Freedom To Sin?

[aspen]

-- True. But in all your posts, both as Aspen and Aspen2, I have heard you repeatedly criticize Conservative Christians......but never once a Liberal.

Perhaps it's time for a little balance.

I have certainly criticized liberals, but you are correct that I have more criticism for conservatives. Anyway, for the record, my last statement is a balanced one.

 

[Foreigner]

I am not trying to be pick a fight, and I am open to the idea that I am wrong, but I do not remember you criticizing any Christian of a Liberal slant.....ever.

You have however - on more than one occasion - used blanket accusations to criticize what you call Conservative Christians.

 

[aspen]

This is the first thing I could find - it is better than just a post - it is a thread started last month.

http://www.christian...tive-privilege/

Can you produce a post that criticizes conservatives?

 

[Foreigner]

One criticism of President Obama is not proof you have criticized Liberal Christians and does not come close to the repeated times you have criticized Conservative Christians as a whole.

Are you serious in implying that you have not done that?




.

 

[aspen]

One criticism of President Obama is not proof you have criticized Liberal Christians and does not come close to the repeated times you have criticized Conservative Christians as a whole.

Are you serious in implying that you have not done that?




.

Wow - you are on edge, tonight!
I noticed you didn't answer my question at all - yet I provided you with a thread.
You never said 'Liberal Christians" by the way - you said Christians with a liberal slant - Obama qualifies.

And by your tone, I could provide you with twenty-five example of liberal Christian criticism and you would simply dismiss it by claiming that my other post nullify them.

Yet here I go.....

http://www.christian...n-reality-show/ #2

http://www.christian...spen#entry91478 #28

http://www.christian...h&fromMainBar=1

http://www.christian...-ramifications/

http://www.christian...-dividing-line/

http://www.christian...i-intellectual/

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/15450-joining-a-monastery/

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/15244-morality-vs-love/ #10

Cutting to the chase - every time I engage in a discussion with a person on this board who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ (and there are many examples) I am arguing against a liberal interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[Foreigner]

Unlike your school posts I was able to open these links.

Perhaps my English skills are poor, but I said, "criticized Conservative Christians as a whole."
As in a blanket accusation/condemnation of all of them.

None of your posts was a blanket criticism of any Liberal Christians or their stances.

You actually make my point for me, though.

You are willing to give all-encompssing blanket criticisms of "Conservative Christians" but you discuss issues with those that could possibly be identified as Liberal Christians you may disagree with on a case-by-case, point-by-point basis.

 

[Axehead]

That's a bit rich considering the Lords flock is a little flock and the rest (billions) will burn in eternal torment. God does that, not his zealous followers, the apostle Paul said l;et hose who do not believe be damned. Anyone who isn't a "zealous follower" isn't a follower. This is real not a game, people better wise up. This Chrisitian forum should be a shinning beacon of light to a lost and dining world, instead its full of false prophets spouting nonsense day in and day out. So what else is new??

Did you know that your faith could be overthrown?

2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Only the Lord knows those that are His, meaning you don't know about anyone else, but you better know about yourself and God gives you what you need for assurance.

Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. (2Ti 2:19a)

And so we all have this warning: And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. (2Ti 2:19b)

Now, why would He tell us to "depart from iniquity" in the context of "knowing them that are His"?

Think about it!

Axehead

 

[aspen]

Unlike your school posts I was able to open these links.

Perhaps my English skills are poor, but I said, "criticized Conservative Christians as a whole."
As in a blanket accusation/condemnation of all of them.

None of your posts was a blanket criticism of any Liberal Christians or their stances.

You actually make my point for me, though.

You are willing to give all-encompssing blanket criticisms of "Conservative Christians" but you discuss issues with those that could possibly be identified as Liberal Christians you may disagree with on a case-by-case, point-by-point basis.

Actually, I quote CS Lewis all the time; GK Chesterton, Philip Yancey, Gerald Sittser, and Dale Bruner's conservative theology make up the foundation of my own theology. I was Protestant for 20 years before becoming Catholic. I've read Paul Tilich and Karl Barth.

I've also read Elaine Pegals, Karen Armstrong, and Bishop Spong - and I cannot stand their perspectives on the Bible.

I am much more comfortable with moderate to conservative (with the exception of Reform Calvinist writers) theologians than I am with liberals. In fact, I think Yancey is about as liberal as I get.

I may have been saved at a Tony Campollo rally, but he is far too liberal for me today.

 

[Foreigner]

Aspen, everything you said is all well and good, but has little to do with what we are discussing.

Your statement "I was Protestant for 20 years before becoming Catholic" really has no meaning since there are large groups within both protestants and Catholics that hold either strongly Concervative or strongly Liberal views.

I sat in on a roundtable discussion on gay marraige:
There were Lutherans and Pentecostals and Catholics on one side who did not support it, and there were Methodists and Lutherans and Catholics on the other side arguing that it should be embraced. There were even groups within the Methodist church who felt strongly that since gay marraige is not allowed that non-celibate homosexuals should be allowed to be ordained within their denomination.

Therefore one cannot make assumptions of position based solely on a person's claimed denomination.

And as far as Catholicism goes, you yourself stand in disagreement with the official Catholic stance on gay marraige.
And although the Catholic church is strongly anti-abortion, you chose to vote for a presidential candidate who supported both late term and partial-birth abortions (stating that you are not a one-issue voter).
So again, one cannot make assumptions of position based solely on a person's claimed denomination.

But the point I had been putting forth for the last severa posts is this:
You have - on more than one occasion - made blanket condemnation of "Conservative Christians."
However, you only disagree with Liberal Christians on a case-by-case, person-by-person basis.

 

[aspen]

Aspen, everything you said is all well and good, but has little to do with what we are discussing.

Your statement "I was Protestant for 20 years before becoming Catholic" really has no meaning since there are large groups within both protestants and Catholics that hold either strongly Concervative or strongly Liberal views.

I sat in on a roundtable discussion on gay marraige:
There were Lutherans and Pentecostals and Catholics on one side who did not support it, and there were Methodists and Lutherans and Catholics on the other side arguing that it should be embraced. There were even groups within the Methodist church who felt strongly that since gay marraige is not allowed that non-celibate homosexuals should be allowed to be ordained within their denomination.

Therefore one cannot make assumptions of position based solely on a person's claimed denomination.

And as far as Catholicism goes, you yourself stand in disagreement with the official Catholic stance on gay marraige.
And although the Catholic church is strongly anti-abortion, you chose to vote for a presidential candidate who supported both late term and partial-birth abortions (stating that you are not a one-issue voter).
So again, one cannot make assumptions of position based solely on a person's claimed denomination.

But the point I had been putting forth for the last severa posts is this:
You have - on more than one occasion - made blanket condemnation of "Conservative Christians."
However, you only disagree with Liberal Christians on a case-by-case, person-by-person basis.

I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage - one of the reasons I left the Presbyterian Church was due to it's stance on homosexuality.

I am theologically moderate to conservative - I am socially liberal.

The reason I make general statements about socially conservative positions is because I see no gray areas in their position. Social conservatives are proud of their black and white thinking on issues. It would be difficult to make generalization about social liberals because they tend to hold different viewpoints on the same issue.

Also, my general statements about social conservatives tend to be in response to conservative people on this site who make general moral statements about liberals - they are evil or part of Satan's plan or enemies of God, etc.

I am still waiting for you to answer my question, btw.

 

[Foreigner]

I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage - one of the reasons I left the Presbyterian Church was due to it's stance on homosexuality.

-- The Catholic church states that gay marraige is immoral and should remain illegal and the Pope - the leader of that church - has said that gay marraige will lead to the destruction of our society (I gave you the article pointing that out).

The reason I make general statements about socially conservative positions is because I see no gray areas in their position.

-- If a position is based specifically on what the scripture calls for and the scripture offers no gray area (thou shalt not commit adultery, you shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman), why would a Christian of any slant try to find some gray area (unless they have a specific agenda they are trying to put forward)?

Now, I could be wrong. Perhaps if you were to share with me a position that may have a "gray area" that we have discussed in the past....

And if I may steal a play from your playbook and also use an unsubstantiated generalization, it is the seeking out and occupying of "gray areas" where sin is either hidden, explained away, or sanctioned.

Social conservatives are proud of their black and white thinking on issues.

-- An unsupported overgeneralization to support your unsupported generalizations. Priceless....

Also, my general statements about social conservatives tend to be in response to conservative people on this site who make general moral statements about liberals - they are evil or part of Satan's plan or enemies of God, etc.

-- The majority were in criticism to a specific individual's lack of agreement with you.
One person doesn't agree so the whole group you perceive them to be a member of is painted.

 

[aspen]

-- The Catholic church states that gay marraige is immoral and should remain illegal and the Pope - the leader of that church - has said that gay marraige will lead to the destruction of our society (I gave you the article pointing that out).





-- If a position is based specifically on what the scripture calls for and the scripture offers no gray area (thou shalt not commit adultery, you shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman), why would a Christian of any slant try to find some gray area (unless they have a specific agenda they are trying to put forward)?

Now, I could be wrong. Perhaps if you were to share with me a position that may have a "gray area" that we have discussed in the past....

And if I may steal a play from your playbook and also use an unsubstantiated generalization, it is the seeking out and occupying of "gray areas" where sin is either hidden, explained away, or sanctioned.





-- An unsupported overgeneralization to support your unsupported generalizations. Priceless....





-- The majority were in criticism to a specific individual's lack of agreement with you.
One person doesn't agree so the whole group you perceive them to be a member of is painted.

Well, you have not agreed with me on the way I address posts, I disagree with - if you know better, give me some suggestions.

 

[Foreigner]

Aspen, your statement:

I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage - one of the reasons I left the Presbyterian Church was due to it's stance on homosexuality.

My response:

-- The Catholic church states that gay marraige is immoral and should remain illegal and the Pope - the leader of that church - has said that gay marraige will lead to the destruction of our society (I gave you the article pointing that out).

You really have only four options here:
1. Reconcile your above statement with your multiple pro-gay marraige posts throughout this board
2. Walk your statement back claiming that you were misunderstood / misiterpreted, etc.
3. Claim, as you did yesterday in another thread that you "are rarely serious" so your words should be ignored.
4. Obfuscation.

You seem to be choosing option four...



.

 

[aspen]

Aspen, your statement:


My response:



You really have only four options here:
1. Reconcile your above statement with your multiple pro-gay marraige posts throughout this board
2. Walk your statement back claiming that you were misunderstood / misiterpreted, etc.
3. Claim, as you did yesterday in another thread that you "are rarely serious" so your words should be ignored.
4. Obfuscation.

You seem to be choosing option four...



.

Actually, I have a 5th option - I can remain faithful to my church and still hold my belief that homosexuals outside the church should not have to follow church doctrine, by choosing to follow my conscience.

As far as, not taking my post seriously - I can see this is going to be your new talking point - go ahead. My question to you is, if you are so serious all the time, why are you bothering to address my silly posts? Just ignore them.

 

[Foreigner]

Actually, I have a 5th option - I can remain faithful to my church and still hold my belief that homosexuals outside the church should not have to follow church doctrine, by choosing to follow my conscience.

-- Actually, no you can't.
If you are actively encouraging and supporting a position that undermines that position of your church and your church's leadership, there is absolutely no way you can say with a straight faith that you are "remaining faithful to my church." At least not honestly...

But even so, your response here contradicts your original statement: "I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage."

One really can't be "in agreement" with something while actively working to undermine it.

As far as, not taking my post seriously - I can see this is going to be your new talking point - go ahead. My question to you is, if you are so serious all the time, why are you bothering to address my silly posts? Just ignore them.

-- LOL Aspen, one of the things that you have shown here - time and time again - is that you will not tolerate being ignored.

Actually, the question should be, If you are rarely serious in any of your posts, why are you wasting your time here?
Or more importantly, why are you wasting our time?

 

[Axehead]

Our carnal nature, the Bible calls it flesh, ALWAYS wants to sin. The fight we endure is picking up our cross(carnal nature) and walking daily with Christ. Some of us are strong and some of us are weak, BUT, Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10:13; No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

AMEN!

And yet, it is not really who is strong or weak in themselves but who is strong in the Lord which requires us to all be weak in ourselves. It is learning to live by His life that overcomes, not our any strength that we have within ourselves apart from Him. I know that you know this Stan, and this is not a correction to you but a clarification for the readers.

2Co_12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Axehead

 

[aspen]

-- Actually, no you can't.
If you are actively encouraging and supporting a position that undermines that position of your church and your church's leadership, there is absolutely no way you can say with a straight faith that you are "remaining faithful to my church." At least not honestly...

But even so, your response here contradicts your original statement: "I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage."

One really can't be "in agreement" with something while actively working to undermine it.





-- LOL Aspen, one of the things that you have shown here - time and time again - is that you will not tolerate being ignored.

Actually, the question should be, If you are rarely serious in any of your posts, why are you wasting your time here?
Or more importantly, why are you wasting our time?

I am not undermining my church - I am disagreeing with their stance on secular homosexual marriage.

Ah, so the reason you address my posts is because I won't be ignored - lol - ok Foreigner - you obviously will go to any lengths to blame others for your own behavior.

 

[Foreigner]

I am not undermining my church - I am disagreeing with their stance on secular homosexual marriage.

"I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage." - Aspen, 7/25 11:51am

Ah, so the reason you address my posts is because I won't be ignored - lol - ok Foreigner - you obviously will go to any lengths to blame others for your own behavior.

-- So the posts where you ask me a specific question are posts I am supposed to ignore?
Gosh, I'm sure glad we cleared that one up






.

 

[aspen]

"I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage." - Aspen, 7/25 11:51am

I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on homosexual marriage - it is a sin. Are you trying to claim that a comment from the Pope changes Catholic doctrine to include secular homosexual marriage? Unless he is speaking ex cathedra it is just an opinion.

-- So the posts where you ask me a specific question are posts I am supposed to ignore?
Gosh, I'm sure glad we cleared that one up

Since when do you answer my questions? I am still waiting for you to provide specific examples of conservative criticism.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

Just to point out.......


Many, as in, If I there is 10 billion things and I have 7 billion of them, there's still 3 billion left even though I have 70% which is more than many.

So, maybe, the many doesn't mean that there's only a very small few who enter Heaven.