Libervative Consiberal

[Prober]

I come from a conservative background and, after a strict upbringing, "fell away" from the church. I spent many years studying "every religious philosophy I could get my hands on" and after much thought and prayer, came back to the church.

Because of this experience, I am hesitant to label anyone's thought process as being incorrect. I think of myself as an open-minded conservative (if there is such a thing).

I know what the Bible says to me. I read it literally as well as metaphorically in some cases and I consider it to be the inspired word of G-d.

I have the "box set" of othodox beliefs that come with my religion and the "outside the box" experiences and thoughts that come from a contemplative life.

I feel too conservative to be liberal and too liberal to be conservative.

I feel a great need to "Stand up for Jesus and be counted among the Saints" and to reach out in humility to a world that so desperately wants and needs to be loved.

Please give me your thoughts...

Most Sincerely,
Mark

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Prober!

I have the "box set" of othodox beliefs that come with my religion

I got the box set too, but I hear it's worth more down the line if it is still in its original wrapper, so I haven't taken it out of the box!

I feel too conservative to be liberal and too liberal to be conservative.

This is called "moderate." And it is nothing to be ashamed of.

Some will try to tell you it is fence sitting...they don't know their donkey from a hole in the ground. It is a delicate act of balance to tactfully walk the walk of a peaceful moderate. Just ask Jesus.

 

[lunamoth]

Hey Mark,

Can I borrow your egg-shells avi?




I had the opposite experience as you! I grew up in an open, liberal brand of Christianity, went agnostic for many many years, then went into a comparatively conservative, literalistic religion (Baha'i) for five years before returning to my Episcopalian roots.

My dilemma, on some days anyway, is that if I believed God is more about laws and judgement than love, and if I followed a literal, sola scriptura approach to the Bible, I'd probably conclude that the Baha'i Faith has supplanted Christianity as God's most recent revelation to humans. And that would open up an whole other can of worms!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I come from a conservative background and, after a strict upbringing, "fell away" from the church. I spent many years studying "every religious philosophy I could get my hands on" and after much thought and prayer, came back to the church.

Because of this experience, I am hesitant to label anyone's thought process as being incorrect. I think of myself as an open-minded conservative (if there is such a thing).

I know what the Bible says to me. I read it literally as well as metaphorically in some cases and I consider it to be the inspired word of G-d.

I have the "box set" of othodox beliefs that come with my religion and the "outside the box" experiences and thoughts that come from a contemplative life.

I feel too conservative to be liberal and too liberal to be conservative.

I feel a great need to "Stand up for Jesus and be counted among the Saints" and to reach out in humility to a world that so desperately wants and needs to be loved.

Please give me your thoughts...

Most Sincerely,
Mark

On what basis do you decide which parts are to be taken literally versus metaphorically? Or is it that it's all to be taken literally, but some parts have a metaphorical meaning as well?

Do you think that Truth can be established on the basis of assumptions one accepts on faith alone? What level of personal scholarship and intelectual labor qualifies one to proclaim something as universally True? What qualifies one as an expert such that he assumes the stature to inform others of what is True.

You say that you want to stand up for Jesus, but I'm wondering whether you believe that your witness has any veracity beyond simply relating your experience of personal truth. You are an expert on your personal truth, but what is your objective expertise in matters of universal Truth? Perhaps your timidity when it comes to setting others straight vis a vis universal Truth is really your innate better judgement informing you of your essential lack of expertise.

This is a long way from saying that Truth is merely relative. You have suddenly found that your bundled programming makes sense and is useful to you at long last. But that boxed set contains a lot of assumptions that you haven't yet had the time to run down and personally verify. You're accepting them on blind faith alone. That's fine on a personal level, but I'm asking if you believe that qualifies you to say what might be truth for anyone besides yourself.

Sorry if I'm being too hard on ya!

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

Kindest Regards, Prober!

I got the box set too, but I hear it's worth more down the line if it is still in its original wrapper, so I haven't taken it out of the box!


This is called "moderate." And it is nothing to be ashamed of.

Some will try to tell you it is fence sitting...they don't know their donkey from a hole in the ground. It is a delicate act of balance to tactfully walk the walk of a peaceful moderate. Just ask Jesus.

"Fence walking"... And there is a difference between walking on either side of the fence (right up against it versus so far out in the field the fence can't be seen), and trying to straddle it or walk it like a tight rope...

One is more open minded, while the other is tepid and decisionless (that is until a misstep puts one on one side or the other, with some excruciating pain in the middle...).

 

[Prober]

"Fence walking"... And there is a difference between walking on either side of the fence (right up against it versus so far out in the field the fence can't be seen), and trying to straddle it or walk it like a tight rope...

One is more open minded, while the other is tepid and decisionless (that is until a misstep puts one on one side or the other, with some excruciating pain in the middle...).

Frequently, I'm finding, attempts at open-mindedness lead to tepid decisionlessness.

 

[Prober]

It is a delicate act of balance to tactfully walk the walk of a peaceful moderate. Just ask Jesus.

Thanks, Juan.

This is really my intention...it's just that I don't want Him to "spew me out of Hi mouth", etc.

 

[Quahom1]

Thanks, Juan.

This is really my intention...it's just that I don't want Him to "spew me out of Hi mouth", etc.

True, being considered "vomit" by Jesus, is not a good thing. But man needs moderates on both sides of the fence...the tighter the swing, the more accurate the pendulum keeps time for the clock...

 

[Prober]

On what basis do you decide which parts are to be taken literally versus metaphorically? Or is it that it's all to be taken literally, but some parts have a metaphorical meaning as well?

Suicide Squad...Attack!

Seriously, most of the time I take it literally. Some parts are obviously metaphorical. How do I know which is which? I ask the Spirit for help before I read and then try to think about how it was written, if in a poetic style or in a factual style, and base my judgement on what the Spirit says. I try not to make statements like "thus sayeth the Lord" or "He obviously means this" unless He really impresses me to say something. I am conscious that this answer probably seems vague, but I don't have a better one.

Do you think that Truth can be established on the basis of assumptions one accepts on faith alone?

Not on assumptions, no. I'd say faith is based upon revealed truth.

What level of personal scholarship and intelectual labor qualifies one to proclaim something as universally True? What qualifies one as an expert such that he assumes the stature to inform others of what is True.

IMO? Nothing. I believe one can only truthfully say "Here's what G-d has shown me" or "I believe this is what G-d wants me to say", etc.

You say that you want to stand up for Jesus, but I'm wondering whether you believe that your witness has any veracity beyond simply relating your experience of personal truth. You are an expert on your personal truth, but what is your objective expertise in matters of universal Truth?

I can only tell of my subjective experience. I can only be "a sower gone forth to sow", etc.

Perhaps your timidity when it comes to setting others straight vis a vis universal Truth is really your innate better judgement informing you of your essential lack of expertise.

That may very well be true. I can be nothing of myself, but a conduit for good or evil.

This is a long way from saying that Truth is merely relative. You have suddenly found that your bundled programming makes sense and is useful to you at long last. But that boxed set contains a lot of assumptions that you haven't yet had the time to run down and personally verify. You're accepting them on blind faith alone. That's fine on a personal level, but I'm asking if you believe that qualifies you to say what might be truth for anyone besides yourself.

No, of course it doesn't. I can only pray "Lord make me an instrument of thy peace". (sounds corny, huh...)

Sorry if I'm being too hard on ya!

Chris

You make a journey, I make a journey, we make a journey together.

Love,
Mark

 

[Prober]

...the tighter the swing, the more accurate the pendulum keeps time for the clock...

Ya know, I never thought of that!

I think my problem may be that I don't know what "medium" is.

 

[Prober]

Hey Mark,

Can I borrow your egg-shells avi?

Yeah, but I have a feeling I might need it back.

I had the opposite experience as you! I grew up in an open, liberal brand of Christianity, went agnostic for many many years, then went into a comparatively conservative, literalistic religion (Baha'i) for five years before returning to my Episcopalian roots.

My dilemma, on some days anyway, is that if I believed God is more about laws and judgement than love, and if I followed a literal, sola scriptura approach to the Bible, I'd probably conclude that the Baha'i Faith has supplanted Christianity as God's most recent revelation to humans. And that would open up an whole other can of worms!

And would be very interesting to explore!

I take a literal sola scriptura approach. It's just that I believe even this demonstrates G-d's love and doesn't conflict with any of the rest of my beliefs.

Many thanks,
Mark

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

You make a journey, I make a journey, we make a journey together.

You say potato...

Hey, whatever works.

Chris

 

[wil]

We humans tend to like things to be linear....draw a line and we obviously chart out in different directions...

Sometimes like the four versions of G-d or the shortest politcal quiz we get two dimensional in our labeling...

I see it more 3 dimensional and spherical...

At a minimimum I can look at it as the equator...I know so many conservatives who go so far to the right some of their beliefs end up in the liberal camp...and vice versa.

but in reality there are more choices thens simply left and right, we stray up and down the sphere in varoius areas of thought....

And I like to think there are a lot of us who have gone/exist within and without, being encompassed and encompassing a variety of thought. Belonging fully either to no camp or many camps...

 

[InLove]

Libervative Consiberal

I come from a conservative background and, after a strict upbringing, "fell away" from the church. I spent many years studying "every religious philosophy I could get my hands on" and after much thought and prayer, came back to the church.

Because of this experience, I am hesitant to label anyone's thought process as being incorrect. I think of myself as an open-minded conservative (if there is such a thing).

I know what the Bible says to me. I read it literally as well as metaphorically in some cases and I consider it to be the inspired word of G-d.

I have the "box set" of othodox beliefs that come with my religion and the "outside the box" experiences and thoughts that come from a contemplative life.

I feel too conservative to be liberal and too liberal to be conservative.

I feel a great need to "Stand up for Jesus and be counted among the Saints" and to reach out in humility to a world that so desperately wants and needs to be loved.

Please give me your thoughts...

Most Sincerely,
Mark

Hi Mark and Everyone--

I hope juan doesn't mind if I just take the last part of one of his posts, but here is where I trust the answer lies:

...Just ask Jesus.

The theology I grew up with is quite conservative and legalistic, I'd say. And I understand it, and it doesn't really bother me because when it is all explained, it is the mercy and forgiveness factor that prevails. The "amazing grace" part. This is really what it is all about. And that is where my love lies--the Love I don't know how to give and receive without the guidance of...Love!

The problem with human explanations of Love's "theology", in my opinion, is that we tend to wrap it up and package it (like the box you guys have been talking about). God surely cannot be so limited as we often make "Him" out to be. I believe with all my heart that it is when we search in only one context that we often overlook our God-given ways in which we may understand, for instance, the apparent contradictions in the Bible and quite possibly (InLove quickly double-checks which board we are on) the Sacred Texts of other traditions and cultures.

I have shared this elsewhere (I think it was in Comparative Studies), but I am going to go into it again a little bit here. I decided when I was a child to answer to this wonderful beckoning of Jesus. He called me to Him at a very young age, and I don't care what any human says about that--I know it was Him. He has been with me ever since, in darkness and in light. When I was very ill this past year or so, I realized that I was ready to go from life as I know it into wherever He is somewhere else. In other words, I found I was ready to die if it was time to do so. Except for one thing--I asked Him to help me understand before I left how to resolve this trouble in my spirit: How can Love reject those who don't understand things in the same context as I do? And then I added: "Let me understand this, Lord, but only if it is within Your will."

I am still not ready to go into great detail here--and really there was not much detail. It is sufficient, for now, for me to just say that my Jesus Christ said to me: Well, come on, child--you are in for the most wonderful adventure!! (I am crying tears of joy right now, y'all--I can hardly think of it or try and relate the experience without doing so. ) Anyway, I thought it might help if I said a little about it.

To me, as far as the pendulem and the fence goes, and "the middle of the road that seems to be trying to find me", I am thinking that it is our linear way of seeing things that is the stumbling block to our understanding. When I bend that line, it becomes a circle (hey earl ).

Edited: Wow, wil--I hit "submit" and then I saw your post!

InPeace,
InLove

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Prober!

Thanks, Juan.

This is really my intention...it's just that I don't want Him to "spew me out of Hi mouth", etc.

I needed a little bit to cool down from the other board before I responded to you...

Remember I mentioned donkeys and holes?

The "spew out of the mouth" comment was made in the context of being lukewarm...apathetic, couldn't care less, don't give a <insert expletive of choice here>. That would be a fence sitter, or fence straddler. That is *not* what I was referring to.

I am speaking of "active" moderation. This in my mind is what is called "common sense." Not too hot, not too cold, just right. This is walking the walk with tact. This is compelling a brother or sister, rather than shouting them down with a bullhorn or frightening them with twisted tales of imaginary horrors and guilt trips. This is not harming a single blade of grass where you tread. This is peacemaking in the literal and active sense of the word. This is being zealous while simultaneously being wise.

There is a great gulf between the two positions (apathy and moderation), how anybody ever managed to mangle the two I will never know. But zealousness need not be extremist, nor should peacemaking be always passive. Once again, we find ourselves with the old works versus grace argument. I will state emphatically that zealous works like peacemaking require a tactful balance of moderation and moderate relationships (between people, cultures, beliefs, etc). This is called tolerance.

If others disagree, I suppose it is inevitable. The Bible does tell us that humanity will never achieve peace of its own devices. Of course, we are also told peacemakers are blessed people and children of G-d, so I suppose peace is a noble goal to aspire to.

 

[Prober]

Libervative Consiberal

How can Love reject those who don't understand things in the same context as I do? And then I added: "Let me understand this, Lord, but only if it is within Your will."

It is sufficient, for now, for me to just say that my Jesus Christ said to me: Well, come on, child--you are in for the most wonderful adventure!! (I am crying tears of joy right now, y'all--I can hardly think of it or try and relate the experience without doing so. ) Anyway, I thought it might help if I said a little about it.

InPeace,
InLove

This is what I want to know as well...

Thank you very much.

 

[Prober]

Many thanks for your comments, Juan!

I feel exactly the same way.

My supposition is that G-d's commandments and the love of others as you've discussed are complementary.

Conservatives would emphasize the commandments. Liberals would emphasize Love.

I think the two go together perfectly.

Love without diluting the Gospel and vice-versa.

Mark

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What is the value of assigning labels? Isn't it so we know who is "us" and who is "them"? I don't subscribe to whole systems. IOW, I don't think that any one set of observations can be extended to include all possibilities. This is what I think people want to do: find a box of answers that covers absolutely everything. From what I've observed, there's always a wobble, so you can never construct an all-inclusive solid state system. This is the essential flaw of conservatism. There are no pristine origins. The essential flaw within liberalism, it seems to me, is the assumption that consensus equals truth. But the problem with both avenues is that they assume that somewhere there exists a one-size-fits-all solution.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hey Mark,

It's interesting, isn't it, that we have the same programming, and yet the "spirit" impresses us in diabolically different ways. How does that happen? I mean, I'm definately led in the direction I'm going, and empatheitically, and by extension, I'd say that you are too. So, is the "spirit" an objective thing, or is it a function of an individual's personal experience?

Chris

 

[Prober]

What is the value of assigning labels? Isn't it so we know who is "us" and who is "them"? I don't subscribe to whole systems. IOW, I don't think that any one set of observations can be extended to include all possibilities.

I do. As G-d is omniscient, I think He can pan for every thought system.

This is what I think people want to do: find a box of answers that covers absolutely everything. From what I've observed, there's always a wobble, so you can never construct an all-inclusive solid state system. This is the essential flaw of conservatism. There are no pristine origins.

I disagree. There exists absolute truth. It's just that finite man cannot express it.

The essential flaw within liberalism, it seems to me, is the assumption that consensus equals truth.

I agree.

But the problem with both avenues is that they assume that somewhere there exists a one-size-fits-all solution.

Chris

Maybe in conservatism, but not liberalism IMO.

Love,
Mark