If you're conservative,

[silliness7]

I'm not finished reading. Forgive me if this has already been hashed out.

 

Believing in the spiritual concept of Total Depravity does NOT mean all people are psychopaths.

 

Depraved does not equal psychopath. This term has been around for centuries and today's connotations are not pretty. It reminds me of a recent grammar conversation about the meaning of the Perfect Tense. Imperfect Verb Tense doesn't mean there is a flaw in your sentence. ;)

 

I feel that most people are good and decent people who do not mean me any harm, or like a pp said, I would carry a gun.

 

Total Depravity means that no one will seek to be reconciled to God without God's reaching down to that person and intervening.

 

When the Bible speaks of our hearts being inclined towards evil it doesn't mean that we are plotting murder all of the time. It means we are focused on self instead of focused on God. We are born that way and we remain that way until touched by God.

 

To God self-centeredness = evil

To random member of society self-centeredness = normal.

........murdering, raping, pillaging = evil

 

So I believe that people are born evil (according to God's definition). We are born hating God and loving self and we cannot change that without God's help. I also believe that most people function within the laws of society and are happy to do so. We like to help people and make people happy. We're good people.

 

The danger is believing that that societal goodness, helpful attitudes, and kind personalities are enough to please God.

 

After reading up to post #56 it still feels like there are two definitions of good and evil floating around here.

[Spy Car]

The bible never says Adam and Eve were perfect' date=' God called them "very good". The bible calls Adam "earthy", and Jesus "Heavenly" - Adam was not created heavenly and fell to earthy, he was created earthy.

 

They chose with the nature that God created them with. They did not need a sinful nature to make a choice for disobedience. The bible says nothing about man's nature changing.

[/quote']

 

Not so. In Genesis 3:22 it states:

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

 

So man (including woman) has changed and become more like God (and perhaps more like a heavenly party, as the plural "us" is ambitious).

 

It is clear man's nature in the story has changed, and changed in the direction of being more like God, knowing right from wrong and good from evil.

 

Bill

[sheryl]

Not so. In Genesis 3:22 it states:

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

 

So man (including woman) has changed and become more like God (and perhaps more like a heavenly party, as the plural "us" is ambitious).

 

It is clear man's nature in the story has changed, and changed in the direction of being more like God, knowing right from wrong and good from evil.

 

Bill

 

Ah, excellent, Bill! This is right! When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit there desire perhaps was to usurp God's authority over them. In any event, their eyes were "opened" and everything changed.....you worded it well.

[sheryl]

The bible never says Adam and Eve were perfect' date=' God called them "very good". The bible calls Adam "earthy", and Jesus "Heavenly" - Adam was not created heavenly and fell to earthy, he was created earthy.

 

 

 

They chose with the nature that God created them with. They did not need a sinful nature to make a choice for disobedience. The bible says nothing about man's nature changing.

 

 

 

Adam's death was not spiritual, but physical. He was removed from the tree of life.[/quote']

 

Where did I use the word nature? I don't have time to look it up.

[nukeswife]

Why do they have to be predominantly one or the other?

 

In the words of one Sirius Black..

 

"Besides, the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters. We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the power we choose to act on. That's who we really are."

 

 

 

:iagree: This

 

I consider myself a conservative when it comes to politics, but I'm not a religious person so I don't know how conservative plays into that.

[susankenny]

Because we all have sinned - violated our own conscience' date=' our own understanding of right and wrong - and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

Man does not need a dead spirit to be capable of sin. Can you show me scriptures that say man's spirit died when Adam sinned? It is assumed, but the Word never says it.[/quote']

 

What is it to be born again then? What is scripture talking about? Do you not believe it is a spiritual birth? Also, it may not specifically say "Adam died spiritually that day". However, scripture does talk about spiritually dead people a lot. What is the point of it, if people can't be spiritually dead?

 

 

Susan

[Spy Car]

Ah, excellent, Bill! This is right! When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit there desire perhaps was to usurp God's authority over them. In any event, their eyes were "opened" and everything changed.....you worded it well.

 

The motives of Man (Adam and Eve) are not spoken of in this book. God seems fearful of usurpation (and so takes quick action to cut them off from the Tree of Life) but in any case Man has become more like God in bringing able to tell good from evil, and God in the story sees that as a threat.

 

Bill

[Catherine]

I think it makes you an anomaly. The people I know who have uber-security systems, who won't drive through the (residential) black neighborhoods, who are ALWAYS "looking out for number one" are all very conservative politically.

[BarbecueMom]

I consider myself a conservative when it comes to politics, but I'm not a religious person so I don't know how conservative plays into that.

 

 

This is me, too. Nonspiritual conservative. I don't believe everyone is inherently good or bad, just woefully inconsistent.

[sheryl]

The motives of Man (Adam and Eve) are not spoken of in this book. God seems fearful of usurpation (and so takes quick action to cut them off from the Tree of Life) but in any case Man has become more like God in bringing able to tell good from evil, and God in the story sees that as a threat.

 

Bill

 

Perhaps, Bill, but just as "prayer changes things" is not in the Bible, any Believer will tell you that this is a true statement that is "inferred" in the Bible and in fact evidenced in people's lives through testimony, etc. So, there needs to be that clarification.

 

I need to respectfully disagree with the statement that God is fearful. God is not fearful of anyone or anything. God is love not One of fear.

 

The point is there eyes were "opened" and they now had knowledge of issues that God had pertaining to good and evil.

[6packofun]

THIS. :iagree: Amen, well-said.

[The Governess]

I rarely respond to posts like this because I don't always know how to articulate my beliefs, and also because I usually take such a moderate stance that I can't decide which side I'm on. :D But I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately, so I will take a stab at explaining my (probably error-filled) view of the issue. Also, because of my moderateness I haven't voted. ;)

 

I believe that humans are inherently selfish. I'm not sure that is the same thing as being inherently bad. I wouldn't call a dog that steals food from a weaker pack member bad, I would say he was following his (selfish) survival instincts.

 

The difference between humans and all other animals is that humans have knowledge of our selfishness (and I think this goes back to humans receiving the knowledge of good and evil). And we know that we have a choice. We can choose to act on our selfish instinct, or choose to make a different choice - to do something that doesn't seem to benefit us, that might mean more work for us, that might mean sacrificing something rather important to us for the sake of someone else. We have received knowledge of a different, superior, moral code that exists above acting on basic survival instincts (and this knowledge sure makes things complicated).

 

This knowledge is where good and evil stems from. When we know there is a better choice and we decide against making that choice for selfish reasons, that is an evil act. On the other hand, when we choose to follow the higher moral standard (follow the golden rule, sacrifice something for the good of others), that is a good act. Without this knowledge, I don't think we would have the ability to do evil OR good - we would simply BE. So, I'm not sure that I believe that humans are inherently either good or evil, but I do believe that each of us is born with the potential to do much evil or much good.

 

Now, I DO think that it is easier to choose evil than to choose good, and that without encouragement, guidance, and accountability we would make more "evil" choices than good ones.

 

And that's as far as I've thought this out. Hope it makes a little sense at least. :tongue_smilie:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I think it makes you an anomaly. The people I know who have uber-security systems, who won't drive through the (residential) black neighborhoods, who are ALWAYS "looking out for number one" are all very conservative politically.

I find that comment odd. I know quite a few black conservative Christians. They are leaders in the congregation. I have had several black brothers and sisters very involved in raising me.

[Rene']

Not so. In Genesis 3:22 it states:

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

 

So man (including woman) has changed and become more like God (and perhaps more like a heavenly party, as the plural "us" is ambitious).

 

It is clear man's nature in the story has changed, and changed in the direction of being more like God, knowing right from wrong and good from evil.

 

Bill

 

I would disagree that their nature was what changed. But you are right, the knowledge of good and evil is a good thing, so in this regard man steps up a level, not down. They actually become *more* spiritually aware.

 

I would argue that this knowledge was limited to Adam and Eve alone and did not pass to "mankind". Babies are not born with this knowledge but come upon it through their experience, just like Adam and Eve.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Rene'

[Plucky]

I find that comment odd. I know quite a few black conservative Christians. They are leaders in the congregation. I have had several black brothers and sisters very involved in raising me.

 

I do as well. In fact, the most conservative person I know is a Black man. He's awesome, too.

[susankenny]

I find that comment odd. I know quite a few black conservative Christians. They are leaders in the congregation. I have had several black brothers and sisters very involved in raising me.

 

Thank you. I thought it was odd too. All politically conservative people are not racist & rich.

 

 

Susan

[Lovedtodeath]

If God was fearful of Adam and Eve usurping his authority why was the tree of knowledge of good and bad in the garden to begin with. He wasn't.

[Rene']

Where did I use the word nature? I don't have time to look it up.

 

Perhaps you didn't. Most Christians equate spiritual death with man obtaining a sinful nature. I believe neither is supported by scripture.

[Spy Car]

Perhaps, Bill, but just as "prayer changes things" is not in the Bible, any Believer will tell you that this is a true statement that is "inferred" in the Bible and in fact evidenced in people's lives through testimony, etc. So, there needs to be that clarification.

 

I need to respectfully disagree with the statement that God is fearful. God is not fearful of anyone or anything. God is love not One of fear.

 

The point is there eyes were "opened" and they now had knowledge of issues that God had pertaining to good and evil.

 

We can agree on this last point. Man, according to the story now has the the ability to discern good from evil. This, of course means that this capacity was lacking previously.

 

Which means Man could not have "sinned" when he (and she) ate from "the fruit" because "to sin" requires the moral capacity to distinguish right from wrong (a capacity they did not have) and disobedience without moral capacity has no moral weight, and therefore is not "sin." Yes?

 

As to God's nature, I believe the Bible includes God's own self-description as being (among other things) wrathful, jealous and angry, and offers stories when these impulses are acted upon.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I would disagree that their nature was what changed. But you are right' date=' the knowledge of good and evil is a good thing, so in this regard man steps up a level, not down. They actually become *more* spiritually aware.

 

I would argue that this knowledge was limited to Adam and Eve alone and did not pass to "mankind". Babies are not born with this knowledge but come upon it through their experience, just like Adam and Even.[/quote']

 

I think that I see the point of this story much the way you do. Not as a "Fall" into sinfulness, but a step up in terms of awareness that brings with it difficulties, as we all realize that we are imperfect and (unless we are sociopaths) experience guilt and self-recrimination over our failings.

 

But this makes us "human" rather than being unconscious animals, and all part of the plan.

 

Bill

[Catherine]

That's not what I said. I said the ones I know were. I don't know everyone.

[Free]

When we know there is a better choice and we decide against making that choice for selfish reasons, that is an evil act. On the other hand, when we choose to follow the higher moral standard (follow the golden rule, sacrifice something for the good of others), that is a good act. Without this knowledge, I don't think we would have the ability to do evil OR good - we would simply BE.

 

IMO, an evil act is rarely so simple and straightforward as "choosing" to do wrong or "choosing" what is bad. Our actions depend on the filters through which we see situations and the emotional baggage that we collect from our upbringing and experiences.

[Rene']

What is it to be born again then? What is scripture talking about? Do you not believe it is a spiritual birth?

 

It is a spiritual birth but not because our spirit is dead. It's contrasting the flesh and the spirit. The earthy and the heavenly.

 

 

 

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered,

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

Joh 3:6

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

 

 

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

 

1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

 

1Co 15:49

And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

We were born of the flesh, we have borne the image of the earthy - Adam was created in flesh, and of the earth, earthy. We need to be born of the spirit so we can bear the image of the heavenly.

 

Also, it may not specifically say "Adam died spiritually that day". However, scripture does talk about spiritually dead people a lot.

 

Can you post some? I contend that the scriptures say nothing about anyone being spiritually dead.

 

 

What is the point of it, if people can't be spiritually dead?

 

I have no idea what you mean by this? What is the point of what?

[FrogMom5]

I believe people are basically good. We all make mistakes and have selfish desires at times, but we strive to be good. Only a few give in to their selfishness all the time.

 

Denise

[Lovedtodeath]

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-53.htm

 

For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality.

[The Governess]

IMO, an evil act is rarely so simple and straightforward as "choosing" to do wrong or "choosing" what is bad. Our actions depend on the filters through which we see situations and the emotional baggage that we collect from our upbringing and experiences.

 

Oh, I agree that it is a rather simplistic explanation. I think that how "good" or "evil" an act is depends on many, many factors, including background, intent, physical, emotional, and mental capacity, etc. I also think it's possible for a choice to have both good and evil elements. Some choices are clear cut, and others are not. I was intending for the explanation to be a generalization for an issue that is very complex and could be a topic all on its own. :D

[Aubrey]

Thank you. I thought it was odd too. All politically conservative people are not racist & rich.

 

 

Susan

 

No, I think you're turning around what she said: all the racist, rich people she knows are conservative. That's different from saying all conservatives are racist & rich.

 

Perhaps still an odd comment, lol, but maybe not quite as offensive. Unless you happen to be racist, rich, & liberal. :001_huh::lol:

[Ginevra]

I have not read any replies.

 

do you believe people are basically good or basically bad?

I am fairly conservative, but I believe people are basically good. To me, it's clear that events/traumas/experiences and upbringing play a very substantial role in how a person behaves as an adult. There are also organic problems that can fuel "bad" behavior.

 

I do think "people are basically bad" is a core tenant of the Christian faith, though. It's one of the points I pretty much ignore. ;)

[susankenny]

It is a spiritual birth but not because our spirit is dead. It's contrasting the flesh and the spirit. The earthy and the heavenly.

 

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered' date='

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

Joh 3:6

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

 

 

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

 

1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

 

1Co 15:49

And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

We were born of the flesh, we have borne the image of the earthy - Adam was created in flesh, and of the earth, earthy. We need to be born of the spirit so we can bear the image of the heavenly.

 

 

 

Can you post some? I contend that the scriptures say nothing about anyone being spiritually dead.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea what you mean by this? What is the point of what?

 

Very interesting. I do disagree with you, but respectfully so. Even the verse you quoted, I interpret to support my own belief and not your POV - so go figure. I believe sin is not merely a behavior. I believe it is something we are born into & it is a disposition in each man that has been passed down through Adam. I believe our communion with God was literally broken (between mankind & heaven) when Adam & Eve sinned. If man can *choose* (and succeed) to be good on his own, than I see no need for a Savior or the Holy Spirit. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, which is easy to do when typing a conversation. As for scripture, you can google it and many people will gladly have opinions on the subject matter of spiritual death. I just googled "spiritual death+biblical?" and lots came up -specifically in the NT. I imagine each verse will be interpreted differently though, just as I did with your "proof". We can also start another thread if you'd like, as I think this is very interesting and worth discussing. I appreciate your honesty.

 

 

Susan

Edited April 13, 2011 by susankenny

[Daisy]

I assumed the op was asking whether we were conservative or not and whether we believed in the concept of original sin.

 

I voted that I was conservative and I consider people basically bad.

 

Now if we want to get into the nitty gritty of it. I'd be more likely to say that God created man and woman in his own image and declared them GOOD. However through Adam's sin (The Fall), we have all sinned. We are born with original sin. We are sinners and we behave sinfully. You could just as easily write we are bad and we behave badly.

 

It doesn't have to stay that way though.

[sheryl]

To Bill, the thread is not allowing me reply to yours. This is for you.

 

 

 

Capacity was lacking....ok Bill, I see where you are with that. Remember that God "provided" for EVERYTHING they needed in the Garden. They did not lack anything. They did not have "reason" to discern good and evil for all was right in the Garden before the fall. I hit a key and lost my following text, but something like: Yes, at that exact moment when Eve ate the fruit and enticed Adam to follow the same, that is when sin "entered" the world. Did sin exist before hand...NO. At that moment sin was birthed for all mankind. Did they sin? Well, the Bible does not use that word. I don't see in my nasb version that they disobeyed. But......drum roll, they did! I would need to look at my earlier post, but I think I said that upon eating of the fruit that is when sin entered the world. To me I equate disobedience to sin. Are there any times we can be disobedient to God and "not" sin?

Edited April 13, 2011 by sheryl

[sheryl]

Perhaps you didn't. Most Christians equate spiritual death with man obtaining a sinful nature. I believe neither is supported by scripture.

 

Rene,

 

I do believe that sin does result in spiritual death. UNLESS a person accepts our Redeemer then that person will not have eternal life.

 

So, yes, we all sin. Some will never confess, repent and accept Jesus....unfortunately (as I understand God's word) they will not have eternal salvation. I can not read the mind of God and whether He will choose to exercise His compassion on the unsaved during other "times" in the future.

 

Those that live a life for Christ or have a relationship with Him will have eternal salvation.

 

At this point, we can chase each other down bunny trails and get off the topic at hand.

[lionfamily1999]

But can we really be totally without God in this lifetime (the afterlife is a different matter IMO)?

We can choose to act and live without God. It doesn't mean that He turns from us or doesn't influence our lives. It means that we choose to refuse the light/heat/presence of God.

Thanks for overgeneralizing and stereotyping. :glare:

 

Typical elitist "we liberals are SOOOO much more enlightened than you Neanderthal conservatives" attitude. :thumbdown:

I read that the exact opposite. That big government pushers (ie liberals) didn't trust people to be good and take care of themselves. Small government pushers expected people to be good and take care of themselves.

 

:lol: Funny how that can work out.

:lol:

 

A POLL, addressed to CONSERVATIVES, is attracting an awful lot of liberals!!

:iagree: It's crazy. I thought that when people were not the ones being addressed they were supposed to keep their comments out?!?

Oh yes, good point. How dare they come into this thread in order to add their thoughts on the matter.

:lol:

[[email protected]]

1) Play nice.

 

2) Those who are self-identified NOT conservative should not be chiming in on a thread marked "If you are a conservative...."

 

3) If you add an inappropriate tag, be ready for a temporary ban.

 

Moderator

[Spy Car]

Withdrawn due to last post by Moderator

Edited April 13, 2011 by Spy Car

[Rene']

I believe sin is not merely a behavior. I believe it is something we are born into & it is a disposition in each man that has been passed down through Adam. I believe our communion with God was literally broken (between mankind & heaven) when Adam & Eve sinned. If man can *choose* (and succeed) to be good on his own, than I see no need for a Savior or the Holy Spirit. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, which is easy to do when typing a conversation.

 

We know that all have sinned. Not only because the Bible tells us this, but because we know ourselves and those around us. We know that we have not done right 100% of the time. The good that we do cannot cover the bad we have done. If a man cannot chose between good and evil, then God is unjust to send sinners to hell when they had no choice and were just doing what was natural to them.

[Spy Car]

1) Play nice.

 

2) Those who are self-identified NOT conservative should not be chiming in on a thread marked "If you are a conservative...."

 

3) If you add an inappropriate tag, be ready for a temporary ban.

 

Moderator

 

Honest question, are these the new board rules?

 

I have never seen such a condition for participation invoked by a Moderator (as in point 2) in a thread such as "Are You a Liberal?" or Are You an Atheist?" so I'm highly surprised to see it here.

 

So can you please explain the ground-rules?

 

Bill

[[email protected]]

Withdrawn to to last post by Moderator

 

The Moderator thanks you.

[Rene']

Rene,

 

I do believe that sin does result in spiritual death. UNLESS a person accepts our Redeemer then that person will not have eternal life.

 

You believe it was Adam's sin that resulted in the spiritual death of everyone though, right? The bible says that God breathed into man the "breath" of life. That word "breath" is the same Hebrew used in this verse:

 

Pro 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

 

Man does not have a dead spirit. This does not mean he can't sin.

 

 

At this point, we can chase each other down bunny trails and get off the topic at hand.

 

No need. Thank you for the discussion. :001_smile:

Edited April 13, 2011 by Rene'

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Bill,

 

you said

 

Honest question, are these the new board rules?

 

I have never seen such a condition for participation invoked by a Moderator (as in point 2) in a thread such as "Are You a Liberal?" or Are You an Atheist?" so I'm highly surprised to see it here.

 

So can you please explain the ground-rules?

 

A not unreasonable question.

 

I would call this an application of the following rule:

 

"Do not assume that everyone on the boards shares a particular religious conviction. These boards are inclusive. You are welcome to ask theological questions, but don't post as though everyone who frequents the boards shares your ideology. Offending posts may be deleted. Don't use inquiries as an excuse to proselytize for anything. Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism. For example: If someone asks, "What are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?" don't launch into an explanation of how evil Halloween is. If someone asks, "Is Halloween evil?" have a ball. (Conversely: if someone posts, "We don't do Halloween; what can we substitute?" don't take this as an opportunity to prove to them that Halloween is really just fine.)"

 

Which, in a more general sense, means: Don't jump into threads not directed at you to explain why the people who ARE involved are wrong.

 

Actually we have closed/deleted threads on these other topics in the past because they went so far off-topic for the same reason, so maybe it's time to just say, generally:

 

If the thread says, "Hey, all of you [X],"

 

and you're not X,

 

why would you really jump in?

 

Plenty of threads *I* don't weigh in on.

 

SWB

[Aubrey]

Actually we have closed/deleted threads on these other topics in the past because they went so far off-topic for the same reason, so maybe it's time to just say, generally:

 

If the thread says, "Hey, all of you [X],"

 

and you're not X,

 

why would you really jump in?

 

Plenty of threads *I* don't weigh in on.

 

SWB

 

Fwiw, this poll is the result of a conversation Bill & I were having. I didn't mean for people to have to *defend* their pov, just state it. (Maybe you should laugh at me here!)

 

Would it be ok for liberals to participate if they're polite & genuinely curious about the conservative pov?

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

you said

 

 

 

A not unreasonable question.

 

I would call this an application of the following rule:

 

"Do not assume that everyone on the boards shares a particular religious conviction. These boards are inclusive. You are welcome to ask theological questions, but don't post as though everyone who frequents the boards shares your ideology. Offending posts may be deleted. Don't use inquiries as an excuse to proselytize for anything. Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism. For example: If someone asks, "What are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?" don't launch into an explanation of how evil Halloween is. If someone asks, "Is Halloween evil?" have a ball. (Conversely: if someone posts, "We don't do Halloween; what can we substitute?" don't take this as an opportunity to prove to them that Halloween is really just fine.)"

 

Which, in a more general sense, means: Don't jump into threads not directed at you to explain why the people who ARE involved are wrong.

 

Actually we have closed/deleted threads on these other topics in the past because they went so far off-topic for the same reason, so maybe it's time to just say, generally:

 

If the thread says, "Hey, all of you [X],"

 

and you're not X,

 

why would you really jump in?

 

Plenty of threads *I* don't weigh in on.

 

SWB

 

Susan, if the boards are inclusive I would think that would mean responding to threads would not be limited only to those who are of one opinion about things.

 

If that is not the case, I will play by whatever rules you make.

 

In the history of reading this forum, which goes back to reading (but not posting on the old board) I can not recall post by a Moderator telling a person they could not respond to a thread such as "Are You a Liberal" or "Are You an Atheist?" when they were self-identified as neither.

 

The reason I jumped in is the thread involves issues the OP and I have discussed over time, and I have an interest in that conversation.

 

If we are now to stay out of threads about X because we are not X that seems like a very profound change in the culture of this board. Maybe you want to give this a little thought?

 

Bill

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Bill: Yes, I have given it "a little" thought. Ten years' worth (which is how long we've been trying to keep peace on these boards).

 

FWIW, I only dropped in because your post with "honesty" in quotation marks was reported by others, and the moderators wondered how to handle it. The boards have been fractious recently, and I find myself with more judgment calls than usual.

 

Of course the boards are inclusive. Part of "inclusivity" means not constantly debating the basic beliefs of others when they are asking for discussion on related matters. If someone posts, "Liberals, do you think....?" and conservatives jump in to explain how wrong it is to be liberal, period, that's NOT being inclusive.

 

Whatever your intentions were, your posts were apparently read by many in this way.

 

Turning this over to the moderators again.

 

SWB

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Would it be ok for liberals to participate if they're polite & genuinely curious about the conservative pov?

 

Yes, of course, but in that case it might have been better NOT to phrase the poll as "If you are conservative..."

 

Thinking of imposing another reporting-ban, as things are currently ridiculously touchy around here. Me included, apparently.

 

SWB

[lionfamily1999]

Yes, of course, but in that case it might have been better NOT to phrase the poll as "If you are conservative..."

 

Thinking of imposing another reporting-ban, as things are currently ridiculously touchy around here. Me included, apparently.

 

SWB

Oh would you :D

[Spy Car]

Bill: Yes, I have given it "a little" thought. Ten years' worth (which is how long we've been trying to keep peace on these boards).

 

FWIW, I only dropped in because your post with "honesty" in quotation marks was reported by others, and the moderators wondered how to handle it. The boards have been fractious recently, and I find myself with more judgment calls than usual.

 

Of course the boards are inclusive. Part of "inclusivity" means not constantly debating the basic beliefs of others when they are asking for discussion on related matters. If someone posts, "Liberals, do you think....?" and conservatives jump in to explain how wrong it is to be liberal, period, that's NOT being inclusive.

 

Whatever your intentions were, your posts were apparently read by many in this way.

 

Turning this over to the moderators again.

 

SWB

 

I don't want to make you life more difficult (I appreciate it has been a tough time) I must point out that I never said a conservative position was "wrong."

 

I did question how one could believe humans are of a sin nature (or enslaved by sin) and still believe people are basically "good" as those positions seem incompatible to me. But my ears are open.

 

Bill

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Open ears are always good. :bigear:

 

SWB

[Aubrey]

Yes, of course, but in that case it might have been better NOT to phrase the poll as "If you are conservative..."

 

Thinking of imposing another reporting-ban, as things are currently ridiculously touchy around here. Me included, apparently.

 

SWB

 

Sorry...I phrase things badly irl, too. :blush:

 

And, um, I really didn't expect...this to be so...debatable. Not that everybody would agree, I just didn't think people would care what other people believed. In the way that they do.

 

Sorry for the...disruption.

[Mommyfaithe]

Why "other" if people "are by nature sinful." Sinful by nature is "bad", no?

 

Bill

 

Nope....sin is bad...for people. Sin is a condition we have to live with, but not bow down to. I think most people are good or at least have good intentions. I think we sometimes do bad things.

Faithe

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Of all the words that pop up in thread titles, there are two that make the moderators gnash their teeth and chew their nails in horrified anticipation...

 

conservative

 

and

 

liberal.

 

SWB