Liberal Christian Attempts To Debate Atheist But They Just Agree On Everything
- Thread starter St_Worm2
- Start date
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,451
- 26,880
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Fundamentally problematic in discussing "conservative" and "liberal" is that these terms are hardly being defined in any meaningful way.
The satirical article in the OP seems to present a "liberal Christian" as a wishy-washy person without any meaningful religious conviction whatsoever; is this the definition being provided? If so, wouldn't other descriptors be more meaningful? Like, say, wishy-washy?
I tend to self-identify as a "liberal" Christian. Chiefly because my political and social views tend to be on the leftward side of the spectrum; but it is precisely because of my religious convictions as a believing Christian that I hold to those views. "Liberal" also tends to be used to refer to Christians who are alright with the historical-critical method and textual criticism; thus a Christian who subscribes to the Documentary Hypothesis rather than Mosaic authorship can be labeled as "liberal". For some this is an inexcusable position to take and is treated as a wholesale rejection of Holy Scripture and the authority of Scripture--and yet it's not. Referring to myself--the Documentary Hypothesis doesn't do away with the canonicity and authority of the Pentateuch as holy and inspired Scripture.
So we need some kind of definition here, and preferably one that doesn't rely on caricature and empty rhetoric.
Few modern "liberal" Christians subscribe to 19th century Liberalism, as such that division between the Fundamentalist and the Liberal as it existed over a century ago is nearly meaningless as it is irrelevant. I've met many "liberal" Christians, and if you ask them what they believe--about God, about Jesus, about the Gospel, about salvation--the answers you are going to receive will 9/10 times be virtually indistinguishable from what many "conservative" Christians answer. Namely, confessing the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, no finger-crossing, but sincere belief and conviction over the historic teaching of the Church.
"But liberals don't believe in miracles" That's nonsense. There are as many "liberals" who believe in the miraculous events described in Scripture as there are "conservatives". "But liberals don't believe in a literal six day creation as described in Genesis 1", and neither do many "conservatives", and neither did St. Augustine of Hippo or Origen of Alexandria and many of the great saints and theologians of the last two thousand years.
Let's establish our terms. Let's use language more precisely. Let's stop inventing strawmen to push over.
Someone who denies that Christ is true God and man. Someone who denies that there is one God. Someone who denies that Christ suffered, died, was buried, and rose from the dead. Someone who denies the resurrection of the body. Such a person is a heretic, not a "liberal".
-CryptoLutheran
The satirical article in the OP seems to present a "liberal Christian" as a wishy-washy person without any meaningful religious conviction whatsoever; is this the definition being provided? If so, wouldn't other descriptors be more meaningful? Like, say, wishy-washy?
I tend to self-identify as a "liberal" Christian. Chiefly because my political and social views tend to be on the leftward side of the spectrum; but it is precisely because of my religious convictions as a believing Christian that I hold to those views. "Liberal" also tends to be used to refer to Christians who are alright with the historical-critical method and textual criticism; thus a Christian who subscribes to the Documentary Hypothesis rather than Mosaic authorship can be labeled as "liberal". For some this is an inexcusable position to take and is treated as a wholesale rejection of Holy Scripture and the authority of Scripture--and yet it's not. Referring to myself--the Documentary Hypothesis doesn't do away with the canonicity and authority of the Pentateuch as holy and inspired Scripture.
So we need some kind of definition here, and preferably one that doesn't rely on caricature and empty rhetoric.
Few modern "liberal" Christians subscribe to 19th century Liberalism, as such that division between the Fundamentalist and the Liberal as it existed over a century ago is nearly meaningless as it is irrelevant. I've met many "liberal" Christians, and if you ask them what they believe--about God, about Jesus, about the Gospel, about salvation--the answers you are going to receive will 9/10 times be virtually indistinguishable from what many "conservative" Christians answer. Namely, confessing the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, no finger-crossing, but sincere belief and conviction over the historic teaching of the Church.
"But liberals don't believe in miracles" That's nonsense. There are as many "liberals" who believe in the miraculous events described in Scripture as there are "conservatives". "But liberals don't believe in a literal six day creation as described in Genesis 1", and neither do many "conservatives", and neither did St. Augustine of Hippo or Origen of Alexandria and many of the great saints and theologians of the last two thousand years.
Let's establish our terms. Let's use language more precisely. Let's stop inventing strawmen to push over.
Someone who denies that Christ is true God and man. Someone who denies that there is one God. Someone who denies that Christ suffered, died, was buried, and rose from the dead. Someone who denies the resurrection of the body. Such a person is a heretic, not a "liberal".
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Not Baptists, but most other Orthodox Conservatives have churches packed full of "Stuff".
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I didn't say Jesus was a Heretic. I said He was very Liberal.
Extremely unorthadox in his circles. Not in the least bit
Conservative other than his mastery of scripture.
His application of scripture was radical.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I didn't want to distract readers from the focus of my post that Jesus was a radical liberal
redirecting people away from scripture they have heard:
- But I tell you ...
- but I say unto you....
- But I say to you...
- But I say to you...
- But I say to you...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
