How does it feel?

[Kehaar]

And, just while we're on this topic, do you believe all religions are just about a reward? Or does Christianity differ in anyway? Just my own curiosity.

I think that Christianity does seem to put more of an emphasis upon a "personal relationship with Christ" compared with other religions. But I guess that a lot of people, Christians included, see following their religion as a way of avoiding God's wrath instead of following guidelines beneficial to our wellbeing and the human race as a whole.

I can see your argument, but I don't agree, at least where christians are concerned. Faith is not built on fear, that is not the nature of God.

Again, I'm curious, do you believe in Christ as an historical figure, that actually existed or do you see it more as myth?

I think that Christ probably did exist as an actual person, but I doubt he did the miraculous things that the Gospels say he did. I don't believe in goblins, ghosts, evil spirits or anything else that is supernatural, and I don't think it would take anything less than some kind of personal revelation to change my opinion. I'm open minded regarding Christianity's claims, but I would need to see some kind of evidence that the claims stated are true.

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I think that Christianity does seem to put more of an emphasis upon a "personal relationship with Christ" compared with other religions. But I guess that a lot of people, Christians included, see following their religion as a way of avoiding God's wrath instead of following guidelines beneficial to our wellbeing and the human race as a whole.

I think you are right, and some people DO see their faith in those terms, but they are ignoring the facts. If you look at the Gospel the pattern for redemption is clear - God has poured out salvation as an act of love - and we are free to accept or reject that outpouring as we see fit. Fear doesn't really come into it. I think the kind of faith that is motivated by fear is pretty weak and inconsistent as opposed to a faith that IS based on a relationship with Christ, and IS motivated by love.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Ah but firstly this law is from the government not the church or the other religions quoted so my point is that the blame lies not with the church because it’s the media and the secular making the sexual issue disproportionate.

which law? The racial hatred one? The racial hatred law is not the root of the churches obsession with sexuality which has been running for decades at least. The media on the whole report what the church is doing and saying. If we did not 'do and say' so much about homosexuality, then they would not report so much about homosexuality. It is the amount of time and energy spent by the church on discussing this matter which is disproportionate to its importance. The media (quite rightly in my view) show this accurately.

Ah but if the main issue was sexual we would have more on the position of Islam where in some countries homosexuals are executed, not the issue in the church.

The main issue in terms of these stories and discussions is what the Church in the UK thinks is important. They often appear to put homosexuality at the top of their agenda, so this is what the media reports. What happens in other countries which have many other abuses to add to the execution of homosexuals, such as genital mutilation, hands being cut off theives, treatment of women, is covered in the media, but is secondary to what is happening here and nothing to do with our church. HERE muslims are not executing homosexuals. Here Muslems are not carrying on a debate and threatening to split over whether Imams can be homosexual. The Church IS.

Incidentally the Guardian recently reported on the letter of the Gobal South http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1644243,00.html and included a comment from Richard Kirker of LGCM. If the Guardian wanted a balanced view it should really have sought an alternative view from other Bishops as those in authority in the church instead of from one who isn’t in similar authority.

peace

They had quotes from Rowan Williams.

There is no media conspiracy - the church looks bad even to those who belong to it.

 

[Jer]

The former. I'm not aware of any other, personally speaking.

I wouldn't regard that as the liberalism that I disagree with. To a certain extend there is a few things I think you should do, like trying not do wrong things as saying thank you to God, but it's not the way to heaven. What I disagree with is the liberalism that makes a mockery of God and says you can accept what you want and it'll get you to heaven.

 

[Kehaar]

I wouldn't regard that as the liberalism that I disagree with. To a certain extend there is a few things I think you should do, like trying not do wrong things as saying thank you to God, but it's not the way to heaven. What I disagree with is the liberalism that makes a mockery of God and says you can accept what you want and it'll get you to heaven.

With respect, why is this addressed to me?

 

[theFijian]

The former. I'm not aware of any other, personally speaking.

So which Christ is it that a liberal Christian would believe in and how does that affect your answer to Jer's earlier question?

 

[theFijian]

what is fundamental about it is that God created, which is what i think you meant at the end.

That is what I was saying The doctrine of Creation is fundamental, whether you hold to Creationism or Theitic Evolution is not. Buttermilk was making an association of fundamentalism with a literal reading of Genesis (ie Creationism).

 

[Kehaar]

So which Christ is it that a liberal Christian would believe in and how does that affect your answer to Jer's earlier question?

I think you might have to ask a liberal christian that one, I'm not really qualified to answer. Nor would I like to speak for someone else.

It doesn't affect my answer, from what I recall posting.

 

[theFijian]

I think you might have to ask a liberal christian that one, I'm not really qualified to answer. Nor would I like to speak for someone else.

I think there has been ample evidence on this thread for those who have read through it to make one quite qualified to answer it. I realise your position as a mod probably compromises your ability to give an unambiguous answer.

It doesn't affect my answer, from what I recall posting.

So you think that liberals, as their creed has been evidence on this thread, believe in the exclusivity of Christ?

 

[Kehaar]

I think there has been ample evidence on this thread for those who have read through it to make one quite qualified to answer it. I realise your position as a mod probably compromises your ability to give an unambiguous answer.

So you think that liberals, as their creed has been evidence on this thread, believe in the exclusivity of Christ?

I'm not getting draw any further into a debate on liberal/conservative views, theres enough of that on this thread already. And yes, that would have been my answer regardless of mod position.

 

[ScottishJohn]

So you think that liberals, as their creed has been evidence on this thread, believe in the exclusivity of Christ?

I think what Liberals and Conservatives believe is really not that important as it has no effect whatsoever on an unchanging God. I suspect both sides have it more than a little smudged and could learn from each other if they were more willing and weren't so busy bickering.

 

[oworm]

I think what Liberals and Conservatives believe is really not that important as it has no effect whatsoever on an unchanging God. I suspect both sides have it more than a little smudged and could learn from each other if they were more willing and weren't so busy bickering.

If both sides have it "A little smudged" then I doupt they could learn anything from each other which would be edifying or conjusive to building up in the faith.That would be a bit like the blind leading the blind.Good job we have a bible though!No smudges there!!

 

[ScottishJohn]

If both sides have it "A little smudged" then I doupt they could learn anything from each other which would be edifying or conjusive to building up in the faith.That would be a bit like the blind leading the blind.Good job we have a bible though!No smudges there!!

lol I was taking the charitable view that neither side had it 100% smudged. I think once we have decided that a particular group has nothing to teach us and has it all wrong, apart from being incredibly arrogant, we have closed our mind to the possibility that we are mistaken. I think it is important that at every turn we question ourselves as to whether we have lost sight of the truth, and have allowed ourselves to get caught up in our own intelligence.

As far as the Bible is concerned, I would agree, but also add that it is often interpretation of the Bible and the way the Bible should be used which is at the root of the disagreements. Which leads us back to where we started.

 

[Jer]

I understand what you're saying, I dislike blind belief as much as the next person. The church has gone too much down the lines of infighting and thus loosing respect for God from non-believers and also forcing some people away. It is important that despite some disagreements we work together to bring glory to God. I think this should be over issues like baptism and so on though. On the main issue of Jesus resurrection I think there should be a common consensus, that it happened and is the only way to salvation. It's too vital to just throw out and say the bible is a rule book for being good. Quite clearly that is nothing different from a lot of the world's belief and so why be a christian at all if it's true?

 

[ScottishJohn]

I understand what you're saying, I dislike blind belief as much as the next person. The church has gone too much down the lines of infighting and thus loosing respect for God from non-believers and also forcing some people away. It is important that despite some disagreements we work together to bring glory to God. I think this should be over issues like baptism and so on though. On the main issue of Jesus resurrection I think there should be a common consensus, that it happened and is the only way to salvation. It's too vital to just throw out and say the bible is a rule book for being good. Quite clearly that is nothing different from a lot of the world's belief and so why be a christian at all if it's true?

I think you are right, I think there are some issues which the Bible gives some leeway on - or just does not prescribe any one particular practise - baptism being one of them. I think it is important that we respect the right of other Christians to do as they see fit on some issues:

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

(The rest of the chapter expands on this idea and is well worth a read in the context of this discussion.)

However please don't think that I was arguing in favour of compromise - I think too often we seek conflict as opposed to concensus. Our history as a faith is littered with splits - factions disagreeing over how we should live our faith and ignoring what is said in Romans 14. Having said that there are certain things which there can be no compromise over, and it is on those issues that we are supposed to try and reach some agreement. If we cannot convince others with our words, perhaps it is possible to convince them through kindness? (I have yet to see anyone change their minds through being insulted or pestered - which unfortuneatly are amongst the methods employed all to frequently by Christians)

Most of all we need to emphasise and celebrate that which makes us the same, rather than that which splits us apart.

 

[xray01]

Sorry, I'm new to this thread. And I haven't read all the replies. I do agree that we need to recognise and build on those similar beliefs, but these will vary between denominations.

But how can you say that baptism is an area which the Bible gives some leeway on? People believed and then were baptised, fully immersed. Nowhere, as far as I'm aware, is there mention of infant baptism with marking of the cross on the forehead

 

[ScottishJohn]

Sorry, I'm new to this thread. And I haven't read all the replies. I do agree that we need to recognise and build on those similar beliefs, but these will vary between denominations.

But how can you say that baptism is an area which the Bible gives some leeway on? People believed and then were baptised, fully immersed. Nowhere, as far as I'm aware, is there mention of infant baptism with marking of the cross on the forehead

lol we are supposed to be building consensus! I didn't say anything about what variations there were in the Bible or which one I approved of- just that the Bible does not say exactly how Baptism has to take place, and if it were so important that it be done in a particular way, then it would. You could argue from the same approach in terms of the Bible that any baptism which does not take place in a river is unbiblical.

Just out of interest there are four occasions where we hear of a person converting to Christianity, and their whole household converting with them: Acts 16:13-15 Acts 16:29-34 Acts 18:8 1 Corinthians 1:16. There is no specific mention of infants, but then it is not unreasonable to suppose that in any one of those cases infants may have been involved. In any case, I am not convinced that the method of baptism is something we should allow to come between us as Christians. Unlike other behaviour which might have a profoundly negative effect on the church there is no damage done to anyone should an infant or adult be baptised.

Anyway - we are getting off the topic, perhaps if you want to discuss this more we could start a new thread?

 

[Buttermilk]

If you read the bible IT IS what He says (that it's not a personal choice to shape your spirituality). The problem is those bits are probably missed out by a number of people because they don't accept them because it's too extreme or something.

I don't have a problem with what the Bible says, I just do not believe that The Creation Stories are literal - I am a Theistic Evolutionist

Have a look at the passage someone mentioned earlier:

[bible] 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. (Revelation 3)[/bible]

Sounds like God is saying that He disproves of people who pick bits, and are neither a firm follower or not a follower. In fact not only disproves of, but is insulted by it.

It does not imply that He disaproves of people who pick bits - not that we Liberals pick bits anyway, all that is different between us and you is that we interpret these "bits" differenently.

Also for the record I would like to point out I am a firm follower. I might also add that since I took a more Liberal stance these last couple of years, I have been.......Liberated - I have developed a closer and more personal relationship with God.

Tell me please, what is the difference between a liberal christian (generally, no one specifically, and not saying all do) who does good but that's it and a person who's not a christian that does good?

Um........ ....."blinding revelation"..........A relationship with Christ. I know it has already be stated, but I thought you might like to hear it from a Liberal Christian

Why do people, especially 'liberals', assume that 'fundamentalists' read everything in scripture literally? Is this deliberate misrepresentation or just lazy thinking?

No, it is in the large part fact in my experience, although I will agree that not every fundamentalist will be a 100% literalist; just like FACT, most Liberal Christians are not Humanists with a bit of God thrown in for good measure.

Fundamentalists believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Origins theology is not one of them, save for "In the beginning, God..."

Strangely enough Liberal Christians also believe "In the beginning, God..."

As to your comment about which Christ - I am not even going to warrant that with a reply theFijian

i dislike it because, as you said (i think ), its a very "me-centred" way of doing christianity.

It is "me centred" in so much that Liberals tend to have very personal relationships with God, they don't let doctrine get in the way, but with regards to the physical expression of faith it certainly is NOT "me centred". In my experience and I emphasise it is only my experience, Liberals are more open to expressing their faith in practical ways which are useful to people and which makes these people stop and think "I want what they've got"

 

[Illenius]

To go back to the original question, I feel that Britain is not anti-religion. It will tolerate any religion and is still bound to Christianity eg by the monarchy.
At the same time, the diversity and tolerance allows a real personal choice about religion, as opposed to people being "nominal" christians by following the herd.

Equally, seperating laws and public debate from religion (eg about euthanasia, abortion, death penalty etc) helps to allow a rational debate from both sides, rather than one side falling back on the argument of "it's wrong", which does not help persuade any non-believers, and does not encourage true believers to think the issue through fully.

Oh and the person who posted "American soldiers by the thousands died in Europe in WWI and WWII" while complaining about Europes malign affect on America should consider Russia, who lost many times more soldiers than America. Of course, they are not worthy of note, as they then became the commie enemies, I suppose?