Liberal Christian?

[PaladinValer]

No, I am not.

 

[jasperbound]

The problems start when you assume that your theology, your biblical interpretation, your moral behaviour, your church practice is the only divinely sanctioned way of thinking and believing. It doesn't matter if you are Catholic, Orthodox or Southern Baptist, you still only see partially, "through a glass darkly," as it were.

I'm not a liberal Christian because I think I'm right and everyone is wrong (that goes without saying... ) but because I'm willing to accept that that I've still got a lot to learn.

So, liberal Christians don't think that people who believe that Jesus never existed are wrong? After all, they don't believe that their interpretation, theology, etc. are the only divinely sanctioned way of thinking and believing, right?

 

[jasperbound]

Most liberal Christians believe that Jesus Christ is more than that, even if they don't believe in a literal virgin birth or incarnation. I mean, Jesus holds a special place in Islam as well, and even the Jews acknowledge him as a great rabbi. Once you reduce Jesus to a great role model, I think you probably are pretty much out of the range of the word "Christian" having much meaning.

But surely they are still considered Christians. After all, the Bible doesn't have to represent actual history and nobody can honestly tell me that the resurrection makes more sense than Jonah in a big fish or any of the other weird things in the Bible. Has anybody in the world seen somebody be crucified, impaled with a spear, thrown in a tomb for three days, and come back to life? What about people walking on water? Besides, it'd be wrong for one to tell other people that their beliefs are wrong, right?

 

[Joykins]

So, liberal Christians don't think that people who believe that Jesus never existed are wrong? After all, they don't believe that their interpretation, theology, etc. are the only divinely sanctioned way of thinking and believing, right?

What do you mean by "wrong"?

 

[Joykins]

But surely they are still considered Christians?

Why would they be considered Christians? Isn't belief in Christ as the savior the belief that defines Christianity? I acknowledge that there are other religions and non-religious belief systems that exist, and some of them (like Islam) hold Jesus in a place of respect but do not believe in him as the Christ.

After all, the Bible doesn't have to represent actual history

Agreed. I believe parts of it do and parts of it don't and other parts aren't even attempting to be historical.

and nobody can honestly tell me that the resurrection makes more sense than Jonah in a big fish or any of the other weird things in the Bible. Has anybody in the world seen somebody be crucified, impaled with a spear, thrown in a tomb for three days, and come back to life? What about people walking on water?

Admittedly these things are strange but as the resurrection is (whether you hold it literally or not) the central hope of Christianity, to dismiss it as a meaningless story is missing the point just as much as is placing your faith in a belief that the earth must have been created in 7 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago.

Besides, it'd be wrong for one to tell other people that their beliefs are wrong, right?

Nonsense. The real question is what does it mean for other beliefs to be "wrong" (if indeed they are; and from context I am uncertain whether you mean "evil" or "mistaken" or "inconsistent with classical orthodox Christianity") and what purpose would be served by doing so.

 

[jasperbound]

What do you mean by "wrong"?

I mean wrong by incorrect. Because if they were to actually believe that these people have incorrect beliefs, then one would be saying that his own interpretation of the Bible is right and people who disagree with it are wrong. Therefore, people who don't believe Christ ever existed are not necessarily wrong and they can be considered Christians too.

 

[jasperbound]

Nonsense. The real question is what does it mean for other beliefs to be "wrong" (if indeed they are; and from context I am uncertain whether you mean "evil" or "mistaken" or "inconsistent with classical orthodox Christianity") and what purpose would be served by doing so.

I guess we're in agreement then (I also mean "mistaken" and not "evil"). As for what purpose, it would be in the hopes of correcting them.

 

[Joykins]

I guess we're in agreement then (I also mean "mistaken" and not "evil"). As for what purpose, it would be in the hopes of correcting them.

Are you talking about Liberal Christians or non-Christians when you refer to "correcting" their beliefs?

If we are talking about interpretation of the Bible, what would lead you to always believe that your sincerely-held interpretation is "correct" and others' similarly sincerely-held interpretations are "wrong"?

What would you hope to gain by "correcting" them?

How would you plan on going about "correcting" them?

 

[jasperbound]

Are you talking about Liberal Christians or non-Christians when you refer to "correcting" their beliefs?

If we are talking about interpretation of the Bible, what would lead you to always believe that your sincerely-held interpretation is "correct" and others' similarly sincerely-held interpretations are "wrong"?

What would you hope to gain by "correcting" them?

How would you plan on going about "correcting" them?

I'm talking about everybody from liberal Christians, non-Christians, non-liberal Christians, etc. As for what leads me to believe my sincerely held interpretation is correct and the sincerely held interpretation of others are wrong, it's research. Besides, people can sincerely hold wrong interpretations. Some people do sincerely believe that Jesus never existed, and surely you wouldn't say they are correct about that belief, right?

What about what you said concerning a literal interpretation of Genesis? I inferred that you believe that it's incorrect, but I sincerely believe it. Do you believe your sincerely held interpretation is right and my sincerely held interpretation is incorrect?

What would I hope to gain by correcting them? I'd hope they'd have a better grasp of the truth? How would I go about correcting them? Discussion. If Christians are not to do that, then these parts of the Christian Forums, where people discuss ideas not universally held, should not exist nor should anybody participate in them.

 

[Joykins]

I'm talking about everybody from liberal Christians, non-Christians, non-liberal Christians, etc. As for what leads me to believe my sincerely held interpretation is correct and the sincerely held interpretation of others are wrong, it's research.

See, I believe my beliefs are right because they are MINE. Well, yes, I have done research as well, but research does not always lead to what one might properly call a consensus on all issues. It can also easily fall prey to selection bias ("I will read only or primarily those research sources which appear to agree with what I already believe anyway").

Besides, people can sincerely hold wrong interpretations. Some people do sincerely believe that Jesus never existed, and surely you wouldn't say they are correct about that belief, right?

Well, I would sincerely believe them to be mistaken about that. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are incorrect about everything. I have learned a lot about God from my Jewish friends, for example.

Part of the disconnect I see here is that you have set up a dichotomy (correct/incorrect; wrong/right) that is of limited use in discussing a reality (the nature of God) which I believe to be both infinite and never fully knowable to human minds.

If you visualize this reality--imagine an immensely large (infinitely large, really, but let's stick with what we can visualize) sphere, with each accurate perception of and about God as a vector aimed toward the sphere which cannot penetrate within a certain radius of the center of the sphere. Each person gets a limited number of perceptions (vectors)-- some of them are going to terminate at the surface of the sphere; some may some may come closer to the depths of the sphere; some may be tangential to the surface of sphere (i.e. brush against it but not terminate there), some may intersect the sphere at 2 places (and either stop or continue); some may aim towards the sphere but terminate before intersecting it; and some may be pointed in a direction away from the sphere altogether. Some may intersect significantly with other vectors (faith groupings). The only ones that can be categorically dismissed as "wrong" would be the ones aimed away altogether. Each person can have any number of any kind of these.

The above is an attempt to illustrate a limited concept about the nature of beliefs about God using a metaphor. It doesn't even begin to address the question of "faith" i.e. what kind of origination point these vector-beliefs are coming from, or any actions made by God...if you get too wrapped up in the visualization you are missing the point; and if it is not useful, fuhgeddaboutit.

What about what you said concerning a literal interpretation of Genesis? I inferred that you believe that it's incorrect, but I sincerely believe it. Do you believe your sincerely held interpretation is right and my sincerely held interpretation is incorrect?

I did not say it was incorrect. I said that "placing your faith" in the details (and the ones I gave--7 days, 24 hours, 6000 years--are deliberately very number-oriented) of that interpretation is "missing the point" of the story. Or to put it in another way--what do you believe is the true meaning of the creation story?

What would I hope to gain by correcting them? I'd hope they'd have a better grasp of the truth? How would I go about correcting them? Discussion. If Christians are not to do that, then these parts of the Christian Forums, where people discuss ideas not universally held, should not exist nor should anybody participate in them.

I think discussion is a wonderful thing.

When someone tells me up front that my beliefs are wrong, my first reaction is to embrace my own beliefs more firmly and defend them.

If someone tells me what they believe and why, and I find it compelling or interesting, I would be more open to looking into the matter.

 

[jasperbound]

See, I believe my beliefs are right because they are MINE. Well, yes, I have done research as well, but research does not always lead to what one might properly call a consensus on all issues. It can also easily fall prey to selection bias ("I will read only or primarily those research sources which appear to agree with what I already believe anyway").

Yes, it can be abused, just as with everything else. Even history can be manipulated. However, there are certainly correct versions of history (i.e. George Washington was the first president of the US) and incorrect versions (i.e. Abe Lincoln was the first president of the US).

Well, I would sincerely believe them to be mistaken about that. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are incorrect about everything. I have learned a lot about God from my Jewish friends, for example.

I doubt anybody in the world is incorrect about everything.

Part of the disconnect I see here is that you have set up a dichotomy (correct/incorrect; wrong/right) that is of limited use in discussing a reality (the nature of God) which I believe to be both infinite and never fully knowable to human minds.

Can God contradict Himself? Is God not a God of logic? Can a historical event have happened and at the same time have never happened? If God can contradict Himself and God is not a God of logic, then I guess two ideas that are mutually exclusive can both be correct. So, God can never be known fully by humans, but that doesn't mean that God can create a boulder so large that He cannot lift it or that He can lie.

If you visualize this reality--imagine an immensely large (infinitely large, really, but let's stick with what we can visualize) sphere, with each accurate perception of and about God as a vector aimed toward the sphere which cannot penetrate within a certain radius of the center of the sphere. Each person gets a limited number of perceptions (vectors)-- some of them are going to terminate at the surface of the sphere; some may some may come closer to the depths of the sphere; some may be tangential to the surface of sphere (i.e. brush against it but not terminate there), some may intersect the sphere at 2 places (and either stop or continue); some may aim towards the sphere but terminate before intersecting it; and some may be pointed in a direction away from the sphere altogether. Some may intersect significantly with other vectors (faith groupings). The only ones that can be categorically dismissed as "wrong" would be the ones aimed away altogether. Each person can have any number of any kind of these.

Now it's just a matter of finding out which vectors point to God and which don't. Perhaps the Gnostics are the ones closest to God and we are the ones pointed away.

I did not say it was incorrect. I said that "placing your faith" in the details (and the ones I gave--7 days, 24 hours, 6000 years--are deliberately very number-oriented) of that interpretation is "missing the point" of the story. Or to put it in another way--what do you believe is the true meaning of the creation story?

The point I see is that God created the universe in six days. Why is your point necessarily correct and the point others get from it actually not the right point?

When someone tells me up front that my beliefs are wrong, my first reaction is to embrace my own beliefs more firmly and defend them.

If someone tells me what they believe and why, and I find it compelling or interesting, I would be more open to looking into the matter.

Same here.

 

[Joykins]

Can God contradict Himself? Is God not a God of logic? Can a historical event have happened and at the same time have never happened? If God can contradict Himself and God is not a God of logic, then I guess two ideas that are mutually exclusive can both be correct. So, God can never be known fully by humans, but that doesn't mean that God can create a boulder so large that He cannot lift it or that He can lie.

If God can't lie, and God reveals himself through both his creation (empirical evidence), the human conscience, and through the inspired stories in the Bible--which one do we believe if one appear to contradict the others?

I would however argue that things that may *appear* to be contradictory may actually make sense given a more perfect and complete point of view. ("Now we see through a glass, darkly; then we shall see face to face.")

Now it's just a matter of finding out which vectors point to God and which don't. Perhaps the Gnostics are the ones closest to God and we are the ones pointed away.

I don't think it is possible to determine such things within any degree of certainty (this is where faith comes in).

The point I see is that God created the universe in six days. Why is your point necessarily correct and the point others get from it actually not the right point?

Why is it important to believe that God have created the universe in 6 days?

I'll tell you what is important: not the 6 days, not the 6000 years, not the 24 hours. The other part.

 

[ottaia]

Why is it important to believe that God have created the universe in 6 days?

I'll tell you what is important: not the 6 days, not the 6000 years, not the 24 hours. The other part.

Amen.

 

[JunkYardDog]

I'll tell you what is important: not the 6 days, not the 6000 years, not the 24 hours. The other part.

So God is only believable when He says He created, but not believable when He says how long He took to do it?

 

[ottaia]

So God is only believable when He says He created, but not believable when He says how long He took to do it?

Why does it really matter how long? I mean REALLY MATTER?

 

[JunkYardDog]

Why does it really matter how long? I mean REALLY MATTER?

Because if you cannot believe Him in the very first thing He tells you, you cannot believe Him about ANYTHING -- including His love for you and the salvation He bought.

 

[Joykins]

Because if you cannot believe Him in the very first thing He tells you, you cannot believe Him about ANYTHING -- including His love for you and the salvation He bought.

Why?

 

[tulc]

Even history can be manipulated. However, there are certainly correct versions of history (i.e. George Washington was the first president of the US)

Uhmm well really...he wasn't.
http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html
tulc(see? our beliefs are based on the things we "know" but what happens when what we "know" has to change?)

 

[freewilly]

Uhmm well really...he wasn't.
http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html
tulc(see? our beliefs are based on the things we "know" but what happens when what we "know" has to change?)

You are rabble rouser I can tell, it must be all that coffee I see you talking about.

 

[Joykins]

Heh. I am from Maryland, and one of the things they stressed in "Maryland History" in school is that Hanson (who was from Maryland) was the REAL first president, due to being the 1st president of the Continental Congress