Why do more liberal churches tend to be the most ritual-driven and traditional?

[Stardust]

This phenomenon stretches back at least to the 1920s, as noted by Mencken in The American Mercury:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Stardust]

***unlike a total complete scriptural hack like you

I'm glad you chimed in. Now I get to use another favorite Mencken quote of mine:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Stardust]

***unlike a total complete scriptural hack like you

I'm glad you chimed in. Now I get to use another favorite Mencken quote of mine:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

if you're dissin faith, then you're probably in the wrong thread, if not the wrong board...but, if you're wanting to show that homosexuality meshes with scripture, then please enlighten the this thread with your vast scriptural knowledge.

I don't care about your Scripture. I was simply posting to show that Mencken was right and ought to be read even today - religiously.

[Stardust]

I don't care about your Scripture.

obviously, I'm not shocked that you have nothing to add to this thread, whose subject is the difference between Christian congregations.

But I did. I posted evidence that this phenomenon (the 'Catholicization' of mainline groups) has been on-going since, at least, 1926, and was noticeable to someone as far removed from the milieu as Mencken. Which is a far more valuable contribution than your post, might I add.

[Stardust]

in any case, Menchen seems to only be pointing out that departure from the scripture leads to liberalism:

Mencken, my man. Mencken.

And yeah, sola scriptura is a minority position among a vast majority of Christians, be they liberal High Churchers or arch-conservative Catholic Traditionalists.

[Stardust]

in any case, Menchen seems to only be pointing out that departure from the scripture leads to liberalism:

Mencken, my man. Mencken.

whatever, but you have to admit the guy's snobbery is very thick

That's part of his charm. Where the jmfcsts believe that false modesty is a virtue, I hold that true arrogance is the hallmark of an authentic man.

[Stardust]

That's part of his charm. Where the jmfcsts believe that false modesty is a virtue, I hold that true arrogance is the hallmark of an authentic man.

doubt many posters here would consider me modest enough to even have a shot at being falsely modest.  

though I have my flaws with arrogance, I do believe my theology and doctrine are modest (not extreme)...I mean, after all, reading the bible and concluding homosexuality is OK is extremely extreme given all the evidence within scripture against it.

It's not your arrogance you have a problem with. It's the arrogance of everyone else, particularly out-of-touch liberals. I'd have been more inclined to vote Obama had he made more "bitter" comments.

[Stardust]

It's not your arrogance you have a problem with. It's the arrogance of everyone else, particularly out-of-touch liberals.

no, rather I have a problem with their lack of logic - if you're going to be a Christian, how in the heck does one think it is logically consistent to pick and choose which statements from the NT you want to ignore and which ones you want to try to follow?

You've picked and chose yourself to interpret the Bible literally. Sola scriptura is pretty well unjustifiable Biblically.

Now, I know that you're going to want to quote Revelation 22:18 at me, and you may do so to your heart's content.

(Of course, I think we'd find common ground if we agreed that we both hate liberal Christians. I don't actually have a dog in this hunt, as I reject 'Scripture' altogether.)

[Stardust]

You've picked and chose yourself to interpret the Bible literally. Sola scriptura is pretty well unjustifiable Biblically.

really, how so?

Because it's literally not in the Bible.

[Stardust]

did Jesus and the Apostles interpret scripture literally?

That's an extremely vague question, considering none of them left behind any hint of an organized epistemology.