Debunking Liberal Mythology... Again!

[Sharp]

Imagine my surprise that you and I are reading the same
one.

I have yet to see modern liberals do more than proof text... very shallow.

If you know what good Bible preaching is, and realize that your pastor is not preaching the Bible, then you need to look for another church.

Liberals may use the Bible in repeats of the same liturgy year after year, but where is the living, dynamic, life-changing relationship with Christ? Where is the life changing power of the Holy Spirit released in personal Bible study?

If you know your church is missing something, why not talk with another pastor, a born-again Christian? You don't belong in a church that doesn't teach the Word of God.

 

[tulc]

I have yet to see modern liberals do more than proof text... very shallow

...and yet you are surrounded by them on CF and still insist " I have yet to see modern liberals do more than proof text" Just a thought.
tulc(sees there is no ice cream here, but decides to stick around anyway!)

 

[Firefly]

I have yet to see modern liberals do more than proof text... very shallow.

If you know what good Bible preaching is, and realize that your pastor is not preaching the Bible, then you need to look for another church.

Liberals may use the Bible in repeats of the same liturgy year after year, but where is the living, dynamic, life-changing relationship with Christ? Where is the life changing power of the Holy Spirit released in personal Bible study?

If you know your church is missing something, why not talk with another pastor, a born-again Christian? You don't belong in a church that doesn't teach the Word of God.

Sharp, believe it or not, I like you. You do make one think.

Point of fact: last week at our church we had a young couple attend and
tell a group of us afterwards they've been searching for a new church.
They've been to 11 churches in the past weeks and after the first 3, they
stopped taking their Bibles in. None of the churches were preaching from
the Bible.

When they got to ours, they were just glad we have pew Bibles, because
we always read the scripture, talk about it, learn, and end with
more scripture reading.

We tear that thing apart. What the difference between you and I is, while
the preacher might talk about sin, and who needs to repent or whatever,
I don't feel the need to do that. And if that were ALL he talked about, if
all he did was rail each week against a new group of sinners, or the old
stand-by, the love that dare not speak its name...I'd leave and never go
back.

We study the scripture, we read the scripture, and the focus is always on
the Lordship and saving grace of Christ. What we don't do is sit around
and take everyone else's inventory of who sinned the most this week, or
whom we think might be sinning, or who should be kicked out because
they're sinning.

That's the post I've seen that bothers me the most- that we should kick
people out of fellowship and out of a church. I *know* what the scripture
says. I'm saying that I personally find that horrific. If someone is steeped
in sin, church should be the first place they go to. Their fellow Christians
should be the first people they turn to. And the church should be the one
place where everyone is welcome.

Besides, maybe they are repenting, and doing it quietly and just don't feel
the need to send out a press-release every time they pray.

Whether they stop sinning or not isn't my concern. My concern is that they
are reminded repeatedly of the sacrifice and saving grace of Christ. I find
it more Christ-like to focus on loving and forgiveness. Not judgment.

Anyway. Cheers to you,
~fly

 

[seebs]

I have yet to see modern liberals do more than proof text... very shallow.

This may be tied in to your tendency to skim threads and not have time for many of the longer or more involved posts. You've completely ignored dozens of posts which did long and involved studies of whole passages, compared them with others, spotted links or references to other passages, and talked about the cultural context of the writing. You want to see prooftexting? Citing 2 Timothy's single verse on the inspiration of Scripture is prooftexting!

Liberals may use the Bible in repeats of the same liturgy year after year, but where is the living, dynamic, life-changing relationship with Christ? Where is the life changing power of the Holy Spirit released in personal Bible study?

Oddly, I would say the exact same thing, only I'd say "Conservatives" instead of "Liberals".

If you'd read more of the threads, both in this forum and over in Liberal Churches, I think you'd see plenty of that... Also note that the Holy Spirit is not dependent on Bible study; we don't need to limit God like that.

If you know your church is missing something, why not talk with another pastor, a born-again Christian? You don't belong in a church that doesn't teach the Word of God.

On this, I'm sure we agree. I just happen to want to speak with people who preach the Living Word, not the written word, because that's the point of the faith.

 

[Toney]

I consider good Bible preaching like this:

"But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart." (Lk 2:19)

I am sure Sharp has sat through many a good Bible thumping sermon on that one.

Not surprisingly, there is more than one interpretation, which is true of most of the Bible:

1. These "things" that she treasured were confirmations from God that all she had been promised came true -- shepherds claiming an angel instructed them to stop in and wise men from the East bringing gifts, not to mention a strange star.

2. These "things" that she pondered gave the Holy Spirit something to work with. In Greek the word for symbol means "to bring together." We note it time and again in scripture -- the holy reality check.

3. It is a way to read scripture: we treasure and ponder and allow the Holy Spirit to work in us.

4. For Catholics, it is the basis for devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that leads to an understanding of her role in God's salvific plan.

5. For some thumpers, it is just another Biblical sentimentalism.

 

[quantumspirit]

OK, Sharp, this time I will respond to you. You said that liberals have compromised values, which is a common belief by the religous right. I used to think the same thing. But when you look at some of the things Jesus and his dirty dozen did, like some of the things they did on the Sabbath, you might consider that a compromise of values especially in contrast to what the Religious Right of that day (Pharisees and Saducees) preached. I believe that the uncompromising adherence to values that you so desire requires strict adherence to tradition, something else Jesus walked all over. He not only dissed the Pharisee's man-made traditions, but also broke with tradition mentioned in the OT. A good example of the latter is when he said that all that a man eats must pass through his stomach, saying that all foods are fit to be eaten.
If this weren't true, you would not be eating pork or shrimp!
My question for you, Sharp, is not whether you read the Bible, but who do you let interpret it for you? Try reading just bare scripture, and pondering for yourself what it could mean. Personally, I would like to have two Bibles, one with conservative footnotes, and one with liberal footnotes, then mentally bat around the verses in question, and decide where I stand on it.

 

[jgarden]

I have yet to see modern liberals do more than proof text... very shallow.

If you know what good Bible preaching is, and realize that your pastor is not preaching the Bible, then you need to look for another church.

By "demonizing" all liberals and assuming you have a "monopoly" on the truth, you are doing both liberals and conservatives a disservice. Does the behavior of Jimmy Swaggert mean all his followers are "adulterers." Are Jim and Tammy's followers all "crooks," Does that line of reasoning make Republicans who voted for Richard Nixon all "liers."

When you create a sterotype mindset, you appeal to are prejudices and bury the truth.

 

[Texas Lynn]

There's no use responding to snide attacks on liberals like this. The attacks are illogical, emotionalistic whining which represent no intellectual effort at all.

Liberals are by no means united on issues like homosexuality and war. We are a diverse lot and given to searching for common ground. but there's none to be found when scattershot hyperbolic attacks say nothing substantial.

 

[The Midge]

Personally, I would like to have two Bibles, one with conservative footnotes, and one with liberal footnotes, then mentally bat around the verses in question, and decide where I stand on it.

Try the NIV/ NASB/ ESB for Conservative and RSV/ NRSV/ Jerusalem Bible for more Liberal versions. For one volume commentaries try IVP New Bible Commentary for conservative - Evangelical and The Oxford Bible Commentary for a more liberal reading.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I have yet to see modern liberals do more than proof text... very shallow.

Liberals may use the Bible in repeats of the same liturgy year after year, but where is the living, dynamic, life-changing relationship with Christ? Where is the life changing power of the Holy Spirit released in personal Bible study?

If you know your church is missing something, why not talk with another pastor, a born-again Christian? You don't belong in a church that doesn't teach the Word of God.

Where is your proof of any of this Sharp?

The liberals I know are real serious Bible students with a very dynamic and life-changing relationship with Christ.

Before I developed a more liberal theology I felt useless and guilty, now I have begun to see ways of furthering the work of God's kingdom on this earth and my relationship with Christ has become more vibrant. I study my Bible some every day and it is a greater joy to me now than when I was a conservative evangelical.

Not that I'm knocking conservative evangelicals. We're all different, so if it works for you that's fine, I just find being more liberal works better for me.

Now the more fundamentalist Christians do tend to see things rather differently from us more liberal ones, but that doesn't give any credence to what you've just said, Sharp.

Why does it bother you so much that other Christians see things differently from you?

Karin

 

[jgarden]

There's no use responding to snide attacks on liberals like this. The attacks are illogical, emotionalistic whining which represent no intellectual effort at all.

Liberals are by no means united on issues like homosexuality and war. We are a diverse lot and given to searching for common ground. but there's none to be found when scattershot hyperbolic attacks say nothing substantial.

Texas Lynn is right, Sharp's threads and comments have reduced "discussion and debate" to a new low. What's the point in responding to someone who won't even go through the "motions" of engaging in a meaningful debate? Let Sharp have his/her inflamatory opinions, but do we have to dignify them with a response?

 

[Polycarp1]

What makes responding to a Sharp thread worthwhile is the message that you have the opportunity to give to the other folks reading the thread -- refuting the accusations that many think or feel but he puts into words, by stating the Truth in love.

Much of the greatest Christian writing has been in refutation of heresies -- here's your chance to join the Fathers of the Church and proclaim the Gospel as you know it ought to be proclaimed.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Christ rebuked Judas with "The poor you always have with you." So much for liberals plans to erase poverty!

Often in eagerness to make a point using scripture we can take it entirely out of context and that is exactly what was done here. Christ's comment to Judas was in response to a woman in the communal Christian group who had spent a pretty penny on oil with which to annoint Christ. Judas (treasurer of the Disciples and a stereotypical parsinimous Jew--no one's real name was ever "Judas", it is simply a Latinization of the phrase "a Jew" used to encourage anti-Semitism) objected to her spending the money. This was toward the end of Jesus' ministry. The subordinate clause is something like "the Son of Man is with you but a short time". So Jesus was comparing her honoring of him with the annointing (which was done as a courtesy and act of honor in part because bathing was rare in that arid land and people stunk) with Judas' comment that the money could have been better spent on aid to the poor. IOW, he was telling him "back off!" on attacking the woman's action and shut up about it. It was certainly no comment on the appropriate response to poverty in any case.

...the Spirit that motivates Bill Clinton (lying, sex sin, unfaithfulness to wife, illegal donations, lapse national security) with that of our President, and I realize where the evil principalities are.

This unfortunate comment directed at Mr. Clinton is somewhat a non sequitur. Mr. Bush has certainly lied, accepted illegal donations, and lapsed national security and some claim he's done the sexual/unfaithful thing also. Both men are Christians and are possessed of human foibles.

And----"principalities"? Like monarchies too minor to have a King but are instead ruled by a Prince, like the Principality of Lichtenstein? Actually, I believe as Governor of Arkansas Mr. Clinton was indeed involved in negotiations with Lichtensteiner Venture Capitalists who purchased a declining mall in Eureka Springs (the Lichtensteiners have deep pockets like their neighbors, the Swiss), so perhaps that is to what this is referring.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I have yet to see modern liberals do more than proof text... very shallow.

I'm not even sure what "proof-texting" is? Is like skimming instead of reading? How can anyone know someone else does that? What's the difference between that and taking a passage out of context as sharp himself has done?

Liberals may use the Bible in repeats of the same liturgy year after year, but where is the living, dynamic, life-changing relationship with Christ? Where is the life changing power of the Holy Spirit released in personal Bible study?

Liberals do indeed engage in Bible study. Some churches, like Episcopals, have standard liturgies. Other churches, some liberal, do not. We in the United Methodist Church (a denomination with some liberal members and some conservatives, but most in neither camp 100% of the time) have the Lectionary in the United Methodist Book of Worship which recommends several scriptural texts for sermon topics once every three years, but it is optional. Our faith in liberal churches and of us as liberal Christians is by no means second-rate compared to that of others.

 

[CaDan]

I'm not even sure what "proof-texting" is? Is like skimming instead of reading? How can anyone know someone else does that? What's the difference between that and taking a passage out of context as sharp himself has done?

It is the process of combing the Bible for individual verses that will prove your point. The key is the POINT exists first and then you find the verses to support it. Psalms seems to be the the most fruitful place for these verses, although individual verses from Paul are also good.

Liberals do indeed engage in Bible study. Some churches, like Episcopals, have standard liturgies. Other churches, some liberal, do not. We in the United Methodist Church (a denomination with some liberal members and some conservatives, but most in neither camp 100% of the time) have the Lectionary in the United Methodist Book of Worship which recommends several scriptural texts for sermon topics once every three years, but it is optional. Our faith in liberal churches and of us as liberal Christians is by no means second-rate compared to that of others.

Some liberals *shock* actually READ the Bible! Not just "Bible Study". Bible READING.

current music: The Ramones - Sheena Is a Punk Rocker
Marianne Faithfull - Falling In Love Again

 

[Sharp]

OK, Sharp, this time I will respond to you. I believe that the uncompromising adherence to values that you so desire requires strict adherence to tradition, something else Jesus walked all over.

Thanks for a response. Jesus Christ opposed their tradition because He said it made null the Word of God (the Scriptures). I am not slavish to tradition, but obedient to the Bible.

If your church does not teach the Bible, you must leave it. If your church claims the Bible contains the Word of God but IS NOT the Word of God, then you can be pretty sure that your church is misleading you about other matters as well.

My question for you, Sharp, is not whether you read the Bible, but who do you let interpret it for you? Try reading just bare scripture, and pondering for yourself what it could mean. Personally, I would like to have two Bibles, one with conservative footnotes, and one with liberal footnotes, then mentally bat around the verses in question, and decide where I stand on it.

I suggest using the best Greek and Hebrew texts and allowing the Holy Spirit to interpret in the company of other Bible believers. In many counsellors is wisdom and safety. Atleast check with various versions and use good conservative commentaries. If you do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, then none of this matters really. The important thing -- the most important thing in life -- is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Once one becomes a Christian, then one can begin to study the Bible with understanding.

 

[seebs]

If your church does not teach the Bible, you must leave it. If your church claims the Bible contains the Word of God but IS NOT the Word of God, then you can be pretty sure that your church is misleading you about other matters as well.

Except we already had this discussion, and we showed solid and convincing proof from multiple sources and referring back to the original language that Jesus is the Word of God, and that the Bible is the words, but not the Living Word.

So, what we're seeing here is that, even after admitting that the Bible itself clearly teaches that Jesus is the Word, you'll just go back and insist that the Bible be called the Word too.

That is definitionally bibliolatry, and I would suggest you get far away from whatever church is teaching it, because it's a kind of blasphemy; you no longer have the excuse of thinking Jesus isn't the Word of God, because you've seen and acknowledged the text saying so. At that point, if you claim that the Bible is the Word, you are in the same boat as all the other people who think the Bible is God, and that's idolatry, heresy, and blasphemy, all in one convenient little package.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It is the process of combing the Bible for individual verses that will prove your point. The key is the POINT exists first and then you find the verses to support it. Psalms seems to be the the most fruitful place for these verses, although individual verses from Paul are also good.

So Sharp thinks only liberals do this? **snigger** I see conservatives do this daily here on CF and they even express disappointment when you don't do it back at them.

 

[lucaspa]

Gimme a break! Jesus Christ condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. His Holy Spirit inspired the authors with the thoughts and values of Jesus Christ.

By your logic Jesus inspired Moses in the matter of divorce, yet in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 Jesus tells us Moses got it wrong! So "inspiration" isn't the same as direct quotes of the living Jesus. The living Jesus preached love and tolerance for everyone. If followers use some words in the Bible to promote intolerance for some people, then I have to wonder if they understood the words correctly.

In like manner Jesus Christ not only endorsed warfare, He actually ordered it. Again He spoke via his Holy Spirit in the Bible.

This is where I see the danger. The conversion of the Bible into Jesus. Just follow the blueprint. The Bible isn't Jesus or God. It is a human record of interactions with God.

And yes Jesus has compassion for the poor. It is called work. We evangelical and fundamentalist Christians still feed the poor, but the OT and NT ultimate solution is work. Christ through His Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write not to feed the poor who refuse to work. And Christ rebuked Judas with "The poor you always have with you." So much for liberals plans to erase poverty!

Maybe poverty can never be erased, but some goals are noble whether you ever achieve them or not. Most poor do work. If not, they are prevented by other circumstances. Can you back up your statement with verses, in context, from the NT and OT?

Yes, the divide is not between parties, but between God's religious and moral and economic values and those of false versions of Christianity.

And here Fundamentalists try to exclude Christians! Has it occurred to you that Fundamentalism may be a "false version of Christianity"?

We can dialog, but both sides have to have a source of authority... that should be the Bible. And that requires intellectual honesty to be interpreted correctly.

And here is the major disagreement. The source of authority is God, not the Bible. The Bible is a guide to what God wants, but it is not the only or even the supreme guide. Of course, then there is always that trap of "interpreted correctly", with "correctly" defined as what you think the interpretation is.

That can happen only with God's Holy Spirit and God doesn't give His Spirit to non-Christian false Christians. (NOTE: I didn't say who are the false Christians here. I obey the forum rules. I was general.)

That you even think to name fellow Christians as "false Christians" is enough.

Their home should be in a party that reflects Godly, Bible-based values.

Are you sure the Republicans have the accurate Bible-based values?

I contrast the Spirit that motivates Bill Clinton (lying, sex sin, unfaithfulness to wife, illegal donations, lapse national security) with that of our President, and I realize where the evil principalities are.

I don't suppose you think honest people can honestly disagree with this political evaluation.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I'm sure Sharp will be most inerested in this:

These leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush.

We believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion.

We believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry - for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.

We believe all candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values. We will measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests.

We are not single-issue voters.

We believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)

We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)

We believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)

We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)

We believe that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)

We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )

We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)

If Sharp, or anyone else wishes to read more or sign this petition, they can do so here http://go.sojo.net/campaign/takebackourfaith

Karin