Wednesday, February 6, 2008


"Liberal label. Dismissive. Unworthy of holding worthwhile ideas and ideals? Sorry, Baldspot, but your labeling of those who disagree with you is nothing more than bigotry, as is your bigotry of gays and lesbians.

Funny that you couch your bigotry as: "the filter of my religious experience colors what I think." Interestingly from all that I have read of the words of Jesus, he was the most unbiased, welcoming person in the history of mankind. He strongly disliked bigots, especially the ‘churchy’ kind, as exemplified in the Sadducees"

This quote is by the blogger, Mudrake, on a French blog which has banned me recently. So another conservative Christian is bearing light over there now named Baldspot. The above was Mudrake's reply to some things Baldspot wrote so effectively.
I do find it peculiar that Liberals feel insulted when they are called "liberal." I don't feel insulted when called fundamentalist, conservative, Christian, evangelical --(as long as fundamentalist is defined as believing that there are certain "fundamental truths" which define "Christian.")

In fact, the irony is that Mudrake used to call himself "Liberal Democrat," but he seems to resent the label if a conservative uses it to describe him. Yet the term really means something in American politics and/or religion. Liberals today tend to be atheistic or agnostic --or at least religiously liberal about Biblical interpretation and Biblical claims and Biblical morality. Religiously, many or most liberals deny the truth and relevance of Scripture and the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are other ways to be religiously liberal, however. One might say it is liberal to believe that Christ doesn't care if we are sinful; liberal to believe He will forgive us no matter what, even if we are not remorseful about deliberate sin. Some are more liberal in their views of what a Christian lifestyle should be. Some people are more "legalistic" than others. The less legalistic, the more religiously liberal. So there are variants of "liberalness" among the religious. I am more liberal than some Christians in my views and more conservative than others. So the term is relative.

If one is liberal theologically, he is more likely to be liberal politically, seeing no reason for laws and traditions that we have inherited from our Judeo-Christian (and even Islamic) worldviews. In fact, to a liberal person, traditional religious views prevalent in Judeo-Christian culture are a violation of church and state if they have ANY influence on our laws --such as the historical, cultural view of fetal life, the definition of marriage and the discouragement of sodomy. They believe that since these ideas are religiously influenced, government should protect the opposite positions in the name of religious neutrality/church-state separation. This really isn't logical. Just because a law has historical Judeo-Christian Biblical support, doesn't mean the law is only valid in the church and for church people. For example, "Thou shalt not kill." That's a basis for something MOST of the free world considers a civil right to life. People on all ends of the political spectrum believe this is a good law against murder --in free countries. In other systems, Communism and Islam, there is no inherent right to life for innocent civilians who happen to disagree with the government --or proselytize about their faith.

Yes, Jesus is welcoming and unsnobbish and told us to be the same --to love brother, neighbor, and enemy. So we have no justification if we hate liberals --or hate conservatives. Right, Mudly? Yes, Jesus gave the proud and superficially righteous a hard time, THOSE WHO CLAIMED THEY HAD NO SIN --and for it, they gave Him the worst time of all--leading to the Cross. He told them that if they sinned in thought, they were as sinful as those who sinned in deed --and thus all need to repent and be saved.

Liberals today, by my definition, crucify Jesus all over again--by opposing the Church of believers in their efforts to be salt and light in the culture through political representation of the people's will. They crucify the Body of Christ --the Church, and for what reason? for believing and teaching that the Bible and its standards of right and wrong are true.

Christians are remorseful sinners who have embraced the more enlightened Way taught by Jesus Christ. They seek to resist temptation to sin deliberately. We ARE to pursue holiness in our own lives --which means we seek to live in blameless ways --but we know we are not God and do fall short. But we do have His Holy Spirit to teach and guide us in His way --the narrow road that leads to life --instead of the broad road that leads to destruction.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


Mohamed said...

Hello Madam Barb,

Hope that you're fine.

If you're intersted. You may like to have a look on my new post; "Reaction vs Action"

Have a nice day,



The Mud-raker CLAIMS to be liberal.
Is he really an ex-communist that now prefers the Socialist Label?

Having seen his negative rants, I've (briefly) wondered about it.
I've witnessed his obvious disdain
of a young 'Evangelical'.

We are all, like thumb-prints, a bit 'different'. I appreciate the moral/ethical compass of a "Christian", yet reserve some judgement. If one cares to label me
an 'Agnostic' that's fine. I don't care to live under the Absolute Authority of a Pope, or a Vicious Grand Ayatollah!
Mohamed still pitches Palestine, and hates the Zionists that loves to kill innocent muslim babies and
women, yet he is Silent if you mention women being STONED IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES, OR WOMEN FORCED
IN SHARIA-LANDS. May Allah force them to look in the mirror. None are PURE.

Let Freedom Ring Atop The Mosque!
Then, there might be a faint hope for PEACE! reb

Barb said...

Snake Hunter said: I don't care to live under the Absolute Authority of a Pope, or a Vicious Grand Ayatollah!

Nor do I! I prefer the lordship of the risen Christ.

Muslims do have to agree to religious freedom, or they will never be appeased and peaceful.

Fonso_2006 said...

That was a great post Barb. I have not personal ill-will against Mud-Rake so I'm not trying to trash on him, but I love how you described the crucifixion of the Church.

Barb said...

I believe I've told you that Mudly and I have a love-hate relationship--I try to love him--he hates me.

Our relationship goes back to Nov. 2006, when he first wrote about me because of a letter I got printed in the Blade. A friend googled my name and told me I was the subject of this Liberal Democrat's blog.

My previous blog topic will be printed as a letter soon --the one on the clubs for "gay students."

Barb said...

Fonso -- about the persecution of the church.

I've wondered a lot about what it is to be "persecuted for righteousness' sake."

Most Christians believe they should be nice --and be quiet --and let their good works speak for themselves --and the Bible does say we should let our good works show--and be nice. But if we are quiet and do not proclaim the Gospel of Christ and the urgency of faith and conversion, will we not simply get the credit ourselves for being "nice?" Our neighbors will say how great we are because we didn't push our religion but lived upright lives --and so they never felt "bad" --or "under conviction" because of any Biblical truth heard from us.

Conviction, of course, is the work of the Holy spirit.

And blogging is a tricky way to witness --because they don't know us --we are only what we say. And they don't like what we say --and I really believe it is conviction behind their anger.

But if you want to know what it is to be persecuted for your faith, blogging is the place.

At the same time, no Christian is called to be obnoxious and contentious --just to proclaim Truth to the world. And that will SEEM to be obnoxious and contentious --no matter what. Why do we think otherwise, when Jesus went to the cross for what HE said.