Episcopal Church says. Christ says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" yet the current leadership of the Episcopal Church refuses to acknowledge this for fear that they may upset people who feel that there are other avenues for salvation.

    Nothing I have said here is "my" concept of God. It is how God and Christ defines Himself. That is the problem with people who hold broad views of God, if you(I don't mean you personally) don't like some things that God does or you don't like some of the requirements He gives us for living a life as He would have us live it so you pick and choose the characteristics you prefer and ignore or explain away those things you don't like or can't accept. This give you a satisfactory but incomplete picture of our Creator.
    Last edited by FlaGator; 04-16-2009 at 08:36 PM.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Ginger - when you speak of theology and doctrine - how do you define those terms?
    Since this is a DB and not a religious court or debating society, my definitions are fairly prosaic. Theology is the study of God and how God interacts with Creation. Doctrine is the compilation of accepted beliefs, practices, and duties that characterize members of particular faith groups.

    In Traditional Christianity there are doctrines and points of theology that separate Christians from non-Christians: the belief in the divinity of Christ, the sovereignty of God, and the salvific action of the sacrifice at Calvary.

    Christians are amazingly willing to negotiate a lot of other points but these are usually at the heart of all Christian doctrine. If you think Christ was a fully human teacher, if you think God is limited or absent, if you think all doggy-style humans go to heaven - then you have departed from Traditional Christianity and historical Christianity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I sit on the vestry of an Episcopal Church parish and I am a member of several Anglican organizations who are attempting (however futile that may seem) to redirect the church back to a more Biblically focused doctrine. I am am speaking from a position "inside the building" deep in side the building.

    As for a their version of God and Jesus, there are personal relationships with the Lord and Creator, however, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have defined characters and natures that are not up for interpretation. They are who they are. God has a loving side and a wrathful side. The Episcopal Church stresses the loving side yet denies the wrathful side. They say God is about inclusion of all, which He is, but on His terms. God says that all are welcome who repent of their sins and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and believe that he died on the cross and was resurrected. To get around this the Episcopal Church redefines sin based on society's concept of right and wrong. What was a sin 2000 years ago is still a sin today regardless what the Episcopal Church says. Christ says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" yet the current leadership of the Episcopal Church refuses to acknowledge this for fear that they may upset people who feel that there are other avenues for salvation.

    Nothing I have said here is "my" concept of God. It is how God and Christ defines Himself. That is the problem with people who hold broad views of God, if you(I don't mean you personally) don't like some things that God does or you don't like some of the requirements He gives us for living a life as He would have us live it so you pick and choose the characteristics you prefer and ignore or explain away those things you don't like or can't accept. This give you a satisfactory but incomplete picture of our Creator.
    My experience in the Epicopal church (1970's-1990's) and now in the Catholic is unlike anything you describe. Not that anything you say is wrong in any way--it's just different than experience I've had in my own personal spiritual endeavors. But I really do appreciate you relating it in such detail.

    It sounds like you have a good handle on what's going on with the Episcopal Church in your community. I have never known anything like the conflicts you describe. But I have not ever been as involved as you are, so maybe I'm just not aware of it.

    God as I know him is infinite and I believe no one can fully define Him in finite terms. A spiritual connection is something (for me) that goes beyond words on a page--therefore very personal. I have no experience with a wrathful or vengeful God, and therefore have no concept of that. Nor has any spiritual teacher in either church ever tried to communicate anything but a loving and forgiving Creator.

    As I mentioned earlier, my education has given me a general understanding of the historical context involving the oral tradition and writing of the various books that make up the Bible. That knowledge has had a positive effect on my spiritual life--I felt I gained a greater insight into the profound truths found in the various books--and my faith or beliefs did not waiver one bit learning some of the ugliness of the time and the politics of the early church. To me it's all about man from one generation to the next trying to get closer to his Creator. Progress not perfection.

    Gator, although my experience is different, I believe I continue to gain insight and understanding by listening to other peoples concepts and beliefs, and I appreciate your being so candid.

    Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,305
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    My experience in the Epicopal church (1970's-1990's) and now in the Catholic is unlike anything you describe. Not that anything you say is wrong in any way--it's just different than experience I've had in my own personal spiritual endeavors. But I really do appreciate you relating it in such detail.

    It sounds like you have a good handle on what's going on with the Episcopal Church in your community. I have never known anything like the conflicts you describe. But I have not ever been as involved as you are, so maybe I'm just not aware of it.

    God as I know him is infinite and I believe no one can fully define Him in finite terms. A spiritual connection is something (for me) that goes beyond words on a page--therefore very personal. I have no experience with a wrathful or vengeful God, and therefore have no concept of that. Nor has any spiritual teacher in either church ever tried to communicate anything but a loving and forgiving Creator.

    As I mentioned earlier, my education has given me a general understanding of the historical context involving the oral tradition and writing of the various books that make up the Bible. That knowledge has had a positive effect on my spiritual life--I felt I gained a greater insight into the profound truths found in the various books--and my faith or beliefs did not waiver one bit learning some of the ugliness of the time and the politics of the early church. To me it's all about man from one generation to the next trying to get closer to his Creator. Progress not perfection.

    Gator, although my experience is different, I believe I continue to gain insight and understanding by listening to other peoples concepts and beliefs, and I appreciate your being so candid.

    Thanks
    The Episcopal Church (TEC) at the national level has changed greatly. If you are interested there are sites devoted to the topic of Episcopal apostasy. A couple that you may find of interest are Stand Firm and Titus One Nine. Also I'll shameless plug my blog Another Pilgrim's Journey where I do some commentary on TEC.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    Since this is a DB and not a religious court or debating society, my definitions are fairly prosaic. Theology is the study of God and how God interacts with Creation. Doctrine is the compilation of accepted beliefs, practices, and duties that characterize members of particular faith groups.

    In Traditional Christianity there are doctrines and points of theology that separate Christians from non-Christians: the belief in the divinity of Christ, the sovereignty of God, and the salvific action of the sacrifice at Calvary.

    Christians are amazingly willing to negotiate a lot of other points but these are usually at the heart of all Christian doctrine. If you think Christ was a fully human teacher, if you think God is limited or absent, if you think all doggy-style humans go to heaven - then you have departed from Traditional Christianity and historical Christianity.
    Okay so I can comprehend you correctly - where would the issue of say - transubstantiation fall in your understanding?

    BTW - Christ was a fully human teacher. He was both fully human and fully divine. :) The dual nature of Christ is established doctrine which was settled in Chalcedon in A.D. 451.


    I ask because I have a rather unique theological and doctrinal view - rather different from "main stream" Christianity in many respects.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Okay so I can comprehend you correctly - where would the issue of say - transubstantiation fall in your understanding?
    It's a matter best left to those involved. ;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    It's a matter best left to those involved. ;)
    Transubstantiation is a doctrinal issue according to sectarian churches.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •