Is it possible to be a Liberal Christian?

I know anything's possible, but a true Christian wouldn't support abortion (the murder of GOD's children), nor would they give into the secular creed of queer marriages and membership with NAMBLA. I wouldn't think the liberal support of so-called artists like Robert Mapplethorpe with his pizz Christ and the bullwhip up Christ's arse give us much hope that a liberal could ever be a genuine Christian. And I thought that JFK and Teddy Kennedy were devout Catholics. Perhaps I need to revisit the teaching of Christian dogma to see if we've given a new amendment to fit in with today's liberal religion to allow for a touch of secularism here and there.

 

Is it possible to be a True christian?

 

Why would you think that you have any authority over a woman's reproductive choices.... Christian or not?

I think you are exposed to equate gay marriage with NAMLBA...

You should concentrate on controlling the women in your family.. Dominate your sisters, aunts, mother, wife and daughters. Leave others alone.

 

Most politicians are probably too intelligent to believe in fairy tales, but claim to believe because failing to do so would ruin their political careers.

Conservatives, unfortunately, have squeezed all of the juice out of the Religious Right. Even with a monopoly on Christianity, even with the vast majority of the population still claiming Christianity, conservatives can not win elections.

My party will either abandon its absurd connection to oppressive Christian dogma, or it will fade quietly into history. You Christians have proven yourselves worthless as constituents in the modern era. Your primitive beliefs may ultimately result in the complete socialization of our country, as they would lead any decent person straight into the arms of the liberals.

There are two modern trends which make the Christian strategy useless for Republicans: 1. Enough people know about science and logic that the Christian strategy will not sway them. 2. Few enough people know about economics that the true danger of liberalism is lost on them.

Christians directly cost republicans the last election. I wonder how many more you will lose for us before we finally push you far enough to the fringes that we are no longer associated with you. If it isn't soon, this country will be socialist in less than 20 years. Mark my words.

 

That is of course always the point.

In the United States, NAMBLA has a right to exist. Most of us find the legal changes it promotes to be offensive- but it is legally offensive.

The bitter far right always try to label anyone who supports Gay Rights as supporting NAMBLA and hence pedophilia.

 

Real Liberal Christians would disagree with you, pray for you and still try to love you.

I think far too many of the far right who call themselves Christians have never actually read the New Testament.

 

No one claims any authority over women's reproductive choices. You are attempting a similar deception to the one your opponent used to associate gay rights with nambla.

The choice to kill another human being should be outlawed. And you agree with that. You only disagree, presumably, if that human being is as innocent and as vulnerable as any human being could ever be, which is bizarre to me, but that is the issue. Not reproductive choice.

 

Plenty of anti-gay and anti-murder rhetoric in the NT. I would like to hear a socially liberal Christian justify abortion and gay marriage using the Bible.

I would suspect that drawing a clear distinction between religion and politics is the only way a Christian can be socially liberal. They might say those things are wrong, but that the government should not be used to enforce Christianity.

But there is no way to justify gay marriage or abortion using the Bible.

 

That all depends on what a "true" Christian is, and while you seem to have some opinion on the matter, I see no reason to discount many others as true Christians. As far as I know, a true Christian is someone who truly believes that there is one god, by some standard, he should be punishing people, but a Christ of some description has made sure that he doesn't have to. Any dogma above that doesn't make a Christian "false", even though it can just as well make him mistaken or similar.

There are many who think of themselves as true Christians who do not take the Bible as literal or true in certain cases. If Christianity is real and those people are wrong on some points, that doesn't make them less Christian, just mistaken on the details.

Even so, if one thinks that the abortion debate is about whether or not to murder, then one hasn't understood the arguments (at least not the ones I find most compelling). Murder implies a person , and personhood is not well defined, so whether or not abortion classifies as murder is completely up to interpretation. Those for abortion tend to see a foetus as lacking personhood, and hence not murdered when aborted. Even the Bible tends to draw the line with breath, so while I understand many Christians are against abortion, there is no fundamental tenant in Christianity that keeps Christians from supporting abortion. Similar arguments can be made for gay marriage or Nambla (when did being a liberal equate to having a membership in Nambla?).

Sure there are many liberals that are Christians, like the Kennedys, but all liberals don't have to agree with everything that other liberals do or think. Their Christianity has no bearing on any other liberals.

 

I think most people know what a fetus is. They won't be surprised if, after a couple of years, the fetus is walking and talking. So I find the "not a person" argument disingenuous, especially for atheists, who clearly would not accept some arbitrary magical "point" where this object is suddenly given the "breath of life" and becomes a real human.

If there was a question as to whether or not this thing was a human, then there would be no reason to ever have abortions. The very reason people want to kill it is because they know it is a human. So I don't see how the personhood argument is tenable. We all know this was not some random mass of cells. You knew exactly what it was when you killed it.

Remember that every murderer sees herself as being justified, and the dehumanization of the victim is a common rationalization. Laws against murder are there to protect potential victims. We should assume that Jews really are human, despite the Nazi propaganda, even though certain definitions of personhood might exclude them. Tell me why we should err on the side of allowing the fetus to be murdered.

 

lol, yeah, all liberals support NAMBLA. Shoo, troll.

 

A true christian does not judge what others do. That is between God and them. While you, I, and others may not like or do what others do. It is none of our business.

Leave the doings of what a person does or does not do to the people that matter. God and them. Pretty simple concept.

 

I think the question of this thread is: Can a person who chose his political beliefs based on religion present a coherent argument to support his political beliefs?

I would say yes, but it is far more difficult when you don't think the issue through on your own.

 

I often enjoy lectures on how "Christian the Right is" and how "Liberals want to destroy Christian values"....

from Rush Limbaugh, on his fourth marriage....Newt Gingrich with Mistress #2/Wife #3 at his side.....and Ann Coulter, who used to date porn heir Bob Guiccione Jr.

 

Then why support laws against murder of adults? It's none of your business, according to that post.

I apologize for being presumptuous if, in fact, you are opposed to laws against the murder of adults.

I believe that it is my business when a person harms another, and that I am obligated to punish the harmdoer. I would prefer that we all punish them as a society, but will take it as a personal obligation if I feel society has lost interest or feels those actions are none of its business.

 

Do you like them because they are so easy to defeat? How do you like it when the conservative is an atheist and is presenting serious arguments which are not so easily dismissed? Rush and Newt appeal to the economically uneducated masses. Anyone with above average intelligence can defeat the soundbyte arguments they present. Try something a little more challenging.

 

Hard to find a challenge these days. Bill Buckley Jr. is dead. The "intelligensia" of the Right are now Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin.

 

What do any of the people you mention have to do with any issue?

Sounds like you just want to bash the people who are conservatives, the same way the op wants to bash the people who are liberals, rather than have a specific discussion about the issues.

 

So the only thing that makes you a liberal is supporting abortion, same-sex marriage, and people who make bad art? Those are the requirements?

 

I belive the "issue" on this thread is "Can you be a liberal Christian"....and I was citing three of the more popular rightwingers who often discuss Christianity, especially THEIR OWN....and mocking their claims to the benefit of those who also share the view that somehow "God is a Republican".

I also feel I am giving those folks the seriousness that they deserve. But please...start your own "serious" thread and I'll be happy to join it.

It sounds to me like YOU don't want hypocrisy on the Right pointed out and try to act like you are bipartisan or "above it all" and want to turn my criticisms back on me for "not being serious" or "just wanting to bash people".....and that it's almost impossible that you make the SAME demands of folks on the Right.....but that's just my opinion from years of blogging and seeing that type of self-righteousness, usually on the Right, and usually one-sided.

 

Did you read my respone to the OP? I completely dismissed him and his lunacy.

Basically told him to get his numb nuts OUT of my party.

What more do you want?

Added: In fact, I would say I was much harsher with him than I was with you. I realize you may have overlooked the fact that the response to which I refer was posted by me. So please correct the record. I do not fit your stereotype and you will have to think a little further outside the box to defeat my rhetoric.

 

This thread is about liberals. As far as I know, liberals don't support murder. I didn't feel the need to spell out in great detail every issue, especially since the thread starter has some pretty bad threads and is nothing but a flame baiter.

But you're right, as long as no one but the person themselves is hurt, it is no one else's business.

 

according to the bible it is, but I have yet to see one that qualifies by the description in the bible and I have met many a good Christians in my life

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/signs.html

Mk.16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

.

 

So it comes down to, "In theory, yes; but also, in theory, no."

And nobody has done it yet.

 

The same argument can be applied to the construction of life at any stage, like every single sperm or egg you have in whatever organs you possess (except, of course, your children). There are a lot of things that evolve (in lack of a better word) from one thing to another without a specific point in the middle in which the change takes place, yet we can tell the original from the end product without any problem. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a person walking and talking a couple of years after a sexual encounter either. Just as much as I know what a foetus is capable of a couple of years after some point in the pregnancy, I think you know what every sperm or egg you possess is capable of after a slightly longer time. I bet you'd agree that they aren't random masses of cells either.

To be fair, I agree that there is no specific point at which a foetus becomes a person, and as far as I know, most pro choice people don't advocate abortion rights until birth. I usually go with the first sign of mental activity (which I believe the Swedish abortion laws are designed to follow), which I hope you agree that, for instance, Jews possess. Personhood is so vaguely defined that we can't tell exactly when it develops, but I wouldn't say things without basic brain function possess it.