Liberal Christian?

[ottaia]

I do. When I preach against something, it is not something I am doing.

So we should call you Sybil?

 

[Joykins]

Everything in it or Anything in it?

"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them."

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."

In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. In the earthquake seven thousand people were killed, and the rest were afraid and gave glory to the God of heaven.



I know. Not every word in the Bible can be taken literally, but much of it can (especially old testament). And what can't be literally true, is very closely figuratively true. (meaning that what the passage refers to figuratively {a.k.a. "And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.
"These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth." olive trees/lampstands repressent the witnesses; and the witnesses are real} are real)

Let's just say that I think eisegesis is inevitable. There are many passages I think people can get close to the intended meaning such as the Pauline letters and the commandments of the Law. There are also many passages that are extremely difficult to interpret and Christians disagree on their intended meanings.

And when it comes to passages that say that thus-and-such happened, the literal meaning is probably the least important--what matters is the lesson we take away.

 

[jazzbird]

Temporarily Closed For Staff Review...

 

[jazzbird]

 

[jasperbound]

I don't think it matters if you take much of the Bible literally. This is probably one of the things that separate liberal from conservative.

So, the crucifixion could be completely figurative?

 

[invisible trousers]

So, the crucifixion could be completely figurative?

i guess it could, although i don't think i've come across anyone who believes it is.

Actually, it is the conservative Christians who are the most generous when it comes to giving from THEIR OWN money. The most recent surveys show the "red" areas of the country are the most generous in donations from their own pockets.

i don't see how this statement has any relation to the topic at hand. some proof would be nice, though.

I do. When I preach against something, it is not something I am doing.

[bible]luke 18:10-14[/bible]
[bible]matthew 7:2[/bible]

read those verses again. what makes you think you're off the hook?

 

[jasperbound]

i guess it could, although i don't think i've come across anyone who believes it is.

There are people like that. There are people who believe that the Bible is simply a book by old superstitious men who wanted to write something like a fortune cookie, and that Christ wasn't God, didn't die, and didn't even exist. So these people can be considered Christians too.

 

[AutumnAnne]

My Grandfather in law says that Progressionists dont believe in the atonement.

 

[Joykins]

Just to clarify, I believe in a literal Jesus as the incarnate Word of God, a literal crucifixion, the atonement, and the literal resurrection.

The only reason atonement isn't described as literal up there is because I think the word "literal" diminishes it.

But--if you believe God loves us enough to carry our humanity and our deaths as His own, and then dealt Death an fatal blow and wants us to be reunited with him through this Work of Love, and live your life in trust of this --then I think you're a Christian.

If you believe that Jesus was the "son of God" and his teaching and life reveal the most perfect way to reconciliation with God and attempt to follow it--then I think you're a Christian, no matter what you think about the incarnation or trinity.

And finally--it doesn't matter whether *I* think you're a Christian or not, or whether "saved" and "Christian" are the same thing--only you and/or God can know that or judge it.

 

[AutumnAnne]

 

[PaladinValer]

Your grandfather-in-law knows nothing about liberal Christianity then.

Again, if you want to learn what they believe, GO TO THEM AND LEARN THE TRUTH AND NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO.

 

[AutumnAnne]

Your grandfather-in-law knows nothing about liberal Christianity then.

Again, if you want to learn what they believe, GO TO THEM AND LEARN THE TRUTH AND NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO.

Look Paladin- maybe he doesn't know what YOU believe- but he pastors a very large congregation that feels that way too. Why are you so argumaentative? I'm not insulting you. I'm trying to figure things out. You keep telling me to go somewhere else to "find out what they believe" Wht can't I do that here? WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME- if it makes you so upset you feel the need to type in caps all the time?

 

[PaladinValer]

I'm not a liberal Christian is why.

And why can't you do that in this forum? Well, that's like going to a zoo to learn about brain surgery.

 

[AutumnAnne]

If you are educated enough on the subject to tell me that my family knows nothing about it- you should be educated enough to give me your version of it.

This is exactly the thing I was trying to avoid. I don't like arguing with people about their doctrinal differences- but you push buttons on purpose. I would just like to know why.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

My Grandfather in law says that Progressionists dont believe in the atonement.

What's a Progressionist?

 

[artybloke]

My Grandfather in law says that Progressionists dont believe in the atonement.

If this is refering to liberals rather than some folk I've never heard of:

Your Grandfather is wrong. They may not believe in the theory of atonement that your grandfather accepts (penal substitution?), but then throughout the centuries there have been umpteen theories about the meaning of the cross and atonement, some of them with very long pedigrees. It might help if you were to investigate the alternative theories and see for yourself. For instance, there is the theory that the atonement is a "ransom" for our sins; or I personally favour the idea that on the Cross, God through Christ took on not only our sins but our sufferings and redeemed them, as in paid the price for, cleaned out etc... I'd recommend reading Moltmann's The Crucified God, except that it's a highly technical theological tome translated from the German by people whose first language is Martian...


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.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm not a liberal Christian is why.

Um, you're not?

 

[AutumnAnne]

If this is refering to liberals rather than some folk I've never heard of:

Your Grandfather is wrong. They may not believe in the theory of atonement that your grandfather accepts (penal substitution?), but then throughout the centuries there have been umpteen theories about the meaning of the cross and atonement, some of them with very long pedigrees. It might help if you were to investigate the alternative theories and see for yourself. For instance, there is the theory that the atonement is a "ransom" for our sins; or I personally favour the idea that on the Cross, God through Christ took on not only our sins but our sufferings and redeemed them, as in paid the price for, cleaned out etc... I'd recommend reading Moltmann's The Crucified God, except that it's a highly technical theological tome translated from the German by people whose first language is Martian...


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.

I should have been more clear. I was talking about Methodist Progressionists. I am still learning why they think this way- but so far, I am gathering that it all ties in to the whole "bible written by man- mostly just stories- don't take literally" thing. The idea is that God wouldn't require bloodshed to atone for us. They also believe that Jesus Christ was not literally the SON of God, but that he was a man we should try to fashion our lives after. He is also teaching me that there is no Hell. That God is a loving God, and would not wish for Anyone to suffer... then he spent a great deal of time telling me how much he opposes the war. He said that there are no "end times", that when the bible refers to the end of days, it is only in refrence to the ending of that specific era. and so on, and so on....
The only reason I have brought this up is because I desperatly want to talk to someone who is a methodist progressionist- that I don't know personally. It is very difficult for me to disagree with my in-laws... I'm sure you all can relate.

 

[artybloke]

"bible written by man- mostly just stories- don't take literally"

Well - the Bible was written by men; it's not as if God carved everything onto gold plates and dropped it onto Joseph Smith's head. Inspired by God, no doubt, but while a lot of people pile an awful lot onto one little word II Tim3:16, I just take that to mean that their experience of God caused them to write the stories, poems etc of the Bible.

Then there's that "just stories:" as if somehow, if it isn't exactly factual in all details it can't be true. But as anyone who has ever told stories, written poetry, painted pictures or written music knows, the imagination is a very powerful vehicle for truth. That, say, Jonah may never have existed, or may have existed but perhaps the story about him going to Ninevah in the belly of a big fish might be legendary, or illustrative, rather than historical, doesn't affect the truths that the book was written to convey.

Not that all the Bible is "non-historical" writing; but that a lot of it doesn't have to be in order to be true spiritually. And some of it, of course, has to be historical (crucifixion/resurection.)

"literal" is an odd word, in my opinion; usually for conservatives it seems to imply that the Bible was written yesterday in English by people who think like them.

I can't really comment on the "blood sacrifice" thing; personally, my own atonement theolgy sees the cross as God's radical identification with suffering humanity rather than a blood sacrifice. And I agree with your Grandfather that God doesn't want people to suffer; why would any God worth believing in want people to suffer? And, yup, I'm against the war...

But I'm not a Methodist Progressionist, I'm a Quaker & Anglican.

 

[Joykins]

I should have been more clear. I was talking about Methodist Progressionists. I am still learning why they think this way- but so far, I am gathering that it all ties in to the whole "bible written by man- mostly just stories- don't take literally" thing. The idea is that God wouldn't require bloodshed to atone for us.

I prefer not to think of the atonement in this way because I think it implies that we have a God constrained by necessity--that God actually *requires* bloodshed in order to forgive sins, would mean that God isn't omnipotent. That's why I prefer other models. But on the whole, I think it's one of many ways to look at the atonement. It is possible to have different models of atonement without trying to determine whether one or another is correct. Because theology is man trying to understand the Unknowable, it may not be always appropriate to say that one model of understanding something is "wrong" and another is "right"--it is more likely that they are different ways of perceiving the same, yet infinitely large thing, through extremely limited perception. See diagram below on atonement viewpoints, if you want to try to visualize what I mean.

They also believe that Jesus Christ was not literally the SON of God, but that he was a man we should try to fashion our lives after.

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.

He is also teaching me that there is no Hell. That God is a loving God, and would not wish for Anyone to suffer...

Again, I think it's the concept of Hell that needs to be examined. What is hell? Do we really think that a God who *suffered and died* for humanity is looking for a reason to condemn us or looking for a way to save us? Why can we condemn ourselves but not save ourselves? Is hell a state of mind or character that is unwilling to allow God in--and once we allow him in and let go of the sins we cling to, we can be "a new person" in Christ and be in the spiritual state of "heaven" and eventually stand in the presence of God?

It is instructive to read C.S. Lewis about Hell, especially "The Great Divorce."

then he spent a great deal of time telling me how much he opposes the war. He said that there are no "end times", that when the bible refers to the end of days, it is only in refrence to the ending of that specific era. and so on, and so on....

Well, Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans and Protestants are amillenialists too. It's not like the apocalyptic and eschatological scriptures are particularly...clear on the matter.

The only reason I have brought this up is because I desperatly want to talk to someone who is a methodist progressionist- that I don't know personally. It is very difficult for me to disagree with my in-laws... I'm sure you all can relate.

Feel free to drop by the Liberal forums; as long as you are respectful there you won't be bitten