Post-Modernism and Liberal Christianity

[abacabb3]

Jesus did it first.

Why can't you?

 

[abacabb3]

It also says we are to submit to each other. You pick and chose in your criticism.

Look behind a few posts: http://www.christianforums.com/t7811018-2/#post65219180

 

[abacabb3]

You didn't ask this question of me, but I think a common liberal view on this is that we are dealing with someone other than Paul who is using Paul's name. We see a progression from the undisputed Pauline letters, which teach mutual submission, and recognize women as leaders, to Eph and Col, which teach a fairly soft kind of submission, to the Pastorals, which see women as untrustworthy because of the Fall. It's also possible to use fancy exegesis to try and defang Eph, Col, and the Pastorals, but in the end I accept a straightforward reading of their intent.

Two questions:

1. Who is Paul that it even matters if the real one or a impostor wrote it?

2. Your differentiation here between "differences" in earlier and later letters from Paul appears to me to be unproven and unsubstantiated.

Eph and Col contain image where the church is compared to a human body. However, so does 1 Corinthians. Even though Colossians has 34 words found no where in the New Testament, Galatians (31) and Philippians (36) have like amounts.

The argument in favor of many of Paul's letters being forgeries, apart from the Pastoral Epistles, appears to me to be very weak from a historical viewpoint.

 

[abacabb3]

You're posting in the liberal group. It's been my observation that most of us do in fact give priority to Jesus' teachings.

Do you accept that Jesus taught eternal damnation?

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).

Do you accept that Jesus opposed sexual perversion (i.e. premarital sex and homosexuality)?

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders." (Matt 15:19)

Do you accept that Jesus taught that only those who believe in Him are saved?

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

Do you accept that Jesus taught that God chooses believers, that believers don't in effect choose God on their own?

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." (John 15:16)

DO you accept that Jesus taught that those who are not obedient to what He commanded do not love Him?

"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me." (John 14:24)



Now, do we actually accept what Jesus taught or do we in each of these situations try to explain away that Christ did not really say what He said?

 

[GenetoJean]

As a former liberal Christian, I have a simple question: Why bother if Christianity isn't really true? If the Bible doesn't really say what it says, if it wasn't really dictated by God, why even continue with the charade?

I dont see anything causing my belief in God and Jesus to change. I dont have a belief that the Bible is 100% God's Word though. I love God and follow where he leads. If your faith in God only relies on the Bible, then, to me, it seems like this is putting the Bible ahead of God.

 

[abacabb3]

I dont see anything causing my belief in God and Jesus to change. I dont have a belief that the Bible is 100% God's Word though. I love God and follow where he leads. If your faith in God only relies on the Bible, then, to me, it seems like this is putting the Bible ahead of God.

Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God and that by His death our sins are forgiven if we have faith in Him?

 

[Marius27]

Do you accept that Jesus taught eternal damnation?

That's a heavily debated view.

Do you accept that Jesus opposed sexual perversion (i.e. premarital sex and homosexuality)?

Jesus didn't say a single word about homosexuality, and you're not allowed to condemn that here.

 

[abacabb3]

That's a heavily debated view.

Christ used the word "eternal."

Jesus didn't say a single word about homosexuality, and you're not allowed to condemn that here.

I would ask in the spirit of understanding that you not accuse me of "condemning" homosexuality. I quoted what Christ called "fornication" which from what I know in the Greek is a term that means "sexual perversion." This has been traditionally been viewed as any form of sexual activity outside of marriage.

Lastly, you didn't answer the question. Do you reject these teachings of Christ? I mean, you are entitled to if you want, I am only quoting what He said.

 

[hedrick]

Do you accept that Jesus taught eternal damnation?

Yes. However his teaching about judgement was directed against unfruitful servants, not atheists or pagans. This makes me suspect that some of the judgement he talked about was not eternal, but was closer to 1 Çor 3:12. But I do accept that it is possible to be eternally lost, primarily because of Jesus’ teaching.

Do you accept that Jesus opposed sexual perversion (i.e. premarital sex and homosexuality)?

I accept that Jesus opposed abusive sexual relationships. We see that in Mat 5:27. He doesn't treat the specific examples you mention. I think it is arguable whether they fall into the category that he condemned. As you know, that’s not a discussion that CF moderators will permit.

In the following questions, you are touching on areas where even people who aren't liberal disagree. I also note that they are all from John, which would be my lowest priority source for Jesus’ teaching. Note that in a past response I said that I don’t take even the Gospels “literally.” Each of the Gospel writers had a viewpoint. I don’t think they replaced Jesus’ message with their own, but you do need to read each Gospel taking into account the specific viewpoint of the author.

John 14:6 is often understood as applying to the Logos, who may convert people other than through explicit faith in Jesus. If you don’t accept that, then you have problems with the OT patriarchs and young children.

I do believe in election. I think God calls us, and that we would never come to him on our own. Where I have problems is with the idea that he sets out to save some and damn others. I understand there’s a tension there, but I don’t think we understand God’s perspective well enough to make some of the deductions that Calvinists have made. I don’t think Jesus’ teaching as a whole is consistent with strict double predestination. John emphasizes election more than the synoptics, but the passage you quote doesn’t go beyond what I have said.

Jesus certainly taught that those who don’t obey are in trouble with the Master. But that has to be balanced with his emphasis on forgiveness and Paul’s understanding that we are all a mix of obedient and disobedient. In Jesus’ parables of judgement, his judgement is more based on whether we did something to help others than whether we sinned. This is consistent with Jesus’ teaching in both the synoptics and John that the key to obeying him is to love God and neighbor, but he certainly expects to see fruit of that love.

 

[Sayre]

Christ used the word "eternal."



I would ask in the spirit of understanding that you not accuse me of "condemning" homosexuality. I quoted what Christ called "fornication" which from what I know in the Greek is a term that means "sexual perversion." This has been traditionally been viewed as any form of sexual activity outside of marriage.

Lastly, you didn't answer the question. Do you reject these teachings of Christ? I mean, you are entitled to if you want, I am only quoting what He said.

I believe the bible teaches that hell fire is eternal - but that individuals sent there are annihilated.

As for homosexuality, the sin conservatives and fundies love to hate - I'm not so sure that the bible speaks directly about modern sexuality at all. I think Romans is influenced heavily by Philo and shouldn't be used to condemn modern homosexuality. The concept of marriage has changed so much that direct commands in the bible don't seem of much use anymore.

The principles though - of not abusing your power in a marriage for your own advantage - of consent, of sacrificial love - all those principles are still very important for sex and marriage.

 

[elman]

Why can't you?

I don't have to. I can just follow Jesus.

 

[Sayre]

Hedrick do you think Jesus quoted scripture?

I believe He did - but maybe as partly staking His claim of Jewishness by being a part of their writings and history.

 

[elman]

Look behind a few posts: http://www.christianforums.com/t7811018-2/#post65219180

Look at the other verses like husbands love your wives as Jesus loved the church and died for it. I have already referred to the verse you missed where we are all to be subject to each other.

 

[elman]

Do you accept that Jesus taught eternal damnation?

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).

Do you accept that Jesus opposed sexual perversion (i.e. premarital sex and homosexuality)?

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders." (Matt 15:19)

Do you accept that Jesus taught that only those who believe in Him are saved?

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

Do you accept that Jesus taught that God chooses believers, that believers don't in effect choose God on their own?

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." (John 15:16)

DO you accept that Jesus taught that those who are not obedient to what He commanded do not love Him?

"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me." (John 14:24)



Now, do we actually accept what Jesus taught or do we in each of these situations try to explain away that Christ did not really say what He said?

I do not accept the bible as the inerrant word of God but I do accept as divine truth the teaching in it from Jesus that we can inherit eternal life if we love God and man and we can love God by loving man. I have no interest in defending the bible, but I do think the teaching I just referenced can be defended.

 

[abacabb3]

I also note that they are all from John, which would be my lowest priority source for Jesus’ teaching. Note that in a past response I said that I don’t take even the Gospels “literally.” ... I don’t think they replaced Jesus’ message with their own, but you do need to read each Gospel taking into account the specific viewpoint of the author.

Who decides that John is less accurate than the synoptics, when it has a larger witness in the manuscript tradition?

Also, who decides what in John is true (John 3:16) but what in John is not really what Christ said?

How do we know what commands of Jesus are literal ("turn the other cheek," "love your neighbor") and which are not? ("Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.")


There seems to me to be a huge question of authority in all of this. Christ ultimately is not your authority. The Bible isn't. The Church tradition isn't. You are the authority that decides what stays and what goes. And if that is the case, can't we come up with a religion of peace and love by merely picking and choosing quotations out of Beatles songs? Why do we even need Christianity?

 

[abacabb3]

The concept of marriage has changed so much that direct commands in the bible don't seem of much use anymore.

The principles though - of not abusing your power in a marriage for your own advantage - of consent, of sacrificial love - all those principles are still very important for sex and marriage.

First, why does everyone focus on the issue of homosexuality? I merely brought up the term "fornication" and its possible meanings (i.e. extra-marital sex).

Second, if the concept of marriage has changed so much, why can't a society decide the usurpation and exploitation of power within the marital relationship is a good thing? What standard do we have to tell us that this isn't true?

 

[abacabb3]

I do not accept the bible as the inerrant word of God but I do accept as divine truth the teaching in it from Jesus that we can inherit eternal life if we love God and man and we can love God by loving man. I have no interest in defending the bible, but I do think the teaching I just referenced can be defended.

Which words of Jesus are true and which are not?

I don't have to. I can just follow Jesus.

Which Jesus?


Just as I said to Hedrick, I believe there is a question of authority here.If it is up to each individual to decide what they like from the Bible and what they don't, then ultimately they are their own authority, and if so, they have their own religion.

 

[abacabb3]

Hedrick do you think Jesus quoted scripture?

I believe He did - but maybe as partly staking His claim of Jewishness by being a part of their writings and history.

This was not addressed to me, but He quotes Scripture in each of the Gospels. If you have in doubt that maybe he really didn't, what else did Jesus not really say? And if that's the case, what did He really say to begin with?

 

[Sayre]

This was not addressed to me, but He quotes Scripture in each of the Gospels. If you have in doubt that maybe he really didn't, what else did Jesus not really say? And if that's the case, what did He really say to begin with?

Thanks - you are free to reply but I was only interested in reading Hedricks reply.

 

[Sayre]

I would ask in the spirit of understanding that you not accuse me of "condemning" homosexuality. I quoted what Christ called "fornication" which from what I know in the Greek is a term that means "sexual perversion." This has been traditionally been viewed as any form of sexual activity outside of marriage.

First, why does everyone focus on the issue of homosexuality? I merely brought up the term "fornication" and its possible meanings (i.e. extra-marital sex).