Is there such a thing as a Liberal Fundamentalist?

[thereselittleflower]

Somethings have been said in aother forum that would suggest that there is such a thing as a liberal fundamentalist. All my experiences with fundamenatlists, both as a Protestant and since then, have shown fundamentalists are conservative by nature.

Is this incorrect?

Are there liberal fundamentalists?

Or is that phrase an oxymoron?


Thanks in advance!

.

[kobuk]

Liberalism is a great diversion away from Fundamentalism and sound doctrine. People who choose to go that way are decieved.

Liberalism destroys Bible Schools and Seminaries because it takes the axe to the Biblical foundations.

[desmalia]

I don't see how a fundamentalist can be a liberal (at least the way that the term liberal is defined in today's terms).

[Jim47]

Moved to the debate sub forum as requested

[HypnoToad]

Moved to the debate sub forum as requested
Why??

Where's the debate in this thread? Seems far more to belong in "Ask a Fundamentalist" than here.

[arunma]

I suppose this depends quite heavily on what you mean by "liberal." I am, for example, economically liberal in the sense that I believe in very high taxes for the rich, social welfare, powerful federal government, and various other policies. But seeing as how I believe in the inerrency of the Scriptures, in salvation only by faith in Jesus Christ (apart from any false religions, including the monotheistic faiths of Judaism and Islam), and in extremely conservative social stances, I doubt anyone would actually call me liberal.

So I would ask: what do you mean by being liberal?

[cubanito]

I suppose this depends quite heavily on what you mean by "liberal." I am, for example, economically liberal in the sense that I believe in very high taxes for the rich, social welfare, powerful federal government, and various other policies. But seeing as how I believe in the inerrency of the Scriptures, in salvation only by faith in Jesus Christ (apart from any false religions, including the monotheistic faiths of Judaism and Islam), and in extremely conservative social stances, I doubt anyone would actually call me liberal.

So I would ask: what do you mean by being liberal?
THAT'S the guy u ought to dialogue with above, either in "ask" or "debate"

JR

[thereselittleflower]

I didn't ask this for debate. Just to ask . . .

I am meaning morally liberal.

Thanks. :)

.

[arunma]

I didn't ask this for debate. Just to ask . . .

I am meaning morally liberal.

Thanks. :)

.

No, I don't think you'll find any morally liberal fundamentalists. In fact, I don't think that morality can even be placed on the liberal-conservative scale. The Bible teaches morality, and anything short of Biblical morality is immorality. We are all immoral to some degree, but I don't see why any Christian would embrace his immorality rather than "putting it to death," as the Bible commands.

[No Swansong]

I am one who has argued that our definition of Fundamentalist does not prevent someone from being liberal and a Fundamentalist. I have also stated that while this is theoretically possible I have never met anyone who actually was.

I think this is because of two reasons. If an individual accepts Sola Scriptura then that individual will probably be led to conservatism, because, at least in my opinion, a more literal understanding of Scripture tends to support conservative ideals.

The second reason is that I believe that normally a conservative is more likely to eventually accept Sola Scriptura than a liberal would be.

But there obviously can be exceptions to both of these and thus the reason I argue that it is theoretically possible.

Now whether the individual would stay a liberal is a different story.

[sonofapreacherman]

I think it's an oxymoron...I don't think that it's possible for anyone to be a liberal (in today's terms) and a fundamental too. The way I understand the adjective, "Liberal," is that you're not strictly adhered to any one way or means. I understand the word "fundamental" as meaning basic and simple. I honestly have a hard time understanding how anyone can be a liberal Christian, let alone a liberal fundamentalist.

[sonofapreacherman]

I think that's the reason why 95% or so of elderly people tend to be conservative as opposed to liberal. Although I know it happens, I think it's rare that someone becomes more liberal as they get older. I think that the vast majority of people tend to become more conservative as they age. Has something to do with wisdom, I think.

[No Swansong]

I think that's the reason why 95% or so of elderly people tend to be conservative as opposed to liberal. Although I know it happens, I think it's rare that someone becomes more liberal as they get older. I think that the vast majority of people tend to become more conservative as they age. Has something to do with wisdom, I think.
That's probably true but I would say also that the terms take on different meanings as time passes.

For example a pastor of a neighborhood Church tells me that when he was ordained 30 years ago he was considered a liberal. Now he is considered a conservative and according to him he hasn't changed a lick.

[Ohioprof]

I am thinking back to the life of William Jennings Bryan. He considered himself to be a fundamentalist Christian, and he is perhaps most famous today for arguing the case against John Scopes and the teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools. Bryan of course took the stand and was grilled by the rival attorney Clarence Darrow, a scene that was reenacted in a way unflattering to fundamentalists in the play and movie "Inherit the Wind."

Bryan was better known in his day for his stance on behalf of progressive causes, what people today would probably call liberal causes. He opposed the interests of big business and supported Populist farmers in their call for an expanded money supply and for government regulation of business. He was the champion of the "common man," and he stood for government efforts to benefit poor and ordinary people rather than the laissez-faire policies of the conservatives in the Republican Party of his day.

I would call William Jennings Bryan a progressive fundamentalist or a liberal fundamentalist. But of course, that was a different time from today.

[Ohioprof]

I think that's the reason why 95% or so of elderly people tend to be conservative as opposed to liberal. Although I know it happens, I think it's rare that someone becomes more liberal as they get older. I think that the vast majority of people tend to become more conservative as they age. Has something to do with wisdom, I think.
Most of the elderly people I know have not become more conservative as they aged. I am aging, and I have not become more conservative. (I am now 52). I am not sure where you get the figure of 95% of the elderly.

I think much depends on how we define liberal and conservative. Most elderly people polled strongly support Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs that directly benefit the elderly. Those are usually regarded as liberal views. On sexual morality, polls show the elderly do tend to be more conservative or traditional than younger people, but they were probably conservative when they were younger too. I have not seen any poll data to indicate that they grew more conservative over time on sexual morality.

I think the elderly really are mixed when it comes to their social and political views, and much of whether you regard them as liberal or conservative depends on how you define liberal and conservative.

[Ohioprof]

I think it's an oxymoron...I don't think that it's possible for anyone to be a liberal (in today's terms) and a fundamental too. The way I understand the adjective, "Liberal," is that you're not strictly adhered to any one way or means. I understand the word "fundamental" as meaning basic and simple. I honestly have a hard time understanding how anyone can be a liberal Christian, let alone a liberal fundamentalist.
I don't think these definitions reflect popular consensus about the meaning of liberal and conservative. Liberal has tended to mean supporting government intervention in the economy to benefit the poor and, to some extent, to redistribute wealth. Liberal has also tended to mean supportive of diversity of viewpoints and supportive of civil liberties.

Liberals have tended to be pro-government when it comes to providing benefits to people and regulating business and anti-government when it comes to restricting personal liberty and morality. Conservatives have tended to be anti-government when it comes to providing benefits to people and regulating business and pro-government when it comes to regulating morality. Those are broad generalizations, but I think they do generally reflect the popular consensus on the meaning of these terms.

[Albion]

I would call William Jennings Bryan a...liberal fundamentalist. But of course, that was a different time from today.

I'd say "not really."

There certainly are liberal fundamentalists today, and I run into them all the time. IOW, I can't imagine why this is such a debatable subject here.

All it takes is a Bible literalist or inerrantist who also thinks that Christians have an obligation to work through the electoral process to eliminate poverty, end war, stop global warming, or the like. There's absolutely nothing rare about this kind of profile, even if MOST Fundamentalists (or so I am guessing) tend to be non-political or more conservative in their politics.

[desmalia]

I'd say "not really."

There certainly are liberal fundamentalists today, and I run into them all the time. IOW, I can't imagine why this is such a debatable subject here.

All it takes is a Bible literalist or inerrantist who also thinks that Christians have an obligation to work through the electoral process to eliminate poverty, end war, stop global warming, or the like. There's absolutely nothing rare about this kind of profile, even if MOST Fundamentalists (or so I am guessing) tend to be non-political or more conservative in their politics.
There has been some discussion about the difference between a moral liberal and a political liberal. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. A Bible fundamentalist who is also a moral liberal is an impossible contradiction. But a Fundamentalist can be a political liberal as that is defined in today's terms.

[PaladinGirl]

Liberalism is a great diversion away from Fundamentalism and sound doctrine. People who choose to go that way are decieved.

Liberalism destroys Bible Schools and Seminaries because it takes the axe to the Biblical foundations.
You are wrong. Liberal Christians have plenty of sound doctrine. In fact, I would say that all liberal Christian doctrine is sound doctrine. Yes, we are often morally liberal but what is so wrong with that? I believe that sex before marriage is just fine. That is a morally liberal position. But what is so wrong with being morally liberal? Nothing if you ask me.

[Hentenza]

You are wrong. Liberal Christians have plenty of sound doctrine. In fact, I would say that all liberal Christian doctrine is sound doctrine. Yes, we are often morally liberal but what is so wrong with that? I believe that sex before marriage is just fine. That is a morally liberal position. But what is so wrong with being morally liberal? Nothing if you ask me.

PL, we are going to have to disagree with that. Liberal theology is just an excuse to avoid the hard issues in the bible. No one should disregard scripture to further their earthly life. The bible is clear about issues like homosexuality and fornication. Ignoring these teachings of scripture is ignoring what Jesus commanded of us.

[No Swansong]

You are wrong. Liberal Christians have plenty of sound doctrine. In fact, I would say that all liberal Christian doctrine is sound doctrine. Yes, we are often morally liberal but what is so wrong with that? I believe that sex before marriage is just fine. That is a morally liberal position. But what is so wrong with being morally liberal? Nothing if you ask me.
I'm sorry PL I am going to have to disagree. Liberal Theology and what you call Liberal Morals are both Contrary to Christianity.

[Albion]

You are wrong. Liberal Christians have plenty of sound doctrine.

Well, it seems to be that what was written--that Liberal theology departs from the Christian Fundamentals and has done harm to seminaries-- is certainly correct. But if you are saying that Liberal Christians have plenty of sound doctrine, I'd ask which ones you have in mind? Obviously, one Liberal is not identical to another one in what they believe, but Liberal theology has attacked the nature of God, the veracity of the Scriptures, Christian marriage, and so much more that I wonder what you have in mind.

I believe that sex before marriage is just fine. That is a morally liberal position. But what is so wrong with being morally liberal? Nothing if you ask me.

Is that it? This one issue, or was that just an example? It's a good one, being contrary to the clear wording of scripture but justified by Liberals on account of modern social trends.

[desmalia]

You are wrong. Liberal Christians have plenty of sound doctrine. In fact, I would say that all liberal Christian doctrine is sound doctrine. Yes, we are often morally liberal but what is so wrong with that? I believe that sex before marriage is just fine. That is a morally liberal position. But what is so wrong with being morally liberal? Nothing if you ask me.
Holly, I know you most often like to post just one post in a thread, and usually one that is in disagreement with the group you are discussing with. But I encourage you to stick with this thread and continue to comment over the next few weeks as your views change. I would enjoy the chance to have some conversation with you instead of just debate. :)

[NewGuy101]

Somethings have been said in aother forum that would suggest that there is such a thing as a liberal fundamentalist. All my experiences with fundamenatlists, both as a Protestant and since then, have shown fundamentalists are conservative by nature.

Is this incorrect?

Are there liberal fundamentalists?

Or is that phrase an oxymoron?


Thanks in advance!

.
Yeah ME!!!

A reformed Christian playing a an atheist. :P

[IamRedeemed]

Excellent Post. Very well said! :thumbsup:

No, I don't think you'll find any morally liberal fundamentalists. In fact, I don't think that morality can even be placed on the liberal-conservative scale. The Bible teaches morality, and anything short of Biblical morality is immorality. We are all immoral to some degree, but I don't see why any Christian would embrace his immorality rather than "putting it to death," as the Bible commands.

[arunma]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how a belief in the moral uprightness of sex before marriage can be reconciled with a view that the Bible has even the least bit of authority. The Bible speaks quite clearly on this issue. I can see how a person might believe in the Bible but commit this sin due to his own sinful nature (a nature we all possess). But how can anyone who believes in the Bible in any sense give tacit approval to this act? Perhaps someone could explain.

[flaja]

I suppose this depends quite heavily on what you mean by "liberal." I am, for example, economically liberal in the sense that I believe in very high taxes for the rich, social welfare, powerful federal government, and various other policies.

Do you think it is OK for women to serve as church pastors or have other leadership positions in the church?

Do you believe that Sodomy is against God’s law?

Do you believe that someone is a Christian simply because they claim to be one?

[flaja]

I am thinking back to the life of William Jennings Bryan. He considered himself to be a fundamentalist Christian, and he is perhaps most famous today for arguing the case against John Scopes and the teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools. Bryan of course took the stand and was grilled by the rival attorney Clarence Darrow, a scene that was reenacted in a way unflattering to fundamentalists in the play and movie "Inherit the Wind."

Bryan was better known in his day for his stance on behalf of progressive causes, what people today would probably call liberal causes. He opposed the interests of big business and supported Populist farmers in their call for an expanded money supply and for government regulation of business. He was the champion of the "common man," and he stood for government efforts to benefit poor and ordinary people rather than the laissez-faire policies of the conservatives in the Republican Party of his day.

I would call William Jennings Bryan a progressive fundamentalist or a liberal fundamentalist. But of course, that was a different time from today.

I had to do a report on Byran while in college. While I was attracted to his Biblical fundamentalism, his economic policies churned my stomach. Of all of the things that have happened since I was born in 1968, the Carter Administration is the one that has left the deepest mark on me. Apart from his failed foreign policy the worst of it was his inflation rate- double digits measured monthly at times. I still remember seeing the black and white labels on generic products in the grocery store and whenever I see a store clerk changing price stickers in Wal-Mart I see shades of Jimmy Carter. I still worry anytime the FED cuts interest rates. Anyone who advocates an inflationary monetary policy scares the living daylights out of me.

[flaja]

Most of the elderly people I know have not become more conservative as they aged. I am aging, and I have not become more conservative. (I am now 52). I am not sure where you get the figure of 95% of the elderly.

I think much depends on how we define liberal and conservative. Most elderly people polled strongly support Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs that directly benefit the elderly. Those are usually regarded as liberal views. On sexual morality, polls show the elderly do tend to be more conservative or traditional than younger people, but they were probably conservative when they were younger too. I have not seen any poll data to indicate that they grew more conservative over time on sexual morality.

I think the elderly really are mixed when it comes to their social and political views, and much of whether you regard them as liberal or conservative depends on how you define liberal and conservative.

The Baby Boomers were the main driving force behind the sexual revolution, but the oldest of the Boomers are now 62. If the elderly tend to be more conservative about sex than younger people are, then Boomers must be getting more conservative as they grow older.

[flaja]

I believe that sex before marriage is just fine.

But God doesn't. Therefore you cannot be liberal and Godly.

[arunma]

Do you think it is OK for women to serve as church pastors or have other leadership positions in the church?

Do you believe that Sodomy is against God’s law?

Do you believe that someone is a Christian simply because they claim to be one?

I don't believe that women ought to be pastors or elders in the church (unfortunately some congregations in my current denomination, the Christian Reformed Church, do this, and I am opposed to the practice). I do believe that homosexuality is contrary to God's law, and that this ought to be reflected in the laws of man-made governments. I believe that being a Christian is a matter of making a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, not merely a matter of corporately affiliating oneself with a "Christian" culture.

Hope this answers your questions.

[flaja]

I don't believe that women ought to be pastors or elders in the church (unfortunately some congregations in my current denomination, the Christian Reformed Church, do this, and I am opposed to the practice). I do believe that homosexuality is contrary to God's law, and that this ought to be reflected in the laws of man-made governments. I believe that being a Christian is a matter of making a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, not merely a matter of corporately affiliating oneself with a "Christian" culture.

Hope this answers your questions.

Can you give us a fuller explanation for why you are liberal on economic matters?

It has been said here on this board that it is difficult for someone to become a liberal as they get older. I think the truthfulness of this statement depends on what your starting parameters are and whose definition of liberal and conservative you use.

I came of age during the Reagan Administration and have thought of myself as a conservative since the 6th grade (although I didn’t know the terminology to use until the 9th). But in the past decade I have abandoned more and more of Reagan’s economic policies- the ones that coincide with libertarianism. But according to the libertarians you meet on the net this means that I am a liberal because libertarians always equate conservatism with libertarianism, when the two philosophies are not the same.

I have also come to see having a good quality national public school system as a necessity for national security purposes- which again makes me a liberal in the eyes of the internet’s dominate libertarian population. And at the same time I now realize that social welfare programs are a necessary evil and this is in keeping with conservatism’s founding principals: we are opposed to the creation of both extreme wealth and extreme poverty. Wealth equals power, so extreme wealth is a threat to liberty and freedom. And extreme poverty is a threat to societal cohesion- something that (legitimate) conservatives put a great value on. However, this does not mean that I support government welfare programs or that I think government programs are a good thing.

I am also an environmental conservationist, but this makes me an environmentalist as far as the libertarians are concerned. But at the same time I don’t accept the Left’s anti-capitalist environmentalist agenda. I want to conserve natural resources so we can get the best economic use from them for the longest period of time. I will conserve something today because it may be needed tomorrow.

You may want to re-evaluate the label you use for yourself. Political ideology is as much about goals and purpose as it is about policies and behavior. You can be a conservative and accept liberal policies when they can achieve conservative goals.

[No Swansong]

For those of you who are using the term "moral liberal" How exactly do you define that?

[IamRedeemed]

Amen! :thumbsup:


Liberalism is a great diversion away from Fundamentalism and sound doctrine. People who choose to go that way are decieved.

Liberalism destroys Bible Schools and Seminaries because it takes the axe to the Biblical foundations.

No, I don't think you'll find any morally liberal fundamentalists. In fact, I don't think that morality can even be placed on the liberal-conservative scale. The Bible teaches morality, and anything short of Biblical morality is immorality. We are all immoral to some degree, but I don't see why any Christian would embrace his immorality rather than "putting it to death," as the Bible commands.

[Albion]

But in the past decade I have abandoned more and more of Reagan’s economic policies- the ones that coincide with libertarianism. But according to the libertarians you meet on the net this means that I am a liberal because libertarians always equate conservatism with libertarianism, when the two philosophies are not the same.

That's correct, but it also means that being a libertatian doesn't make one a conservative.

I have also come to see having a good quality national public school system as a necessity for national security purposes- which again makes me a liberal in the eyes of the internet’s dominate libertarian population. And at the same time I now realize that social welfare programs are a necessary evil and this is in keeping with conservatism’s founding principals: we are opposed to the creation of both extreme wealth and extreme poverty.

But there's nothing specifically conservative in that.

Wealth equals power, so extreme wealth is a threat to liberty and freedom.

So say liberals. Conservatism doesn't oppose the holding or acquiring of wealth. In fact, in defending private property as a human right, it MUST accept wealth-accumulation or be untrue to its own values.

I am also an environmental conservationist, but this makes me an environmentalist as far as the libertarians are concerned.

You are solid ground to argue that environmentalism is a conservative value.

[IamRedeemed]

That's an interesting question that I would also curious to hear the answer to. :scratch:

For those of you who are using the term "moral liberal" How exactly do you define that?

[champuru]

i doubt it... moderate at the most

[Mling]

Not sure if I'm allowed to answer questions on this forum, but I'll give it a shot and see what happens.

I've heard the term "liberal fundamentalist," or the suggestion of the concept, used two ways.

One is based on the idea that the word "fundamentalist" means nothing more than adhering to the basic fundamentals of a religion, which, of course, many people see differently. People who see the basic core of Christianity to be the pursuit of social justice and care of the weak, as taught by Christ, sometimes say that socially liberal Christianity is also fundamentalism. Either another form, or "the real" form. It generally doesn't include Sola Scriptora, as scripture is likely to be seen as a tool for relating Christ's teachings, and not as holy in and of itself.

People who consider "fundamentalist" to be an insult (which, just for the record, I don't and am not encouraging) sometimes use "liberal fundy" to mean somebody who foams at the mouth about liberal politics or religion, without thinking about what they're saying.

In either case, it's a very different use of the word than how it is defined in this forum.

[Albion]

In either case, it's a very different use of the word than how it is defined in this forum.

This is true, but it's not as though all the useages developed independently of each other. Factually speaking, the definition used on this forum is the one that caused us to speak of "fundamentalism" in the first place. It is what defined a movement that was given this name by its founders. THEN people began using the term for their own purposes and misusing it, often in order to villify Christians who subscribe to the fundamentals.

[Mling]

This is true, but it's not as though all the useages developed independently of each other. Factually speaking, the definition used on this forum is the one that caused us to speak of "fundamentalism" in the first place. It is what defined a movement that was given this name by its founders. THEN people began using the term for their own purposes and misusing it, often in order to villify Christians who subscribe to the fundamentals.

Whether it is a "misuse" depends on perspective. In the first example I gave, the argument is generally that the people who call themselves fundamentalists have either wrongly defined what is fundamental, or have built a type of "fundamentalism" around one set of fundamental principals that is very different from a different fundamentalism built around a different set of fundamental principals.

The word really defines itself, and can be used to describe branches of any philosophy or religion. The question is only in what one considers fundamental, and I don't think that the first group to decide to use the word has the exclusive right to answer that question.

[Albion]

Whether it is a "misuse" depends on perspective.

If the use is other than that given on this forum, it's a misuse, historically speaking. That sounds arrogant, I know, but the movement that gave the word "fundamentalism" to the religious world was one that outlined these principles. All other uses are derivative and often far from related to the source from which the term came. So if "misuse" is not the right word for that, maybe I should say "inauthentic" or "novel."

In the first example I gave, the argument is generally that the people who call themselves fundamentalists have either wrongly defined what is fundamental, or have built a type of "fundamentalism" around one set of fundamental principals that is very different from a different fundamentalism built around a different set of fundamental principals.

The first example you gave was of the word being used to apply to any number of different kinds of religious beliefs. That clearly is not what the word meant when Fundamentalism was founded as a movement.

But we both know that many bogus or creative and new meanings of the word have been coined by any number of people, up to and including "fundamentalist Islam" which is completely unrelated to the meaning of the word as it was originally. That is true of many other words we use, such as liberal, catholic, spiritual, and so on. Nevertheless, accuracy matters, and the well-informed person should not discuss such terms as though all the possible uses of any of these are equally valid or relevant. That's what is done, in the case of the word Fundamentalism when it is said or implied that it means or can mean all things to all people. That robs the word of its real meaning.

The word really defines itself, and can be used to describe branches of any philosophy or religion.

It doesn't define itself. And it can describe a flavor of ice cream...if you want to do that. No one has a patent on the use of the word. However, it is important to appreciate that what you find here is the original, even if we go on to note that over the years the word has been used to say totally different things from what the Fundamentalist movement used as its definition.

[cubanito]

"It is WRITTEN..." Jesus defining fundamentalism.

JR

[LivingWordUnity]

"It is WRITTEN..." Jesus defining fundamentalism.

JR"Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.'" Matthew 23:1-3

Jesus stressing the importance of oral tradition and authority.

"Seat of Moses"..."Chair of Peter"...hmmm, sounds very similar.

[Izdaari]

It doesn't define itself. And it can describe a flavor of ice cream...if you want to do that.
Hmm? Really? I wonder what Fundamentalist ice cream would taste like... ;)

[IamRedeemed]

:amen: Very well said!


No, I don't think you'll find any morally liberal fundamentalists. In fact, I don't think that morality can even be placed on the liberal-conservative scale. The Bible teaches morality, and anything short of Biblical morality is immorality. We are all immoral to some degree, but I don't see why any Christian would embrace his immorality rather than "putting it to death," as the Bible commands.

[IamRedeemed]

Probably Butter Pecan :P^_^

Hmm? Really? I wonder what Fundamentalist ice cream would taste like... ;)

[Mling]

hee, I'd forgotten about that question....

Fundamentalist ice cream would be good ol' fashioned kind.

Perhaps a touch of vanilla and made by rolling it in a coffee can.

[Izdaari]

Liberal fundamentalist would indeed seem to be an oxymoron. But if such a thing could exist, I might be it. ;)

I'm solidly conservative on the basics of the Christian faith, some might even say fundamentalist (the Five Fundamentals adopted in 1910, the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, and other stuff like that). But on things that aren't quite so basic, I agree with some elements of theological liberalism, including a sympathy for Emergent ways of "doing church" and of being the church. And I find historical-critical hermeneutics useful. That doesn't mean I think the Bible is full of mistakes, or that I think the miracles in it didn't really happen. I'm Pentecostal, and a thorough supernaturalist.

Morally I'm mostly conservative, but politically I'm in the classical liberal to conservative-leaning libertarian range. I don't believe that government should enforce moral standards beyond what's necessary for secular public order. Government's job is to play referee and keep us from killing each other, but it's not government's job to make us righteous. That's up to our parents, our churches, and to our relationship with God.

Obviously, I'm no true Fundamentalist, and thus not a candidate for membership here. Yet I've found some good friends here, and I've been welcomed as a frequent guest. Thank you all for your warm hospitality! :clap: