Liberal Christians

[Vicomte13]

Well, I don't really have time to go into it at the moment, but my beliefs are complicated and somewhat more nuanced than that.

The "Lutheran" to whom I was referring was a different one on the thread, not you.

 

[Vicomte13]

That conversation with the pastor that I talked about earlier set forth a chain of events that really changed how I look at my relationship with the Church, how I view faith, how I view scripture, etc. In many ways I agree with you that I, alone, am the final arbiter on what I believe to be Godly, right and just. I may take the counsel of others, I may look at scripture, but I admittedly view it in the context of what seems right *to me* as being just and right.

That is the only possible way to do it that makes any sense. IF there were a church that had a perfect, or even very good, history with regards to things like bloodshed, oppression, slavery, etc., that would be one thing. But the only one that I can think of that doesn't have any of that to its name is Quakerism.

And guess what! Quakerism relies ENTIRELY on the interaction of the individual with the Holy Spirit. They go and sit quietly, no sermons, no minister, and they rise and speak when the spirit moves them. And they make their decisions unanimously. And they have the most just history of any Christian religion.

So they're the most right, in that regard.

 

[Vicomte13]

Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures--the Old and New Testaments, 66 books written by God and penned by men are the final authority in all that they address.

I know. I reject that. God is the final authority, and he has revealed many important things since the last book of the Bible was written. The Bible is good, but it is neither necessary nor complete.

The Quakers, who listen directly to the Holy Spirit together as individuals and share what they hear, are more right than anybody else as to dealing with God.

But their one dogma, of pacifism, which they DO enforce, had it been the Christian doctrine they make of it, would have meant that the Catholic Church would have had to roll over and let the Muslims conquer all of Europe, instead of standing and fighting them off in France, in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy and at Vienna.

And then this would all be moot because we'd be talking about Allah and the Koran.

 

[Vicomte13]

My dear friend, if it was NOT for the Bible you would not know one single thing about God.

My dear friend - when I was about 10 years old I ran down a dock, alone, dove into a shallow lake, broke my neck on the bottom, and sank to the bottom, paralyzed, drowning, all alone. I asked God, and he reached down out of the sky and did the impossible. I rose back out of that lake by a major miracle, and I still live on account of it.

I would not read the Bible for another 15 years after that. I did not meet God through the Bible. I know him directly.

So no, I did not need your Bible to know God. I still don't. I appreciate the Bible, primarily because it is the only way that I can talk to people like you, because of the blinkers you have on your eyes. I know God directly. You refuse to know anything about him if it doesn't come through your book. This means that you cannot know him as well as you could, because you limit yourself to only a subset of his revelations. They're good enough to get you there, but they are by no means complete or the full story.

The primary utility of the Bible is that it is a Rosetta Stone that allows somebody like to to communicate with somebody like you at all. It provides some common ground, in the same way that one must read and understand the Koran at a basic level if one is going to talk to a Muslim about God.

What you wrote may be true for you: you might not know a single thing about God were it not for the Bible, but I don't believe that either. When you were a child, you knew God, and you had never read the Bible.

The Bible is at the very center of your religion. It is not, and cannot ever be, at the center of mine.

 

[DZoolander]

In the Bible it admonishes people not to make any graven images - ostensibly because the creation of a graven image interferes with the true relationship between God and the believer. One time on here I made the argument that the way many Christians treat the Bible meets all the criteria of a graven image. That didn't go over so well. lol

But - it's precisely for those types of reasons that while I may find things of value in scripture - I refuse to ever get into a scriptural debate with others. I don't see it as productive. People have their beliefs - they find a piece of scripture to support it - and with that try to imbue their position with the weight of God behind it.

I prefer the way the secular debate issues. Come at me with an actual argument based upon principles - and see if it withstands critique. I'll grant you the same courtesy. lol

 

[Vicomte13]

In the Bible it admonishes people not to make any graven images - ostensibly because the creation of a graven image interferes with the true relationship between God and the believer. One time on here I made the argument that the way many Christians treat the Bible meets all the criteria of a graven image. That didn't go over so well. lol

But - it's precisely for those types of reasons that while I may find things of value in scripture - I refuse to ever get into a scriptural debate with others. I don't see it as productive. People have their beliefs - they find a piece of scripture to support it - and with that try to imbue their position with the weight of God behind it.

I prefer the way the secular debate issues. Come at me with an actual argument based upon principles - and see if it withstands critique. I'll grant you the same courtesy. lol

The Ten Commandments are part of a contract between YHWH and the Hebrews. They never applied to anybody else.

That's not to say that God didn't elsewhere tell the world not to kill people or commit adultery. He did.

Jesus did not tell the world that statuary was evil. So Catholic Churches are full of statues and pictures that depict Jesus and saints, the Father, the Holy Spirit, etc.

Our Protestant opponents tell us that these are graven images in violation of the Ten Commandments.
If we were Hebrews, they'd have a point. We're not, so that's that.
God performs miracles at Lourdes right under the noses of statutes and images. If he were offended by them, you'd think he wouldn't. But he does. So apparently HE'S not offended by Catholic statuary. That's good enough for me and us Catholics.
It doesn't satisfy the Protestants, though.

I guess they needn't worry about it, since Lourdes is a place where Mary showed up, and she doesn't seem likely to get a friendly reception if she shows up a Protestant Church - she'd be dismissed as a visiting demon seeking to mislead!

So God doesn't send her there. Which is fine. But if you have an incurable disease, it's nice to have Lourdes to go to and Mary's statue to gaze upon and Mary to pray to while you are being miraculously healed. Prots don't have to worry about any of those problems. And they never will.

 

[Tetra]

im a hardcore conservative Christian. I have always thought that conservative views go hand and hang with Christianity. Morals. Values. Standards. These are things I thought Christians should stand up for.

I can understand how some economic views such as capitalism and like healthcare can be controversial for anyone (including Christians) but issues such as abortion, gay rights, transgenderism, islam, - aren't these topics that all Christian's should be consistent with opposing? I mean, the Bible does support opposing it... so if Christians support scripture, why are some Christians liberal??? like shouldn't Christians be conservative?

I know a couple people who claim they are Christian but also have very liberal ideas. for example, this girl i met recently is basically a hardcore feminist, anti-trump, it seems her idealogy cannot support Christian values. This is just one example, I know so many Christians that are liberal. and i just dont understand

thoughts?

I dont wanna start a debate here, i am just genuinely concerned for the way our society is moving - LIBERAL.

What in the world do you mean by "liberal". I'd say I'm a classical liberal / libertarian.

What do you mean by "opposing"???

Why can't feminism and anti-trumpers be Christians???

This post is nuts man.

 

[rjs330]

I can agree with that.

But if it is a mental illness, doesn't that also remove the accountable for choices?

No it doesn't. Our actions are still our own. The Bible still states that it is an act of sin to practice homosexuality. So yes they are still held accountable. But keep in mind something VERY important. That is non believing homosexuals are not condemned simply because they are homosexuals. They are condemned because they are sinners. No worse than any other non believer. Being a homosexual does not cause the to be lost. Failure to trust in Christ causes them to be lost. The world is condemned already.

 

[rjs330]

First of all, Sola Scriptura is not the Bible. It's a belief ABOUT the Bible - one that I do not hold, but one that the Lutheran with whom I was speaking probably DOES hold, given that he's a Lutheran.

I know what's in the Bible well enough. If I never saw the Bible I would still be in good shape as long as I walked with God. The Bible is a useful tool, but not a vital one.

How do you know that salvation comes through Christ and him alone?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I know. I reject that. God is the final authority, and he has revealed many important things since the last book of the Bible was written. The Bible is good, but it is neither necessary nor complete.

Under which premise we have multitudes of latter-day seers, from elitist Joseph Smith to Mary Baker Patterson Eddy, to Ellen G. White to Jim Jone and the more, contradicting both Scripture and themselves. While I do believe God can reveal and "speak" to people today (which even cessationist pastors believe, at least during the offering), nothing is on the level of Scripture, and which the wholly establish word of God by which all things are judged. Which even the veracity of apostles was subject to. (Acts 17:11)

The Quakers, who listen directly to the Holy Spirit together as individuals and share what they hear, are more right than anybody else as to dealing with God.

Wait a minute? What makes your mere assertion true? Can you even tell me what the fundamental believes of Quakerism consist of? Do you even think they needs to assent to the very basic (and deficient i think) CF standard for who a Christian is. For the fact is that Quakerism is an amalgamation of variegated believes as a result of your fantasy they listen directly to the Holy Spirit and are therefore more right because they han anybody else as to dealing with God.

Liberals like this because they see themselves as being the elite, and who are not bound to any supreme standard, thus resulting in every morphing immorality. Already here were have an advocate for treating chimps as humans, and marrying them cannot be far off.

You have "Liberal Friends" (Quakers) "who acknowledge and embrace a wide diversity of spiritual experience, identity, and belief, including but not limited to Christianity....Some of these claim no religious identity other than Quaker; others might identify also as Buddhist, Jewish, pagan, atheist or agnostic, to name a few." - LiberalQuakers.org

Thus have a religion of a schizophrenic deity. This is not what Fox and Penn and friends of Biblical integrity envisioned in their quest to be free from armor of Saul which institutionalized religion was clothed with, and to let God be God in His own house. But theirs was an age in which Scripture was implicitly and usually explicitly held to be the word of God and supreme standard.

It is one thing to "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge"(1 Corinthians 14:29) in accordance with what is written, and another to foster a amalgamation of "God says" and beliefs contrary to Scripture on the basic level and each other.

While those who hold most strongly to the authority and integrity Scripture exist in tribal divisions due to secondary issues, they have continually testified to being the most unified religious group in core beliefs much beyond most others.

But their one dogma, of pacifism, which they DO enforce, had it been the Christian doctrine they make of it, would have meant that the Catholic Church would have had to roll over and let the Muslims conquer all of Europe, instead of standing and fighting them off in France, in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy and at Vienna.

And then this would all be moot because we'd be talking about Allah and the Koran.

If all must be pacfists maybe, if God did not intervene. But Scripturally fighting Islam would be the function of the civil government to whom Scripture sanctions the just use of the sword of men. But not as an arm of the church to punish theological dissent. So much for the Inquistions and other like use, including the hanging of 4 Quakers who insisted on preaching.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

What in the world do you mean by "liberal". I'd say I'm a classical liberal / libertarian.
What do you mean by "opposing"???
.

I think I have a list on this thread upstream if it was not deleted.

Found it:

Do you oppose

Homosexual marriage?

Transgender surgery under certain conditions?

Sexual relations before marriage?

Cohabitation as a alternative to marriage?

Abortion outside (perhaps) of danger to life?

Forbidding any corporal discipline of children, if warranted and conditional?

Forbidding government to sanction any prayer or affirmation of any religion in general?

Forbidding artists the right to refuse to create works for causes that offend them?

Forbidding citizens rights to bear arms, if conditional (type and vetting)

Forbidding capital punishment (even as per criteria in Scripture, but with exclusion for religious crimes)?

Rejection of any positional/functional distinctions btwn male and female in marriage and church government?

Open borders?

Increased Muslim immigration?

Equal rights and benefits to illegal immigrants?

Increased government spending on social programs per capita?

Smaller military?

Rejection of the any just war premise?

Increased funding for the EPA

Increased funding for the UN?

Forbidding "Right to work" statutes?

I think (if I have worded these correctly) I oppose all these.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

No it doesn't. Our actions are still our own. The Bible still states that it is an act of sin to practice homosexuality. So yes they are still held accountable. But keep in mind something VERY important. That is non believing homosexuals are not condemned simply because they are homosexuals. They are condemned because they are sinners. No worse than any other non believer. Being a homosexual does not cause the to be lost. Failure to trust in Christ causes them to be lost. The world is condemned already.

Actually there are different degrees of sinfulness and guilt, though one sin makes you a transgressor like the rest, which i could show by God's grace, but its not a big issue here.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Ten Commandments are part of a contract between YHWH and the Hebrews. They never applied to anybody else.

But God condemns heathen for disobeying the morality of His moral laws (context). As dealt with more in a previous post.

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. (Leviticus 18:24-25)

For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled. (Leviticus 18:27)

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:23)

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Ephesians 4:17-18)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I would not read the Bible for another 15 years after that. I did not meet God through the Bible. I know him directly.

So no, I did not need your Bible to know God. I still don't. .

It is incorrect to say without the Bible you could not know God or anything about Him, or else Abraham as well as his servant and others could not have. However, Muslims and many others claim experiences as you, and one can be wrong about the God they know and what they believe, whie even knowing the Truth God does not mean they know His will and ways. But God has manifestly showed that He has provided His established word as the transcendent supreme standard, which even the veracity of apostles was subject to testing by.

While at one time God expressly revealed Himself to a very limited few and His will in a very limited scope, yet when He chose to reveal His will to an entire nation then provided far more extension express revelation, and He preserved it in writing, which is His manifest means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And rather than Scripture being superfluous as you reduce it to being , as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

It provides some common ground, in the same way that one must read and understand the Koran at a basic level if one is going to talk to a Muslim about God.

That is outlandish. God inspires almost 800,000 words in the Bible, and over 180,000 just in the New (versus about 77,439 in the Qur'an), and Psalmists extols the Torah alone as having salvific and preserving powers and qualities of enlightenment by which one understands God and His way, which such attributions (including in scope) as are never ascribed to general or private revelation on earth. And the Lord Jesus condemns men for not knowing it, and He and His church Truth establish their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and yet you marginalize it as just providing some common ground, in the same way that one must read and understand the Koran at a basic level if one is going to talk to a Muslim about God.

When God judges you by it then you see what respect He has for what He inspired.

 

[Tetra]

I think I have a list on this thread upstream if it was not deleted.

Found it:

Do you oppose

Homosexual marriage?

Transgender surgery under certain conditions?

Sexual relations before marriage?

Cohabitation as a alternative to marriage?

Abortion outside (perhaps) of danger to life?

Forbidding any corporal discipline of children, if warranted and conditional?

Forbidding government to sanction any prayer or affirmation of any religion in general?

Forbidding artists the right to refuse to create works for causes that offend them?

Forbidding citizens rights to bear arms, if conditional (type and vetting)

Forbidding capital punishment (even as per criteria in Scripture, but with exclusion for religious crimes)?

Rejection of any positional/functional distinctions btwn male and female in marriage and church government?

Open borders?

Increased Muslim immigration?

Equal rights and benefits to illegal immigrants?

Increased government spending on social programs per capita?

Smaller military?

Rejection of the any just war premise?

Increased funding for the EPA

Increased funding for the UN?

Forbidding "Right to work" statutes?

I think (if I have worded these correctly) I oppose all these.

As a classical liberal, I'd identify you as fundamentally anti-liberty. We will most likely disagree on everything. You're view is prefaced with the goal of interfering with other peoples lives. Why you'd care what homosexuals do is beyond me, or "cohabitation"!? lol

 

[DZoolander]

Funny how those lists always start with something about "gotta stop teh gayzzz" lol

 

[FireDragon76]

Modern Christianity is a weird entity... everyone's all wrapped up in what others do with the penis. I mean it really is the overwhelming thing within the faith...lol

Depends on what church you go to I guess. I've only heard sexual sins mentioned during Lent, in a very general way, when we read from Luther's Catechism, and maybe in passing a few times a year after that. Our pastor focuses on other vices. And I think he is correct to do so.

Then again, our pastor used to practice law. He once told me flatly "Nothing two guys do with a penis together can compare to the evil I've seen."

Honestly, we are not big on being down on the stereotypical sins that Christians tend to focus on here in the US. And my pastor isn't even a liberal, he's one of the most conservative in the synod.

 

[DZoolander]

Exactly. In a world full of strife, man's cruelty to his fellow man, rape, torture, starvation, etc...that's what you're gonna worry about most? How people choose to rub their bits?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

As a classical liberal, I'd identify you as fundamentally anti-liberty. We will most likely disagree on everything. You're view is prefaced with the goal of interfering with other peoples lives. Why you'd care what homosexuals do is beyond me, or "cohabitation"!? lol

Actually if you followed the news for the last few decades, you might see that is it the liberal and homosexual activists who have and have been achieving the goal of interfering with other peoples lives. One can hardly give any conservative opinion without being censored as racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc. and face economic sanctions for even making a donation for traditional family values, or refuse to make a work of art for perversion.

And its even worse in today's censorious walk-on-eggshells universities, the microcosm of the liberal's brave (snowflake) new world. Talk about fundamentally being anti-liberty.

And then there are laws which muzzle government officials from expressing basic faith as writers of the Constitution and Amendments did.

In addition to having hire according to imposed ethnic quotas versus simply the best candidate, and increasingly excessive regulations (in some places you cannot even collect rainwater from the sky above your house!).

As for me, what comparable decrease in liberty would I be for that is not traditional and Biblical? Lets see what pigeon hole you want can put me in to demonstrate the liberal you are for.

Of course you have provided the freedom to kill innocent humans based on location, and to promote a practice which is the primary cause of over 600,000 American deaths, and a category of that which is responsible for about 80% of new HIV cases, despite decades trying to tame it.

Oh, but that does not affect anyone, nor heterosexual fornication. What a fantasy.

Here, even though somewhat dated:
REVEALING STATISTICS (or, Present Costs of the War Against God) (large/extensive)

 

[DZoolander]

Actually if you followed the news for the last few decades, you might see that is it the liberal and homosexual activists who have and have been achieving the goal of interfering with other peoples lives. One can hardly give any conservative opinion without being censored as racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc. and face economic sanctions for even making a donation for traditional family values, or refuse to make a work of art for perversion.

While I do agree that people go overboard with the whole "racist" thing - and that's something I have a bone to pick with as well - I'm curious as to what interference you think "the homosexuals" have made in other people's lives?

The only argument I can think of is that it's no longer kosher to hire or fire people based upon their sexual orientation. Is that the "limitation" you're speaking of? Do you miss the old days where you could fire someone once ya found out they were gay?

And its even worse in today's censorious walk-on-eggshells universities, the microcosm of the liberal's brave (snowflake) new world. Talk about fundamentally being anti-liberty.

While I do agree that college kids need some toughening up when it comes to hearing other people's points of view and get "triggered" too easily...conservatives have quite a few snowflakes in their midst as well..lol I don't see liberals smashing their coffee machines because the company decided to stop advertising on a show that was defending a pedophile. lol Or having hissy fits over sports people expressing a political opinion...etc.

We're at this weird juncture where nobody can seem to stand to hear an alternative point of view without getting all triggery and over-reacting...wanting to throw out labels at each other...etc. And that's on both sides.

In addition to having hire according to imposed ethnic quotas versus simply the best candidate, and increasingly excessive regulations (in some places you cannot even collect rainwater from the sky above your house!).

Meh, I have mixed feelings on the affirmative action stuff and can see both sides of the argument. As for regulations, some are good, some are nonsensical (like the rainwater thing). Instead of railing against regulations, which I see as lazy, I think it's prudent to look at them on a case by case basis.