posted on June 14, 2001 02:23:07 PM newYes, Borillar, and I am also cynical enough to suspect that some political strategists attempt to disguise political views in religious clothing because it is a tactical advantage.
Two names come to mind:
Pat Robertson
Jesse Jackson
posted on June 14, 2001 03:17:40 PM new
Though several others come to mind, I would add Falwell and Bush to the list, though Falwell has abandoned his moral majority movement since its failure.
I share none of his religious beliefs, but I've always respected Billy Graham for his ability to separate religion and politics. Insofar as I know he has never advocated political causes or endorsed political agendas. In fact, his stance used to be the standard among Southern Baptists before the 1980s when the conservative political activists began their struggle for power. The parallel between some moderates in the Republican party abandoning ship and moderates in the SBC doing the same is interesting.
posted on June 14, 2001 05:07:05 PM new
Helen-
On page one, you responded to a comment about "fertilizer" in Mississippi. No one had mentioned Mississippi. Thanks for caring.
posted on June 14, 2001 09:34:19 PM new"The parallel between some moderates in the Republican party abandoning ship and moderates in the SBC doing the same is interesting."
Precisely why I started this thread. The conservatives believe that they are the "center" which binds everything together. But the truth is, is that moderates and progressive types are the center and by loosing thier participation, the consrvatives will not be able to retain power for much longer -- either in church or government. Especially now that Americans have seen the high cost of such leadership.
posted on June 14, 2001 09:51:40 PM newthe truth is, is that moderates and progressive types are the center
No, only moderates are the center. Progressives are on the fringe in the same exact way thei conservative counterparts are and the Democrats ought to remember that. They don't win anything on progressive platforms. Moderation always wins the day.
posted on June 14, 2001 10:22:34 PM new
"she is to keep silent."
Are you kidding? (Actually this scripture was related to specific events of the times.) If you look at Proverbs 31, you will see a Biblical picture of "the wife of noble character". Note that she is an independant business owner among other things in which her husband has no dealings.
No really, this whole thread is the most twisted thing I have ever read about the Baptist Church.
Husbands should love an respect wives, live the way they should in every attempt to be Christ-like, then the wife ultimately accepting the decision of the husband is not a problem. Also, children obey your parents. In this type relationship/family, the husband will certianly consult the wife and respect her input. If both are striving for the Biblical standard and in pleasing God, both are under ULTIMATE authority of God and there should be no conflict. Every entity has a "president" and a "vice-president" in order to run effectively. There can't be two chiefs. The home is the same.
In that same vein, each can easily defer to the other what are their better areas of "skill"...or in other words, trust the other's judgment in many many areas.
This is the "ideal" as represented in the Bible. The SBC church enforces nothing in the lives of it's members. They "suggest/teach" the Biblical standard and each lives his/her own life.
36 year experience in Southern Baptist churchs, T.
10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
29 "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all."
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Does that sound oppressive, women?
[ edited by jt on Jun 14, 2001 10:42 PM ]
posted on June 14, 2001 11:30:22 PM new
If you are comfortable and content with being subjugated to men, accepting that women as a class should not be leaders in the family or the church regardless of their individual abilities, and all of these things being propogated and enforced by men, then it must be OK for you.
It reminds me of the very old legal maxim- 'The husband and wife are one person, and that one person is the husband'.
[ edited by reamond on Jun 14, 2001 11:41 PM ]
posted on June 15, 2001 12:51:58 AM new
As a non-christian student of the scriptures, I must point out that although there are some legitimate contradictions in the Bible - very few actually, the majority of the "contradictions are far from such. Aside from the fact that you must read the entire context, I must point out that so much is lost in translation, that the English Bible Is merely an expression of the actual scriptures. That doesn't take away from the fact that the Bible is not without err, but what does amaze me is that in all those "contradictions" you posted, you only got one right. More importantly, you missed the most significant ones. Although you may not have the time, I can assure you that an understanding of the scriptures will not be had by copy/pasting from your favorite anti-christian web site, but only through real study of the works themselves in the actual languages they were written in. If you haven't the patience to learn Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the new, your interpretation of the scriptures is elementary at best.
posted on June 15, 2001 06:37:59 AM new
Every mahor in the SBC is by decided by vote. Women and men alike cast one secret ballot.
Just look around and see how many well known women teachers/instructors/authors there are.
Also because women seem to volunteer more often, aside from the pastor, SBC's have BY FAR more women in leadership roles than men. They are music directors, program directors, teachers, missionaries, etc. These include paid as well as non-paid positions.
A very good study tool is the Complete Bible Library, an encyclopedia type set with the original Greek and Hebrew text with word for word translation and commentary.
A Strong's Concordance is a less expensive option (much like a dictionary) and allows for word comparison from the Greek and Hebrew origins.
posted on June 15, 2001 09:24:33 AM newjt, "Every entity has a "president" and a "vice-president" in order to run effectively. There can't be two chiefs. The home is the same."
That is solely a matter of opinion. My family, my mom and dad are equals and together they raised three kids in a clean house. My personal family is the same way -- I am not the Head of the family, neither is my gal. We are equal partners and have an equal say-so in all things - neither overrules the other at any time. I also have a variety of married friends and they do the same thing the same way with the same success. JT, I feel it is a matter of what you believe to be true and who you hang around with.
"No really, this whole thread is the most twisted thing I have ever read about the Baptist Church."
Hmm ... personal experiences that are not to your liking are twisted? Well, it wasn't to our liking either when these things happened to us and that won't stop us from sharing our experiences with others.
"31 Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate."
See! Women are NOT slaves in the Bible! Here is "proof" that women are to actually be paid for their domestic services. So, being on eBay means that you get to keep your money separate from your husband and spend it on anything that you like, because you are not a slave! This is why the Republicans INSIST on paying women to be wives and do domestic chores, etc. Don't they? It's right there in the Bible telling them all what to do!
edited for sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 15, 2001 09:27 AM ]
posted on June 15, 2001 10:20:36 AM new" Progressives are on the fringe in the same exact way their conservative counterparts are "
No, Progressives are not Liberals or Libertines. Here are a couple of dictionary defitions of Moderate and Progressive:
pro·gres·sive (pre-grčs¹īv) adjective
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive. Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
noun
1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
2. Progressive. A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
mod·er·ate (mņd¹er-īt) adjective
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3. a. Of medium or average quantity or extent. b. Of limited or average quality; mediocre.
4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.
noun
One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.
verb
mod·er·at·ed, mod·er·at·ing, mod·er·ates (mņd¹e-rāt“) verb, transitive
1. To lessen the violence, severity, or extremeness of.
2. To preside over: She was chosen to moderate the convention.
verb, intransitive
1. To become less violent, severe, or extreme; abate.
Everyone ought to make the connection between Moderate and Progressive now.
Not only that, but where else a lot of you seem to be wrong is buying into the Republican Blather Machine hype about what it means to be a Liberal. The Republicans would have you believe that being a Liberal is synonymous with being a Libertine.
lib·er·al (līb¹er-el, līb¹rel) adjective
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
See also synonyms at BROAD-MINDED.
Antonyms: stingy.
lib·er·tine (līb¹er-tźn“) noun
1. One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person.
2. One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker.
posted on June 15, 2001 10:36:12 AM new
A member of any of our political parties can label themselves as "progressive." We all think of ourselves as striving towards better conditions, policies, ideas and methods. It's a totally subjective term. Just depends on the individual's definition of what "better" means.
posted on June 15, 2001 06:37:50 PM new
You're right Toke, that hard definitions of the political spectrum are difficult to pin down. However, it is generally accepted that the spectrum spans from those who want to change things from how they are towards new ideas, those who think that older, tried and true solutions would fix our problems, and then those that wish to simply stay the course and ride things out.
There is a political difference between being Progressive and Regressive. Being a Progresive mean that you want things to change; to have new ideas and ways implemented to fix our problems, while shedding aside the old ways of doing things. That does not necessarily mean Better, just that type of approach.
Then there are Progressives that are Moderates (like me), who want to try new ideas, but not too quickly so that there is the least disruption. Liberals, who are more to the left of center to the extreme left (Socialism) want to hurry things up, seeing no point in wasting any more time than necessary to get things fixed NOW!
While not all conservatives are Regressivies,
they do tend to beling to the right of center to the extreme right (Fascism)
conservative (ken-sūr“ve-tīv) adjective
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
To make matters worse, the definitions are always changing. I recall in 1979-80 when the GOP made the label "Liberal" a dirty swear word, or "the L-Word" if you can recall ronald Reagan saying that. By treating the label of Liberal as filthy and immoral, they have managed to gain the White House since more often than the Democrats have. Then, when the label Conservative becomes synonymous with Fascist, Goosestepping, and Adolf Hitler, the Republicans complain about how unfair that characterization is! Go figure!
I think every marriage is different. If something works then good.
Just out of curiosity, what if you disagree on something major and important?
How do you resolve it? Do you draw straws?
You can't vote because it would be a tie.
It's a sincere question, not poking at you at all.
T
posted on June 16, 2001 10:35:45 AM newjt, we try the best idea, no matter which one provides it. In the case where we can't decide, we go, investigate, and get more information so that we can rationally decide which course of action will work the best.
This system that I am referring to is called an Adult-Adult, from the book "I'm OK, You're OK", a basic social psychology book written in the 1960's. Each person being over the age of 18 years is presumed to be responsible for themselves. No one can take away a person's responsibilities for themselves. It is the meeting of our responsibilities that makes us grow stronger as a person. By presuming to take away responsibility for another, you deny that person their full opportunity for growth.
For instance, I work and so does my gal. We have separate checking accounts, keep our money separate from each other. We each put into the kitty what is necessary for the communal good (bills, bills, bills) and whatnot and whatever is left over is our own business and not open to inspection or approval of the other. It is more than a matter of privacy. The number one cause of fighting in any relationship is over money. I learned the hard way that the worst thing that one can do in a relationship is to mix incomes together and/or to ever co-sign for your partner. Co-signing is what your mommy and daddy are for.
Anyway, by using my system, in six years, we have yet to have single fight or argument. I'm not lying! When we disagree, we apply as much logic as possible and if emotion is ever involved, we can always wait until we cool off before coming back to the topic. Adults, you see - not children. Moreover, it doesn't take one person being dominant over the other.
But does this system work with kids in the house? You bet it does! What raising a family entails is the correct distribution of responsibilities between the parents. Locking anyone into a ROLE pre-ordained for them is just not going to work in half the cases. How many husbands are better suited for domestic roles and the female a better provider/breadwinner? I've met many. But if they had to adhere to the Bible, their family would be a mess, a complete disaster!
So, I hope that answers your question for you. If you want any more information on how this sort of Adult relationship works, just post it here.
posted on June 16, 2001 11:49:15 AM newAnyway, by using my system, in six years, we have yet to have single fight or argument.
Borillar, this is going to sound a bit too personal, so feel free to decline the interaction.
Your situation does not sound like a marriage, and in fact, does not meet important common legal tests for determining "marriage like relationship". Shared money and assets are a crucial such test.
That's not bad, nor is it at all evidence of an abusive relationship. It does however suggest lack of commitment. Refusing to cosign for one's partner is, patently, lack of commitment. A good marriage is commitment, total commitment.
Once totally committed, for most people anyway, the no-fight, no-argument phase is over. Conflicts exist, and must be resolved one way or the other.
I know many good Christian marriages, and many good non-Christian marriages. Theology notwithstanding, they don't work that differently. In none of the good Christian marriages does the male assert any hard authority over the wife. They have arguments. Sometimes the husband "loses" (gives in). The Biblical notion of the male role is commonly implemented, by the male, as "the male is responsible for the family in most ways". Not so different from the male role in most good marriages.
I don't doubt that evil husbands sometimes attempt to justify their behavior by some Biblican citation. There is, however, a well known phenomenom at play when you hear stories from women who escaped. Consider that a substantial minority of ex-wives accuse thier ex-husbands of child molesting. The vast majority of such accusations are shown false (while some are of course true). How much easier would it be to accuse one's ex-husband of all manner of non-criminal oppression?
posted on June 16, 2001 12:51:23 PM new
My husband and I have been married for 27 years and we have always had separate finances. His income was twice as much as mine when we first married. Since he earned more, he paid the mortgage and the car expenses. I paid the utilities and we shared the cost of groceries. Now I earn the larger salary and I pay a larger share of the bills. We don't argue over money, and we don't co-sign for each other because it is not necessary. It doesn't mean that we refuse to co-sign -- it just isn't necessary.
Separate finances has helped our relationship. Neither of us feels a need to be in control. We are both too independent.
posted on June 16, 2001 01:48:25 PM new"does not meet important common legal tests"
Personally, I don't feel as though the law has any place in trying to determine what sort of a relationship I am in. Given the complexities of relationships, the law can hardly be able to define any but the simplest and most common notion of what a relationship is. That is the reason why the law does not define a marriage, but with marriage, it is concerned soeley in the aspect of finances and property and other contracts. The rest is left up to the people to decide for themselves what is proper based upon their upbringing and beliefs.
"Conflicts exist, and must be resolved one way or the other."
Are you referring to conflicts between individuals in a relationship? I deny the notion that there must be fighting, arguing, and conflict in a relationship. I have not exposed all of the phylosophy that our relationship runs on that makes it so smooth; and certainly, individual personalities play a large role. But it is the willingness to accept the fact that Adults decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and take responsiblility for those choices that they make or fail to make. In our case, I reject anything that does not work for us and accept everything that doees work for us. I am not saying that our relationship is one-hundred percent perfect, but there is no anymosity that arrises between us, no fighting, no arguing, no hassles.
Keep asking me any questions if you want to that you feel is relevant and I'll try to answer them as best I can. I had no idea that this would make such a good subject.
posted on June 16, 2001 09:02:01 PM newAre you referring to conflicts between individuals in a relationship? I deny the notion that there must be fighting, arguing, and conflict in a relationship.
In a friendly, investigative vein, Borillar, I'm surely not asserting any negative opinion regarding your relationship. If it works for you and her, I'm happy for you.
What I'm saying is not that there must be conflict, but rather that total commitment means that conflicts must be resolved.
That last sentence seems itself in conflict, but that's sort of how it turns out. While a relationship maintains a flavor of "if and when it makes sense to me, I'm moving on", conflicts are minimized. For many people, this is a good bargain. It works fine. In fact, it works better than a whole lot of marriages. But it ain't marriage. Not Christian marriage, not non-Christian marriage. At its best, it is eventually shown to have been a form of extended courtship. Par, it lasts a while, and then it is over, just as the rules allow.
[ edited by roofguy on Jun 16, 2001 09:03 PM ]
posted on June 16, 2001 09:26:50 PM new
Roofguy, I'm reading and responding in as much of a Vulcan as I can be (emotionless). Posts tend to come across poorly at times and I have no emotional content in this thread.
"What I'm saying is not that there must be conflict, but rather that total commitment means that conflicts must be resolved."
You still didn't answer the question. Are you referring to conflicts between individuals in a relationship?
posted on June 16, 2001 09:35:33 PM new
As far as whether I am in a "Christian Marriage", I think that's up to God to decide.
I deny that the Christian Marriage Way is the Alpha-male Domination Veto method. I don't care at all what it says in the rest of the Bible, because Jesus treated EVERYONE as equals and asked us to do the same. If your interpretation is not the way of Jesus and you call it Christian Marriage, that's your affair.
In my most recent experience with the SBC...you have it right on point. I am from a protestant background, It is the Congregational Church that I was brought up in. We were taught that there are many different religions, who do things differently...but that does not make them wrong or us wrong. We even had a Jewish meal around Hanukah(sp?)...because he wanted to show us part of our religious history. Women can, and are Ministers, Pastors. In a marriage both are equal.
When I moved to the South, and met my now husband...he didn't believe at all in religion. I did not push him, as it is everyones right to believe what they want to.
Well, one week after we were married...he comes out with I have been saved. I did not know what to think of this, since he never said a word, and I knew how he felt about religion. It seems that his boss is a Southern Babtist, and was holding prayer meetings at work, first thing in the Morning.
He tried to tell me what to believe, because the Husband is the spiritual leader!
That did not sit well with me. I knew alot more at that time then he did, and what type of religion is going to tell me that what I think is wrong, and I have to do what he says?
They told him to start carrying a bible in his truck. I asked him why? I believe that you do not have to carry a bible where ever you go, and keep telling people what a good Christian you are! If you have faith, and are a good person, people will now it. It is something in your heart...not in something you carry. He told them I was not happy with this...so they told him to get one, and not tell me! What kind of religion will tell a husband to lie to his wife!
They judge more than any type of religion that I know of.
I asked him. If woman are not supposed to spread the word of God...than why did Jesus hide himself from the men after he was resurected but when a woman came, he came out of hiding, and had her spread the word?
He had no answer...So he asked one of the Babtists and they said....It doesn't mean anything! That is their answer for the parts of the Bible that they don't agree with. They gave him a booklet that told him what parts of the Bible to read, and which ones they didn't have to. Nothing like picking and choosing to make your
point.
There is alot more that I can say, but since this is getting so long, I will stop.
All is good now though, He isn't wrapped up in the Southern Babtist ways anymore!
And someone asked if there is a difference between Babtists and Southern Babtists. Well, the Congregational Church here, there is a couple that come down here for the winter, and they are Babtist. But they will not go to the Babtists Church here.
posted on June 17, 2001 09:22:55 AM newAre you referring to conflicts between individuals in a relationship?
Yes.
And if you call a discussion over how to resolve a conflict an argument, then arguments are required to resolve conflict. Discussion of the conflict is the key concept.
Lack of commitment minimizes conflict, because there's the "big out" if things get too tough.
I deny that the Christian Marriage Way is the Alpha-male Domination Veto method.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, but I agree with you. By their actions, so do most members of successful Christian marriages, incluing those who would call themselves fundamentalists.
posted on June 18, 2001 12:38:30 AM new
Hello ashadowdancer, and thank you for being able to see through the thought control tactics of the Fundies. If you go with what Jesus taught, it will set you free. If you ignore what he said and did, the rest of the Bible can be made to justify just about anything that you can imagine. The Fundies offer nothing but chains for the mind, chains for the soul.
posted on June 18, 2001 12:48:47 AM new"Are you referring to conflicts between individuals in a relationship?"
"Yes."
Once again, I have to state that conflicts between the adults in a relationship are not necessary. My gal and I do not suffer from conflicts, we have never had a fight, never shouted at each other, never made the other cry -- it just is not something that must be in a relationship.
"Lack of commitment minimizes conflict, because there's the "big out" if things get too tough."
I'll take your word for it, because I never go half-assed into a relationship. I can tell you though, that the best way to minimize conflict is to have open communication and to not make decisions when you are mad or angry about something, not necessarily a relationship either.
Along with that comes mututal respect for the other person. It helps to acknowledge that there are times when the other person is in a better position to know the issues and their solutions than you do, and you must give into that person if you trust that person's judgement. There are times when I know what I'm talking about better than she does and then, there are things that crop up that she knows more about it than I do and I give in to her solutions. A rational approach to resolving problems.
I just can not understand your comment that this does not qualify as a Christian Marriage.
posted on June 18, 2001 05:32:56 AM new
I understand, Borillar.
Your marriage meets a standard of perfection and excellence that conservative Christians are not programmed to deal with. From their viewpoint, your kind of marriage should only happen in heaven, you see. Christians need suffering and obsequious servility here on earth in order to believe that there is something better to look forward to in "heaven."
posted on June 18, 2001 12:49:27 PM new
LOL, Helen!
It is not perfection, nor Heaven that I have here. Maybe, compared to many rocky relationships it does look like Heaven. I spent many years dating and trying many relationships, trying to grok what the heck it was all about. I learned how stupid, greedy, and selfish I could be and I am ashamed for it; as well as the other person doing the same thing. Eventually, I came up with a bunch of guidelines that I go by that keeps my relationship great. And when looking back on them, I realized that following the words and ways of Jesus was exactly the same thing. I ended up going full circle.
In case you are looking for a tip, here's the greatest one that I live by:
THE FIRST-DAY PRINCIPLE
-----------------------
For me, I noticed that my attitudes were the best the very first time that I met a person. I took nothing for granted and was meticulous in my praise. I was always most polite and respectful and I never simply assumed anything about that person at that point in the relationship.
I noticed that those attributes would degrade from there as the gal and I grew more familiar with each other. Left to itself, the relationship would eventually decline to the point where it ended. This happened repeatedly and I felt that there must be something that could be done to get out of that rut.
What I decided to do was to pretend in my mind that every time that I saw or did something with my gal, I'd put my mind into that state where I was meeting her for the very first time. When I wake up in the morning, I keep that awkward feeling that one has when seeing your lover in the morning for the very first time and I appreciate the fact that she is here. I always politely greet her and thank her if she makes breakfast, including making yummy sounds. I do not ask her to make breakfast, since I am an adult over the age of 18 and having two hands of my own, I can easily make my own. When she has something to say, I stop the music or mute the TV volume and give her my full attention. I listen to what she has to say, consider the fact that she probably knows what she is talking about, and inject no emotion into it, unless she's telling me something that is supposed to be funny.
The results were truly amazing.
What was most amazing was that it scared the hell out of potential mates. I swear to God here that this is true: I actually had women bolt from the relationship, stating that it was too unnatural not to be fighting and arguing! Can you believe it?
What it finally took was running into my current love. She was quite sheltered at home by very nice parents. She never had any self-esteem and never had any relationship of any substance -- at least, it never got to the fighting and arguing part. Therefore, the lack of conflict in the relationship is seen by her as being perfectly natural.
I have others, but I would say that this is the primary method that I use to achieve the level of harmony in my relationship that we currently enjoy. Maybe, these simple things that Christ taught ought to be applied to "Christian Marriages" and make them harmonious as well?
"Maybe, these simple things that Christ taught ought to be applied to "Christian Marriages" and make them harmonious as well?"
The answer is, of course, a resounding Yes!
Your gal is a lucky gal.
I don't know much about religions of the world, but based on what I have read, it would appear to me that Jesus would be considered a liberal if he were alive today.
posted on June 18, 2001 11:27:30 PM new
One must only wonder what in the hell one must be reading to believe that Jesus would be a liberal. Abortions, gay rights and massive government taxation. I hardly think any of those are very Christian ideas.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
