I have a question

[Miss Shelby]

I hear the terms 'conservative Christain' or 'fundamentalist Christian' vs 'liberal Christian' all the time here at CF. I am having trouble determining where I fit in.

What are the differences and how are they decided? The way that I understand it, if one takes the Bible completely literal they fall under conservative Christian. If one believes the Bible is made up of stories but is not totally literal they are liberal.

And how does the matter of where one stands on social/political issues factor in?

Thanks. :)

Michelle

[Grace_Alone4gives]

A lot of times, conservative and fundamental are used interchangably. If you had to seperate the 2, I would say fundamentalists are conservative conservatives...lol. Liberals are just that - liberal. Liberal in doctrin etc...
I know that didnt really help...did it?

[Miss Shelby]

A lot of times, conservative and fundamental are used interchangably. If you had to seperate the 2, I would say fundamentalists are conservative conservatives...lol. Liberals are just that - liberal. Liberal in doctrin etc...
I know that didnt really help...did it?lol.. :hug:

Maybe if I gave an example of some of the things I believe. For instance, I believe God created Adam and Eve and creation but not in 6 literal 24 hr days. I do not believe, (just an example) that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel, ( I don't even believe there was a Daniel)-- I believe the author is unknown and many things did not happen in that account. I believe was written during a time of extreme persection the Jews suffered under the reingn of Antiochus IV Epiphanes , and that it portrayed a young Jew who was a hero at the time. I believe it was written in a form of 'code' for Jews to encourage one another with.

There are other things in Scripture that I do not take literally, but I believe the Gospels are literal and I believe in the Divinty of Christ and all that that entails as in accordance with the Nicene Creed.

My politcal views are, for the most part, conservative.


So, where does that leave me? Conservative or liberal?

Michelle

[twistedsketch]

Liberal, but not hopelessly liberal. At least you are Christian, and God can fix the Daniel thing in His own time and in His own way. :)

A fundamentalist would consider Daniel to be written by Daniel and all of what was recorded to be literal. As in Daniel literally had his visions, and the angel's explainations are true and did/will happen. Now, the way the angel explained some things is metaphorical, don't get me wrong, but everything in Scripture is always literal when it's talking about what is and isn't a sin.

[Miss Shelby]

Liberal, but not hopelessly liberal. At least you are Christian, and God can fix the Daniel thing in His own time and in His own way. :)LOL! Okay. Well thank you. :)

A fundamentalist would consider Daniel to be written by Daniel and all of what was recorded to be literal. As in Daniel literally had his visions, and the angel's explainations are true and did/will happen. Now, the way the angel explained some things is metaphorical, don't get me wrong, but everything in Scripture is always literal when it's talking about what is and isn't a sin.That last sentence I agree with. I don't see how that makes my view any less literal in that sense, though, even though I believe it to be written in a certain literary genre.. but that's okay.

I'm a liberal Christian, according to at least one person. Cool. :cool:

Michelle

[opus_dei]

i guess a similar question:

i've often used the terms fundamental and evanglical as one in the same, but i'm sure that's incorrect.

anyone care to steer me in the right direction this one?

gracias
o.d.

[twistedsketch]

Well, many people like to say they don't take certain commands literally. Especially commands concerning any type of sexuality. I just wanted to make that clear. Or did I misinterpret your question?

[Miss Shelby]

Well, many people like to say they don't take certain commands literally. Especially commands concerning any type of sexuality. I just wanted to make that clear. Or did I misinterpret your question?Are you asking me this?

Michelle

[twistedsketch]

i guess a similar question:

i've often used the terms fundamental and evanglical as one in the same, but i'm sure that's incorrect.

anyone care to steer me in the right direction this one?

gracias
o.d.

All fundamentalists are evangelical, or at least they ought to be, since they would believe in literal sin and a literal hell.

But not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. They may take a more liberal approach to one issue or another but they still believe that people need to be saved, and that Jesus is the only way to be saved.

[twistedsketch]

Are you asking me this?

Michelle

Uh, yeah. Specifically, what were you talking about when you said this, I was confused.


I don't see how that makes my view any less literal in that sense, though, even though I believe it to be written in a certain literary genre.. but that's okay.

[Miss Shelby]

Uh, yeah. Specifically, what were you talking about when you said this, I was confused.I was unsure because you didn't quote me. I thought you may have been referring to opus_dei. And since it kinda came out of left field, I was a bit confused. Would my stance concerning homosexuality (that is what you're getting at, right?) change your mind about whether I'm a liberal or conservative Christian?

Michelle

[Mϋzikdϋde]

You fit in Michelle...with outcasts like me. I'm totally against division in the body of Christ, that's why I had such a problem with CF deciding to give the "fundies" their own section. You have a Catholic icon, I have a Christian icon, IMO that makes you my sister in Christ.
All this division is caused by differences in beliefs but those differences have no bearing on salvation. So don't look for a group to fit into just follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. You already have all the acceptance you need...from God.

[Miss Shelby]

You fit in Michelle...with outcasts like me. I'm totally against division in the body of Christ, that's why I had such a problem with CF deciding to give the "fundies" their own section. You have a Catholic icon, I have a Christian icon, IMO that makes you my sister in Christ.
All this division is caused by differences in beliefs but those differences have no bearing on salvation. So don't look for a group to fit into just follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. You already have all the acceptance you need...from God.I agree. I've always fit in with the outcasts..or they've fit in with me however you wanna look at it. I know, there are too many divisions amongst us, I don't want to add to that by asking these questions, but I really am curious.

But I still want to know how it is determined. The conservative/liberal thing. I mean, who decides it? That is what I don't understand. Is it because the conservative views are more narrow? Maybe that it's.

Michelle

[Mϋzikdϋde]

It's decided by each individual. If you are more liberal than me, I'll tend to call you liberal. If you are more conservative than the general view of your church than you would call your church liberal.
At CF, it's pretty much determined by the majority on either side. If you disagree with anything a fundy says you will pretty much be labeled as liberal (but only by the fundies).
I've argued against both sides so I'm viewed as wishy-washy by both sides.

Good thing they don't decide where I'll spend eternity. I would surely burn in Hell! Mmmmmmwwwwahahahahaha!!!!!!

[Miss Shelby]

you gotta real way of putting things, muzikdude. I think you've just answered my question.

Michelle

[twistedsketch]

I was unsure because you didn't quote me. I thought you may have been referring to opus_dei. And since it kinda came out of left field, I was a bit confused.
[/QUOTE]

No, I was talking to you. I guess I should hit the quote button more aggressively.

Would my stance concerning homosexuality (that is what you're getting at, right?) change your mind about whether I'm a liberal or conservative Christian?

Well, not really, since we established that you are a liberal anyway :). But more conservative Christians condemn homosexuality because the Bible does. Now, some Christians are more liberal than others. And there are people so liberal, they are heretics (believing stuff like Jesus not being the only way to Heaven). I won't put you in the same category as them.

So you may be moderate?

[twistedsketch]

You fit in Michelle...with outcasts like me. I'm totally against division in the body of Christ, that's why I had such a problem with CF deciding to give the "fundies" their own section. You have a Catholic icon, I have a Christian icon, IMO that makes you my sister in Christ.

I don't think this forum will cause division. Rather, it is a nod to the church as a whole, no matter what denomination. As long as we believe the Bible, one can be Catholic, another can be Methodist, another can be Baptist, but we can all find something to agree upon and this can be used to unite, rather than to divide. As long as we keep the right spirit about this place, and leave the debates to the debate section, this should work well.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I don't think this forum will cause division. Rather, it is a nod to the church as a whole, no matter what denomination. As long as we believe the Bible, one can be Catholic, another can be Methodist, another can be Baptist, but we can all find something to agree upon and this can be used to unite, rather than to divide. As long as we keep the right spirit about this place, and leave the debates to the debate section, this should work well.


I consider this to be my second home, the first home being the reformed room. I haven't noticed too much division here.

[Mϋzikdϋde]

But more conservative Christians condemn homosexuality because the Bible does.
...and you truly believe that so I wouldn't tell you that you're wrong. But depending on the particular version of the Bible you choose...it could be misinterpreted. Have you read the Greek and Hebrew versions?

That was an illustration...I refuse to argue the point of homosexuality or Bible interpretation. They are both overdone. I just want to point out that people are labeled by others according to the beliefs of others. Not by any structured system of categorization

[Mϋzikdϋde]

I don't think this forum will cause division. Rather, it is a nod to the church as a whole, no matter what denomination. As long as we believe the Bible, one can be Catholic, another can be Methodist, another can be Baptist, but we can all find something to agree upon and this can be used to unite, rather than to divide. As long as we keep the right spirit about this place, and leave the debates to the debate section, this should work well.
I think the forum as a whole is a good thing...I was mostly referring to the actions of some individuals within the forum. Take a visit to GA or News Disussion. There is plenty of division among Christians there.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I think the forum as a whole is a good thing...I was mostly referring to the actions of some individuals within the forum. Take a visit to GA or News Disussion. There is plenty of division among Christians there.

Just the chaft being separated from the wheat. :)

[Mϋzikdϋde]

Just the chaft being separated from the wheat. :)I didn't know that people at CF had the power to do that. I must have missed that memo from God. I guess I'm a "low grade" Christian then. Of course, some have labeled me as "wheat". Now I don't know what to think. Where do you fall?

Does Erwin have the final say on what is truly in my heart?

Edit: That was sarcasm for the purpose of illustration. I don't want to attack anyone here.

[twistedsketch]

I think the forum as a whole is a good thing...I was mostly referring to the actions of some individuals within the forum. Take a visit to GA or News Disussion. There is plenty of division among Christians there.

Politics.

[Mϋzikdϋde]

Yeah...don't know how I forgot that one

[Christi]

Politics.
I think liberal Christians and fundamentalist Christians can all agree on this:
Politics(or the arguing of them) is as big a temptation for sinning, as situations leading to sexual sins. Lol!

Actually, I'm glad Michelle asked this, because I DO think there is probably a real answer out there. (I just don't know what it is.) I think people tend to view others as Fundamentalist or Liberal based on their political stances, quite often, whether they are conservative or liberal politically, but I know that's probably erroneous.

I actually fit most of the forum rules for fundamentalism, except I don't know whether the Bible was verbally inspired or not. Is that to mean audibly? How do we know either way?

Anyway, we do have to love each other. No other way to translate that one but to do it. :)

[Christi]

P.S. Muzikdude, I know Wilfred didn't mean HE was separating the wheat from the chafe. I know that because while he's one of the fundiest guys I know, he hasn't a mean bone in his body, so I doubt he even meant it sarcastically. (like we would have, if said it.;) Lol)

Christi (who's always afraid her wheat costume will fall off, and everyone will see she's chapped. I mean chafe. Whatever. I'm trying to joke around, am I a miserable failure?)

[Mϋzikdϋde]

Ah...me jumping to conclusions again.

I apologize to Wilfred and ask forgiveness.

[premilldispensationalist]

I hear the terms 'conservative Christain' or 'fundamentalist Christian' vs 'liberal Christian' all the time here at CF. I am having trouble determining where I fit in.

What are the differences and how are they decided? The way that I understand it, if one takes the Bible completely literal they fall under conservative Christian. If one believes the Bible is made up of stories but is not totally literal they are liberal.

And how does the matter of where one stands on social/political issues factor in?

Thanks. :)

Michelle

A conservative theologian holds to Biblical inerrancy whailst a liberal does not. It is as simple as that. I know Christians who are conservative theologically but are socially/politically liberal which somewhat confuses the matter but just remember that a conservative theologian holds to Biblical inerrancy whailst a liberal does not and you will not go too far wrong.

Regards,
Richard Sherratt

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Ah...me jumping to conclusions again.

I apologize to Wilfred and ask forgiveness.

No problem Muzikdude, I should have known better than to have said something like that. Those who know me would have known what I meant, but I can see how it could have been taken wrong. As Christi said, I really didn't mean that I can do this, but I was being a bit sarcastic.

But seriously, God trieth the heart. He knoweth salvation. However, we are also told by the Bible that you will know the tree by its fruit. Just some things to chew on.

[Mϋzikdϋde]

No problem Muzikdude, I should have known better than to have said something like that. Those who know me would have known what I meant, but I can see how it could have been taken wrong. As Christi said, I really didn't mean that I can do this, but I was being a bit sarcastic.

But seriously, God trieth the heart. He knoweth salvation. However, we are also told by the Bible that you will know the tree by its fruit. Just some things to chew on.
I have to laugh because it's so ironic that the most sarcastic people (like me) don't recognize the sarcasm of others.

[Mϋzikdϋde]

A conservative theologian holds to Biblical inerrancy whailst a liberal does not. It is as simple as that. I know Christians who are conservative theologically but are socially/politically liberal which somewhat confuses the matter but just remember that a conservative theologian holds to Biblical inerrancy whailst a liberal does not and you will not go too far wrong.

Regards,
Richard Sherratt
Very well put. You just described me, while I feel that the Bible is inerrant, I am somewhat moderate socially/politically. I also feel that there are areas of scripture that are not to be taken literally. John's Revelation being one of those areas. I think he described what he saw in the best terms he could. I always thought that made me a "Christian outcast" because I didn't fit into any of the molds.
I also have a certain amount of apathy toward those who refuse to accept the truth and don't believe in forcing the issue. I would rather just get along with them and let God cultivate the seed that I've planted. My passions lie elsewhere and one of those passions is the elimination of labels and division among my brothers and sisters in Christ. I've only failed thus far.

[Miss Shelby]

A conservative theologian holds to Biblical inerrancy whailst a liberal does not. It is as simple as that. I know Christians who are conservative theologically but are socially/politically liberal which somewhat confuses the matter but just remember that a conservative theologian holds to Biblical inerrancy whailst a liberal does not and you will not go too far wrong.

Regards,
Richard SherrattThanks Richard, inerrancy means without error and infallible, correct?

Michelle

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The definition for the purposes of this CF forum is listed in a sticky here in this forum. Regardless of what some would like to say, holding a conservative position on Political issues is not necessary. However most people that hold to the definition listed also hold conservative views, but it is not a requirement by any stretch.

[Miss Shelby]

The definition for the purposes of this CF forum is listed in a sticky here in this forum. Regardless of what some would like to say, holding a conservative position on Political issues is not necessary. However most people that hold to the definition listed also hold conservative views, but it is not a requirement by any stretch.I read through some of that thread and I read the rules of this forum as I was required to do before posting. I still think it's a bit confusing. I believe the Bible to be inerrant and infallible, but not comletely literal. Does inerrant and infallible translate to literal? So here I am back at square one. See what I mean? And I KNOW that there are many fundamentalists who do not interpret Scripture the way the Catholic Church does, and I can't help but thinking that by the defintion given, it would make me a liberal in terms of intepreting Scripture in their eyes. Which is fine, but it would seem to me differing interpretations from my own (since I believe mine are correct) are the liberal ones. So I can't help but think it is all a matter of opinion.

Michelle

[Miss Shelby]

BTW, thanks to all who replied. I won't be posting anymore on this thread. :)

Michelle

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Michelle, by definition Catholics are not Fundamentalist as they accept outside authority as well as scripture. By all means feel free to ask questions here, we do tend to be a friendly bunch for the most part ;)

[Miss Shelby]

Michelle, by definition Catholics are not Fundamentalist as they accept outside authority as well as scripture. By all means feel free to ask questions here, we do tend to be a friendly bunch for the most part ;):)

Outside authority?

Okay, well thanks for the welcome flesh. I really do think that I've obtained some more insight and I'm satisfied with the conclusions that I have drawn. If I have questions about anything else, I'll be sure to ask.

Thanks again,

Michelle