Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BUT, why is it tha LARGEST POPULATION of "underclass' and people who are dependent, void of accountability lower standards, and bad behavior are located in areas under CONSERVATIVE RULE...
The "bible-belt" has without question, the LARGEST population of people drawing on SOCIAL SERVICES and the LOWEST EDUCATION and INCOME per capita than anywhere else in the country.
Great job YOU conservatives are doing there in the south...
Theologically, it's easiest to define it, I believe in contrast with "liberal". Liberal theology is the idea that we can interpret the Scriptures according to our situation -- or that it's a "living document", meaning it can have a different meaning today than it did 2000 years ago.
Conservative theology, on the other hand, strives to ask what did the author mean by it? It does not attempt to change the meaning according to the time, place, or people involved.
I believe that ehere you go wrong is in stating that there is an implied mdifference in meaning. The interpretations and applications of that meaning are what are in question.
If you believe that Jesus would say that charity is NOT an individual responsibility, then you don't know Jesus or his teachings at all.
After all, the world of man is made of nothing but individuals. If none of them are "responsible" for helping the needy, the orphan, the widow, the hungry... then who is?
I believe that ehere you go wrong is in stating that there is an implied mdifference in meaning. The interpretations and applications of that meaning are what are in question.
So.... why would support of government programs to reduce inequity preclude individual responsibility? Guess WHAT!? You can do BOTH, and unwillingness to support the government programs smacks of "You can have MY charity on MY terms."
Has it reduced inequity? How's that "war on poverty" working out?
If you believe that Jesus would say that charity is NOT an individual responsibility, then you don't know Jesus or his teachings at all.
After all, the world of man is made of nothing but individuals. If none of them are "responsible" for helping the needy, the orphan, the widow, the hungry... then who is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
THIS, Led, is the poster who did not answer the direct question about which minority he intended that you seemed so sure and told Zthatzman that he would be willing to do so. I guess when he posted this he had not read the rest of our exchange.
I believe that ehere you go wrong is in stating that there is an implied mdifference in meaning. The interpretations and applications of that meaning are what are in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
OK. Perhaps. Could you give an example?
I should also point out that one of the other characteristics of liberal theology is that it generally will not claim that the Bible as received is free from error, even serious error, thus avoiding all the hoops that conservativew theologians have to negotiate to come up with a unified theology that incorporates the whole Bible.
With that in mind, I need to find a subject that won't derail the thread, AND the scriptural basis of which is agreed. That may be hard. Let me think about it.
I should also point out that one of the other characteristics of liberal theology is that it generally will not claim that the Bible as received is free from error, even serious error, thus avoiding all the hoops that conservativew theologians have to negotiate to come up with a unified theology that incorporates the whole Bible.
I would agree. My concern with that though, is how one decides what is and isn't inspired? Many liberal theologians use that mindset to then teach whatever seems good, or right, and Scripture has little to no authority over them or their faith.
Quote:
With that in mind, I need to find a subject that won't derail the thread, AND the scriptural basis of which is agreed. That may be hard. Let me think about it.
If you believe that Jesus would say that charity is NOT an individual responsibility, then you don't know Jesus or his teachings at all.
After all, the world of man is made of nothing but individuals. If none of them are "responsible" for helping the needy, the orphan, the widow, the hungry... then who is?
All His instructions were to the individual. In todays world there are two kins of individuals, those who prefer to give voluntarily, and those who prefer to extract the money through taxation from people be they willing or unwiling.
THIS, Led, is the poster who did not answer the direct question about which minority he intended that you seemed so sure and told Zthatzman that he would be willing to do so. I guess when he posted this he had not read the rest of our exchange.
Yes, I did reply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.