Are there any actual liberals here?

Gregory Thompson · Oct 13, 2024

Akita Suggagaki said:
That is an interesting statement. Where did you get it.
I think it may be true since it became clear that humanism and rationalism were incinerated.

An personal observation based on exposure to history.

World War 2 really changed culture around the world in a way that did not allow people to go back to the way things were.

Paidiske · Oct 13, 2024

FireDragon76 said:
It depends on what you mean by "rejecting basic Christian beliefs". Far fewer would insist on a literal, historical interpretation of the creeds as a boundary marker. Many would simply say they are religious symbols that describe the experience of the early Christian community, but shouldn't necessarily be confused with biological or cosmological events (in my old Lutheran denomination , that was the position of Carl Braaten, who was an esteemed American professor of Lutheran systematic theology).

It depends what you mean by "boundary marker." People holding the sort of beliefs you describe here can be Anglicans in good standing, but I would describe them as more theologically liberal.

Gregory Thompson · Oct 13, 2024

Liberal also means generous.

FireDragon76 · Oct 13, 2024

Paidiske said:
It depends what you mean by "boundary marker." People holding the sort of beliefs you describe here can be Anglicans in good standing, but I would describe them as more theologically liberal.

Yes, thought Braaten was technically more Neo-Orthodox (which was a response or offshoot of theological liberalism). Neo-Orthodoxy, theological liberalism, and contextual or liberationist theologies are the dominant theologies in historic Mainline seminaries in the United States.

okay · Oct 14, 2024

FireDragon76 said:
It depends on what you mean by "rejecting basic Christian beliefs". Far fewer would insist on a literal, historical interpretation of the creeds as a boundary marker. Many would simply say they are religious symbols that describe the experience of the early Christian community, but shouldn't necessarily be confused with biological or cosmological events (in my old Lutheran denomination , that was the position of Carl Braaten, who was an esteemed American professor of Lutheran systematic theology).

This is exactly what I think of as liberal Christianity, and I don't see many liberal Christians like that around here. I don't think two such people could hardly have a conversation around here (in any subforum that exists right now) without a high probability of many extra posts by other more conservative members telling them how wrong and heretical they are... Akita recently started a thread on the Genesis creation accounts in the Hermeneutics subforum that devolved that way even though the topic seemed pretty benign to me.

You would almost need a separate subforum with rules to allow a coherent conversation among liberals, similar to what we have with the 'traditional theology' forum. If you are a liberal looking for an online community of like-minded folks to discuss things with then CF seems to be a poor option.

Since I can profess the Nicene creed at face-value I don't consider myself a liberal. But around CF I sure feel like one since 1) I accept mainstream science, biblical scholarship, psychology, etc., as other ways of knowing things, and 2) because I believe the humanity of the writers are all over the pages of scripture. In some of the mainline congregations here in New England I feel like a conservative; even some of the clergy are open about not necessarily accepting the creed at face-value.

jason

Paidiske · Oct 14, 2024

okay said:
If you are a liberal looking for an online community of like-minded folks to discuss things with then CF seems to be a poor option.

This is, I think, partly intentional in the way that the rules are framed. Many folks interested in that kind of discussion give up and leave. Which makes it difficult to build any critical mass.

RDKirk · Oct 14, 2024

okay said:
Since I can profess the Nicene creed at face-value I don't consider myself a liberal. But around CF I sure feel like one since 1) I accept mainstream science, biblical scholarship, psychology, etc., as other ways of knowing things, and 2) because I believe the humanity of the writers are all over the pages of scripture. In some of the mainline congregations here in New England I feel like a conservative; even some of the clergy are open about not necessarily accepting the creed at face-value.

As I've been reading through this thread, I realized that I also accept the Nicene creed at face value and also still "1) I accept mainstream science, biblical scholarship, psychology, etc., as other ways of knowing things, and 2) because I believe the humanity of the writers are all over the pages of scripture." And that without any mental gyrations...I see no conflict if I don't presume anything beyond the face value of either the Nicene Creed or science.

okay · Oct 14, 2024

Paidiske said:
This is, I think, partly intentional in the way that the rules are framed. Many folks interested in that kind of discussion give up and leave. Which makes it difficult to build any critical mass.

I think you are right - this is a feature of CF, not a bug.

Edit: and here is the embarrassing part where I admit that I just noticed this thread is in a liberal subforum! Somehow I never realized it already existed, but this is how my cluttered brain usually works…

okay · Oct 14, 2024

RDKirk said:
As I've been reading through this thread, I realized that I also accept the Nicene creed at face value and also still "1) I accept mainstream science, biblical scholarship, psychology, etc., as other ways of knowing things, and 2) because I believe the humanity of the writers are all over the pages of scripture." And that without any mental gyrations...I see no conflict if I don't presume anything beyond the face value of either the Nicene Creed or science.

Yeah - I may not have articulated myseful very clearly! I had started editing my post to clarify but once folks started replying I cancelled the edit.

Let me put it more clearly: if mainstream science says A, and a face-value interpretation fo the bible says B (edit: and B is incompatible with A), then my default posture is to accept A and look for other ways of interpreting scripture. I also believe that the humanity of the writers means that they may even misrepresent God sometimes, just like we misrepresent God sometimes when we try to follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit in doing what we believe God is calling us to do here on Earth. I know this is not very popular around here, so usually refrain from posting anything along those lines.

EDIT: another way to say this is that I believe the biblical writers were limited, flawed, fallible human beings. So when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, their ability to receive, interpret, synthesize and communicate that inspiration was limited, flawed and fallible.

FireDragon76 · Oct 14, 2024

okay said:
This is exactly what I think of as liberal Christianity, and I don't see many liberal Christians like that around here. I don't think two such people could hardly have a conversation around here (in any subforum that exists right now) without a high probability of many extra posts by other more conservative members telling them how wrong and heretical they are... Akita recently started a thread on the Genesis creation accounts in the Hermeneutics subforum that devolved that way even though the topic seemed pretty benign to me.

You would almost need a separate subforum with rules to allow a coherent conversation among liberals, similar to what we have with the 'traditional theology' forum. If you are a liberal looking for an online community of like-minded folks to discuss things with then CF seems to be a poor option.

Since I can profess the Nicene creed at face-value I don't consider myself a liberal. But around CF I sure feel like one since 1) I accept mainstream science, biblical scholarship, psychology, etc., as other ways of knowing things, and 2) because I believe the humanity of the writers are all over the pages of scripture. In some of the mainline congregations here in New England I feel like a conservative; even some of the clergy are open about not necessarily accepting the creed at face-value.

jason

In my church we do occasionally use the Nicene or Apostles Creed, however, it is not required for people to accept any of it as claims about biology or cosmology. It is treated as a symbol or testament to what Christians have put their faith in, but it is not a test for membership.

FireDragon76 · Oct 14, 2024

Paidiske said:
This is, I think, partly intentional in the way that the rules are framed. Many folks interested in that kind of discussion give up and leave. Which makes it difficult to build any critical mass.

Evangelical Fundamentalists in the US have always tended to be good at using media, it's been a hallmark of the movement since it's early years. It's also tended to be anti-intellectual, especially since the failure of Fundamentalists to seize control of Mainline denominations. Fundamentalism was more or less started in the US and it's ubiquitous in certain Christian circles here. Whereas Mainline Protestants in the US have tended to be less interested in using the media for propaganda purposes, instead working behind the scenes more, seeking to further a broader humanist and social justice agenda in the public sphere (and not just "saving souls").

I suppose I have stayed all these years just because I want people to know there is another way of being a Christian, one that isn't afraid of tough questions or intellectual challenges, and one that doesn't deal in trivial moralisms or weaponizing the Bible to serve a reactionary political agenda.

FireDragon76 · Oct 14, 2024

RDKirk said:
As I've been reading through this thread, I realized that I also accept the Nicene creed at face value and also still "1) I accept mainstream science, biblical scholarship, psychology, etc., as other ways of knowing things, and 2) because I believe the humanity of the writers are all over the pages of scripture." And that without any mental gyrations...I see no conflict if I don't presume anything beyond the face value of either the Nicene Creed or science.

To be frank, I think the Nicene Creed is often answering the wrong questions and isn't particularly concerned with being faithful to the religion of Jesus. It's possible to be an "orthodox Christian" and be very much off the mark, in that respect.

My conceptualization of what it means to be a Christian has alot more resemblance to Reformed Judaism than to the religion of American Evangelicals. Judaism is also largely a non-creedal religion, more defined by conevanent and shared rituals and values, than by right beliefs.

RDKirk · Oct 14, 2024

okay said:
Yeah - I may not have articulated myseful very clearly! I had started editing my post to clarify but once folks started replying I cancelled the edit.

Let me put it more clearly: if mainstream science says A, and a face-value interpretation fo the bible says B (edit: and B is incompatible with A), then my default posture is to accept A and look for other ways of interpreting scripture. I also believe that the humanity of the writers means that they may even misrepresent God sometimes, just like we misrepresent God sometimes when we try to follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit in doing what we believe God is calling us to do here on Earth. I know this is not very popular around here, so usually refrain from posting anything along those lines.

EDIT: another way to say this is that I believe the biblical writers were limited, flawed, fallible human beings. So when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, their ability to receive, interpret, synthesize and communicate that inspiration was limited, flawed and fallible.

I believe the biblical writers had true experiences that involved both God and the real world, and were inspired by the Holy Spirit to record them...but they necessarily could only interpret their experiences through the goggles of their own existence.

Almost the same thing you said, but not quite.

There is no denying that the OT comes out with a different view of God than the NT. It is so obvious that the debate of that very issue was the first problem of heresy that the Church had to deal with on an organized basis. It would never have gotten that far if it wasn't so obvious to a sufficient number of Christians. But the NT is based on more data about God available only when they could observe God actually operating in the flesh, even though the underlying spiritual principles never changed.

And as well, scientists face the same struggle, which is why science also changes with more data even though the underlying physical principles never changed.

RDKirk · Oct 14, 2024

FireDragon76 said:
To be frank, I think the Nicene Creed is often answering the wrong questions and isn't particularly concerned with being faithful to the religion of Jesus. It's possible to be an "orthodox Christian" and be very much off the mark, in that respect.

My conceptualization of what it means to be a Christian has alot more resemblance to Reformed Judaism than to the religion of American Evangelicals. Judaism is also largely a non-creedal religion, more defined by conevanent and shared rituals and values, than by right beliefs.

I think the Nicene Creed answers very pointedly the right questions, and in fact the only questions that are fundamentally important.

RileyG · Oct 14, 2024

Gregory Thompson said:
Liberal also means generous.

Yes. It can also mean "broad."

RileyG · Oct 14, 2024

FireDragon76 said:
In my church we do occasionally use the Nicene or Apostles Creed, however, it is not required for people to accept any of it as claims about biology or cosmology. It is treated as a symbol or testament to what Christians have put their faith in, but it is not a test for membership.

When I attended a UCC Church several years ago (with communion that particular Sunday) they had a different creed at the beginning of the service. I don't remember what it was called, though.

My Pentecostal (Assemblies of God) classmate thought the UCC service was very structured, from her POV.

Gregory Thompson · Oct 14, 2024

RileyG said:
Yes. It can also mean "broad."

I'd rather judge God being merciful, than being spiteful. We get judged the same way we judge others, Jesus said so.

RileyG · Oct 14, 2024

Gregory Thompson said:
I'd rather judge God being merciful, than being spiteful. We get judged the same way we judge others, Jesus said so.

Yes. I agree.

RDKirk · Oct 14, 2024

FireDragon76 said:
In my church we do occasionally use the Nicene or Apostles Creed, however, it is not required for people to accept any of it as claims about biology or cosmology. It is treated as a symbol or testament to what Christians have put their faith in, but it is not a test for membership.

It doesn't make any claims about biology or cosmology.

FireDragon76 · Oct 15, 2024

RDKirk said:
It doesn't make any claims about biology or cosmology.

It claims Jesus was born of a virgin. It also claims he rose from the dead, and that he will return again. Many people do interpret those claims in terms of biology or cosmology.

If you have another explanation, it would be welcome.

Are there any actual liberals here?

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Clara bonam audax

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Clara bonam audax

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Veteran

Veteran

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Veteran

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Similar threads