Name two.

I'll give you two when we get the names of the progressives embarrassed by theological outreach.

>>...progressives embarrassed by theological outreach.<<

Heavens!—indeed, should that “theological outreach” constitute ‘liberation theology’, yes?

Oh my! :-o

[Crickets chirping...]

Come on, Lazarus.Now's your chance to reveal the real conservative abhorence of humanitarian outreach.Don't let olger's comment hold you back. Can't think of any?? Me either. Probably because there aren't any. But if you can document just two,ok, just one,I'll do my best to try to change their minds. I'm serious.

{and the crickets chirp on}

Why so particular? You'll swallow the line about progressives but conservatives...... "give me names and addresses..."

Nice try, Lazurus.I didn't say I bought olger's claim because I don't know if it's true or not.He might be wrong. He's done nothing to prove it and no one else has done anything to dispprove it. Additionally, he qualified it by stating that it was his personal observation. Subjective interpretations are sometimes right simetimes wrong. So if you're gonna be critical of olger for not giving examples then why are you any different? If what you said is true then you must have some way of demonstrating it. If it's not true then why did you post it??

There have been plenty of examples from the conservatives here of just such: I recall in the 'educational direction' thread just a couple of days ago the idea that foreign aid should be cut - 'take care of our own first'. Maybe church outreach was meant, and Laz might have more examples on that front, but the attitude that helping others in other countries should come a distant second to helping those (well, those who are deserving) in one's own country is pretty common.

(Can't believe I bought into this - I'll shut up now)

People without power or influence don't mean much. Meaningful examples would be those with influence and/or power.