Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Instead, I use conservative, in the context of religion, to denote anyone that adheres to a given religious tenet as though it were inerrant, with the intent to conserve it. For example, I would consider someone who was against gay marriage because the Bible speaks against homosexuality to be a religious conservative. I would also consider anyone who used the Bible to label compassion as a virtue to be a religious conservative.

I have been using conservative to mean someone who accepts and holds to traditional beliefs. I agree with the conserve part, but in Christianity, being conservative isn't strictly tied to biblical inerrancy. Opposition to homosexuals on a strictly biblical basis isn't just limited to those who hold it to be inerrant.

If we are talking in the strict terms on Christian Theology, inerrancy is where theological historians draw the line when considering Conservative Christianity versus Liberal Christianity, but the use of liberal in Liberal Christianity is a wee bit misleading in determining tradition, as most of the ideas associated were developed a thousand ago, and many began achieving acceptance among Christians from the 16th century onwards and today are more mainstream in their acceptance. Inerrancy as a divider is useful when discussing the whole history of Christianity (Which I think is what you may be saying), but in discussing what is a traditional position even a hundred years ago inerrancy is largely useless so what is a traditional position on an issue today isn't strictly tied to inerrancy (Which is where I'm coming from... which may explain the confusion?).

LordofHats wrote:
I have been using conservative to mean someone who accepts and holds to traditional beliefs. I agree with the conserve part, but in Christianity, being conservative isn't strictly tied to biblical inerrancy. Opposition to homosexuals on a strictly biblical basis isn't just limited to those who hold it to be inerrant.

Sure, but then I think we're crossing over into cultural conservatism, which isn't necessarily the same thing as religious conservatism.

LordofHats wrote:
If we are talking in the strict terms on Christian Theology, inerrancy is where theological historians draw the line when considering Conservative Christianity versus Liberal Christianity, but the use of liberal in Liberal Christianity is a wee bit misleading in determining tradition, as most of the ideas associated were developed a thousand ago, and many began achieving acceptance among Christians from the 16th century onwards and today are more mainstream in their acceptance.

I don't necessarily think its misleading, as liberal doesn't really mean 'new', it just means generous.

Though, again, I'm not necessarily talking about inerrancy as a theological concept. I'm referring only to behavior that is consistent with an inerrant interpretation of a given passage. Very few people actually believe in Biblical inerrancy, even, and especially, those that say they do. As such, I'm really only concerned with the behavior of people, regardless of what they say they believe.

LordofHats wrote:
Inerrancy as a divider is useful when discussing the whole history of Christianity (Which I think is what you may be saying), but in discussing what is a traditional position even a hundred years ago inerrancy is largely useless so what is a traditional position on an issue today isn't strictly tied to inerrancy (Which is where I'm coming from... which may explain the confusion?).

Yeah, I should have been more specific. I use 'inerrant' to indicate a belief in the infallibility of something, I don't mean to reference all the various debates over Biblical inerrancy.

dogma wrote:Though, again, I'm not necessarily talking about inerrancy as a theological concept. I'm referring only to behavior that is consistent with an inerrant interpretation of a given passage. Very few people actually believe in Biblical inerrancy, even, and especially, those that say they do. As such, I'm really only concerned with the behavior of people, regardless of what they say they believe.

I do think you hit the nail on the head earlier. Especially in some Protestant crowds that espouse it, they only like biblical inerrancy when it works for them, and they tend to drop it or get tongue tied when it becomes inconvenient. Or in the case of some people, they start editing the Bible to remove the 'liberal' influences which seems the exact opposite of biblical inerrancy, and myself being a lover of irony find it hilariously ridiculous.