I suspect that a big part of what constitutes the gulf between liberal and conservative Christians is the way we read Scripture. Liberals see the Bible as the Word of God, spoken through humans. Thus, while the Bible reveals God's truth, it also contains evidence of its human origins. This is why the Bible contains so much sexism, prejudice, and violence in the name of God. Liberals interpret these difficult passages as human traits, while conservatives either simply ignore the contradictions or explain that God changes the "rules" as He goes. Every mainstream Christian interprets the Bible non-literally to some degree, the question is simply: do we face the difficult questions and try to reconcile them with God's truth as we experience it, or do we obfuscate and dodge the matter? For example, the Ten Commandments forbid adultery. Scholars tell us, however, that in Ancient Hebrew culture, as in most cultures of the time, it was not considered adultery for a man to have sex with an unmarried woman other than his wife. So, do we adhere to the literal meaning of the Scripture and only require women to avoid extramarital intercourse, or do look at the passage in context and interpret what it means in today's life? The liberal position is to look at the passage and realize that literal adherence to the law would be unfair and discriminatory, so we should consider all extramarital sex adultery. This is why I am able to read passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and put them in proper context. You can't insist that certain Biblical decrees (like those against homosexuality) be strictly adhered to while ignoring other decrees (like those prohibiting women from wearing their hair a certain way or wearing certain jewelry) all together. But I know I will probably never convince you to change the way you read the Bible. The best I can hope for is to explain that liberals do believe in truth, but we place limits on man's ability to grasp and articulate truth. I believe that God is a God of absolutes, but I also believe that we can't always know truth, since we are by nature humans, not God. This is why I believe that people of different denominations, faiths, cultures, and political persuasions can still unite around basic fundamental principles. We could never do this if one side was clearly "right" all the time, and the other side clearly "wrong". Obviously sex outside of marriage is harmful. That's why it is a sin. And obviously abstinence is the safest method of birth control, just like walking is the best way to avoid a car accident. Still, abstinence-only education doesn't work. Half of the kids just tune it out because they're already having sex, and the other half don't actually learn anything for when they DO have sex. Public schools can't and shouldn't teach what is and isn't a sin. All they can teach is how to make good and bad choices. Schools should be teaching kids: "Using a condom when you have sex is a good choice. Not having sex altogether is an even better choice. Here are the facts, and here's how you can make good decisions." Abstinence-only education doesn't do this, as most of the time, they are permitted from even saying the word "condom". I don't think the question of when life begins is as easily answered as you portray it. In Ancient Jewish tradition, an unborn child or fetus was not considered to be a person until it emerged from the womb, and an embryo was considered water until the fortieth day! And even once the child was born, it was not neccessarily considered worthy of life unless it was of the right race (Psalm 137:9). Thus, for one who reads the Bible, the issue of the sanctity of life is very muddy. I think it remains a difficult issue. For example, if life begins at conception, when during conception does it begin? Conception is, after all, a process. Is it ethical to "kill" the egg before it is fully fertilized? Is it ethical to "kill" the embryo if it is not able to attach itself to the uterus? Is it ethical to "kill" the embryo if it is not receiving the hormone needed to maintain the pregnancy? My position is one born of humble soul-searching and questioning. I do not think I am capable of fully understanding what God wants in every facet of human life. If I was, I would be Jesus. Liberals simply acknowledge uncertainty and seek to bridge gaps. This does not mean they cannot be Christians. I had to laugh when I heard you say that gay people could not seek the Kingdom of God, because they are too focused on their own pleasure. I know a young man who knows for a fact he is gay, and also loves Christ with all of his being. I'll have to tell him he is too selfish to truly seek God.