ClubV12 Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 My friends are constantly trying to label me, but I take no such position on any side. We should make decisions based on principle(s), and let them call you what they will.
teresaq Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Out of curiosity, Olger, in what sense are you asking Stan---who can answer for himself, I'm just curious as to how you mean it? As in a generous, loving heart? Accepting of all people as deserving to be treated with respect as opposed to cultish? Or...? What meaning do you attach to the word? And is that the only meaning there is for "liberal"? According to Walter Martin, EGW was an unusual consecrated lady, and there were many consecrated men too. Consecrated is the word I would use, not "liberal." Do you consider yourself liberal, Stan? `oG facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted August 10, 2011 Administrators Posted August 10, 2011 I think that those that find they agree with EGW will likely consider her to be rather like themselves. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
teresaq Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Since we have seen a form of dyslexia operating when it comes to reading certain posts, wouldn't that disability apply when it comes to reading EW, and with the scriptures also? I know I have read both a certain way til, I believe, I was growing in the Lord and my perspective was changing. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
ClubV12 Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 I've found her counsel to be very well balanced. I wasn't looking for it and have been rather suprised to see it. We commonly say things like, "We have to look at the context" of something she says. True, but it goes deeper than that, much like the bible, her writings are at once simple and complex. It's real easy to "read into" any given subject what ever you want to find. Even when you DO understand the context of any given letter or particular counsel.
Moderators John317 Posted August 10, 2011 Moderators Posted August 10, 2011 My friends are constantly trying to label me, but I take no such position on any side. We should make decisions based on principle(s), and let them call you what they will. Couldn't agree with you more, Club. Frankly I've found that as far as the church is concerned, it is often wisest to keep one's political views to oneself because political differences can be a cause of Christians getting into arguments that do nothing but divide them when we ought to be drawing closer to each other for the sake of Christ and of the gospel. Unfortunately a lot of people are unable to love a conservative and many others can't love a liberal-- at least without feeling they are doing them a favor just to be civil with them. LOL I am not saying this is always the case-- it often is not-- but it seems to happen far too often. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators Bravus Posted August 10, 2011 Moderators Posted August 10, 2011 Sounds like we're in one accord. Who's with me in voting for a pol-ban?! (a voluntary ban on classifying our fellow forum denizens as 'liberals' or 'conservatives') Truth is important
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted August 10, 2011 Administrators Posted August 10, 2011 Yep, I'm with you! Labels are useless and counter-productive to dialog. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
teresaq Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Makes sense to me. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Members phkrause Posted August 10, 2011 Members Posted August 10, 2011 Frankly I've found that as far as the church is concerned, it is often wisest to keep one's political views to oneself because political differences can be a cause of Christians getting into arguments that do nothing but divide them when we ought to be drawing closer to each other for the sake of Christ and of the gospel. Unfortunately a lot of people are unable to love a conservative and many others can't love a liberal-- at least without feeling they are doing them a favor just to be civil with them. LOL I am not saying this is always the case-- it often is not-- but it seems to happen far too often. John I see that in every new thread in the political forums. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Moderators John317 Posted August 10, 2011 Moderators Posted August 10, 2011 Yes, and it's unfortunate, because I think politics and discussions about it ought to be fun and enjoyable, not something to get angry at people over. I remember playing hooky from Loma Linda Academy in 1964 in order to walk from Loma Linda to San Bernardino (about 5 miles) because President Lyndon Baines Johnson was going to be campaigning on 5th Street and E. I was a Goldwater supporter, I think the only one there that day. But I enjoyed the whole event. The speeches by the local politicians were funny. Johnson was obviously drunk, had slurred speech and needed help getting up the steps to the platform. I was close enough to him to smell the alcohol. Everyone was just having a good old time-- even during the 2 hours overtime that Johnson and Ladybird took to get there, while they drank martinees-- and were thrilled to see our president, soused like a pig tho' he was. The president had worked as an elevator operator in the old Platt Building on that street corner when he was a 17 year old runaway from home. Anyway, that's what politics has meant to me: having a good time around all the other Americans who are having a good time. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Members phkrause Posted August 10, 2011 Members Posted August 10, 2011 Yes, and it's unfortunate, because I think politics and discussions about it ought to be fun and enjoyable, not something to get angry at people over. I remember playing hooky from Loma Linda Academy in 1964 in order to walk from Loma Linda to San Bernardino (about 5 miles) because President Lyndon Baines Johnson was going to be campaigning on 5th Street and E. I was a Goldwater supporter, I think the only one there that day. But I enjoyed the whole event. The speeches by the local politicians were funny. Johnson was obviously drunk, had slurred speech and needed help getting up the steps to the platform. I was close enough to him to smell the alcohol. Everyone was just having a good old time-- even during the 2 hours overtime that Johnson and Ladybird took to get there, while they drank martinees-- and were thrilled to see our president, soused like a pig tho' he was. The president had worked as an elevator operator in the old Platt Building on that street corner when he was a 17 year old runaway from home. Anyway, that's what politics has meant to me: having a good time around all the other Americans who are having a good time. I know what you mean. Its not just a dislike for the other party, its a hatred and a hatred for anyone that has the gull to even say they like the other party. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Moderators John317 Posted August 10, 2011 Moderators Posted August 10, 2011 It's clear at least to me that this aspect of the American political scene-- the anger and bitter rivalry among the regular voters-- has gotten much worse. It hasn't always been like this. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
BobRyan Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 I think that those that find they agree with EGW will likely consider her to be rather like themselves. And those that differ with her will find her to be rather unlike themselves and more like "the other guys". There are a few places over on the "big left tent" where that point gets made in triplicate. in Christ, Bob John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
Moderators Bravus Posted August 10, 2011 Moderators Posted August 10, 2011 {mentally adds 'big left tent' to the pol-ban, while knowing it's voluntary} Truth is important
fccool Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Yes, liberal is now used to identify with "Communist", rather than what what it was originally meant for what now is defined as "libertarian". I agree that people should abstain from using such labels, because these are rather vague. Even in modern political sense, one is not a %100 liberal, or %100 conservative. There are plenty of conservatives with certain liberal views, and vice versa. Thus the term becomes rather vague and somewhat derogatory.
Recommended Posts