Sharp; The liberals are onto something...

[The Midge]

If the objective of Christians is to win people for Christ then maybe liberals are doing something right?

Arkanin’s signature

Until further notice, I will be posting in defense of a liberal variant of Christianity I am currently creating. I am doing so to establish what I do and do not find coherent about Christian belief systems, and to better understand liberal Christians. I am still a weak atheist!

Please note his faith icon.

 

[Polycarp1]

Praise God!

Anyone that had a problem with GA "not doing anything worthwhile" is invited to dinner -- main course crow.

 

[Sharp]

A weak atheist creates liberal theology? Smiles approvingly and says, "Ofcourse. Confirms everything ever suspected about liberal theology!"

Please note his faith icon.

So you say the creator of liberal theology's icon is a wink and a smile? Makes perfect sense...

---

Seriously I know there are many good people with the best of intentions who want to believe in Christ but cannot get past some intellectual difficulties. They respect the values as lived by their Christian friends and want to be a part of the family of faith. One must respect that sincere interest and welcome honest skeptics.

My advice to them is not to settle for a watered-down version of Christianity designed to overcome intellectual difficulties. That denudes the true Christian faith of the Person of Christ as revealed in the Bible. A better -- and the only -- approach is to face the intellectual difficulties and accept or reject Biblical Christian faith. Don't compromise.

If you want to compromise the Biblical faith, you will have only a philosophy with a veneer of Christian terms.

 

[Teh Wiccan]

Sharp, Arkanin did not create liberal theology. He is creating a variant of it.

 

[The Midge]

You are mising someething Sharp. IIRC Arkanin has moved a long way from virulent and sronge Athiesm to making a signature like that and that has been as a result of the persuasive efforts of more liberal Christians like Seebs and Pastor Freud.

If you want to compromise the Biblical faith, you will have only a philosophy with a veneer of Christian terms

Which is why I have moved from a fundamentalist literalist POV to a Post Evangelical one.

 

[UberLutheran]

Praise God!

Anyone that had a problem with GA "not doing anything worthwhile" is invited to dinner -- main course crow.

Such as:

Oven-Fried Crow
Chestnut-Stuffed Crow
Crow Parmagiana
Crow au Vin
Crow-quettes
Crow Pot Pie
Baked Crow in Filo Pastry
Crow Baked with Onions, Green Olives, Onions, Honey and Oranges
Crow Stuffed with Saffron Rice and Wrapped in Grape Leaves

 

[Arkanin]

Hi everybody,

I like all of you guys and I appreciate it, but I am (and have been since my arrival) a weak atheist. I am also agnostic and could be considered a buddhist, although that's a fairly misleading thing to tell most people. That said, I need you to understand that I (hoping you aren't disapointed) am not in any way at this point swaying toward Christianity or another sort of theism. I know that you feel differently and I respect that, but at this point in my life I have a hard time considering it more than a possibility that is so remote I had might as well ignore it.

The other thing is that for all intents and purposes, I would not say that my stances about metaphysical things have changed since my arrival; at face value I would say that they don't exist in any sense that has relevance to us.

IIRC Arkanin has moved a long way from virulent and sronge Athiesm to making a signature like that and that has been as a result of the persuasive efforts of more liberal Christians like Seebs and Pastor Freud.

I appreciate it, but it is very important to me that it be clear that I was never and have never been a strong atheist nor was I virulent about spreading atheism. Well, actually, I was a strong atheist in this other sense that acknowledges agnosticism, but I still am a strong atheist in that sense of that word; the thing that has changed is my definition of strong and my definition of belief, and I would still say I believe it likely that God does not exist.

CF has changed me, though, and I think I tend to be more careful about what I assume and what I say, and it is also the reason that I realized I am technically a buddhist, though.

That said, you are very right that it is Seebs and Pastorfreud that inspired me to do this. I didn't understand their mindset, so I decided to create my own liberal variant of theism based on what I found logically consistent, trying to see what I do and do not find acceptable about the faith. I don't have any intention though of shifting over to this belief; rather, I was curious to see what I would believe if I were a liberal Christian like them and I wanted to go through some of their footsteps, so to speak.

Please note his faith icon.

Also, as per my post about the icon flip, something like 98% of atheists should be classifiable as agnostics also -- I am agnostic in the sense that I lack certitude. I did this because there were people who were making some bad arguments against atheism at the time based on us not being certain that God does not exist. I am an atheist and I am agnostic.

EDIT: I realized now that my icon is apparently atheist at the moment. I don't know when I changed it. But that's all cool as it's fitting.

I appreciate it and I may at some point write a post about my beliefs about the world, as I never really have quite told anyone, but as it stands I hope you guys do understand that I do not believe in metaphysical things that are interacting with us and that I do not think that I (as you understand me, this individual talking to you) will continue to exist after death. Nor do I think my beliefs will change. I don't want to let anyone down, but I hope you guys understand that I'm not going to convert.

 

[seebs]

You may not convert, but you're a lot more likely to while trying to develop a defensible and consistent Christian worldview than you would be if you weren't.

 

[The Midge]

Hi everybody,

I like all of you guys and I appreciate it, but I am (and have been since my arrival) a weak atheist. I am also agnostic and could be considered a buddhist, although that's a fairly misleading thing to tell most people. That said, I need you to understand that I (hoping you aren't disapointed) am not in any way at this point swaying toward Christianity or another sort of theism. I know that you feel differently and I respect that, but at this point in my life I have a hard time considering it more than a possibility that is so remote I had might as well ignore it.

The other thing is that for all intents and purposes, I would not say that my stances about metaphysical things have changed since my arrival; at face value I would say that they don't exist in any sense that has relevance to us.


I appreciate it, but it is very important to me that it be clear that I was never and have never been a strong atheist nor was I virulent about spreading atheism. Well, actually, I was a strong atheist in this other sense that acknowledges agnosticism, but I still am a strong atheist in that sense of that word; the thing that has changed is my definition of strong and my definition of belief, and I would still say I believe it likely that God does not exist.

CF has changed me, though, and I think I tend to be more careful about what I assume and what I say, and it is also the reason that I realized I am technically a buddhist, though.

That said, you are very right that it is Seebs and Pastorfreud that inspired me to do this. I didn't understand their mindset, so I decided to create my own liberal variant of theism based on what I found logically consistent, trying to see what I do and do not find acceptable about the faith. I don't have any intention though of shifting over to this belief; rather, I was curious to see what I would believe if I were a liberal Christian like them and I wanted to go through some of their footsteps, so to speak.


Also, as per my post about the icon flip, something like 98% of atheists should be classifiable as agnostics also -- I am agnostic in the sense that I lack certitude. I did this because there were people who were making some bad arguments against atheism at the time based on us not being certain that God does not exist. I am an atheist and I am agnostic.

EDIT: I realized now that my icon is apparently atheist at the moment. I don't know when I changed it. But that's all cool as it's fitting.

I appreciate it and I may at some point write a post about my beliefs about the world, as I never really have quite told anyone, but as it stands I hope you guys do understand that I do not believe in metaphysical things that are interacting with us and that I do not think that I (as you understand me, this individual talking to you) will continue to exist after death. Nor do I think my beliefs will change. I don't want to let anyone down, but I hope you guys understand that I'm not going to convert.

I would not presume to classify you as anything, though it is good to see you change your views however slightly. My main concern is to demonstrate to Christians who are occasionaly obnoxious in their attitude to others that are more reasoned faith is a more fruitful faith. Sometimes this requires us to be open and honest about our doubts and to use our heads when interpreting the bible. I hope you are not offended by using you as a case study.
Prehaps you should trace some of Sharps posts to date to see what I mean.

Highest Regards,
M

 

[Sharp]

Hi everybody,

I like all of you guys and I appreciate it, but I am (and have been since my arrival) a weak atheist. I am also agnostic and could be considered a buddhist, although that's a fairly misleading thing to tell most people. That said, I need you to understand that I (hoping you aren't disapointed) am not in any way at this point swaying toward Christianity or another sort of theism. I know that you feel differently and I respect that, but at this point in my life I have a hard time considering it more than a possibility that is so remote I had might as well ignore it.

The other thing is that for all intents and purposes, I would not say that my stances about metaphysical things have changed since my arrival; at face value I would say that they don't exist in any sense that has relevance to us.


I appreciate it, but it is very important to me that it be clear that I was never and have never been a strong atheist nor was I virulent about spreading atheism. Well, actually, I was a strong atheist in this other sense that acknowledges agnosticism, but I still am a strong atheist in that sense of that word; the thing that has changed is my definition of strong and my definition of belief, and I would still say I believe it likely that God does not exist.

CF has changed me, though, and I think I tend to be more careful about what I assume and what I say, and it is also the reason that I realized I am technically a buddhist, though.

That said, you are very right that it is Seebs and Pastorfreud that inspired me to do this. I didn't understand their mindset, so I decided to create my own liberal variant of theism based on what I found logically consistent, trying to see what I do and do not find acceptable about the faith. I don't have any intention though of shifting over to this belief; rather, I was curious to see what I would believe if I were a liberal Christian like them and I wanted to go through some of their footsteps, so to speak.


Also, as per my post about the icon flip, something like 98% of atheists should be classifiable as agnostics also -- I am agnostic in the sense that I lack certitude. I did this because there were people who were making some bad arguments against atheism at the time based on us not being certain that God does not exist. I am an atheist and I am agnostic.

EDIT: I realized now that my icon is apparently atheist at the moment. I don't know when I changed it. But that's all cool as it's fitting.

I appreciate it and I may at some point write a post about my beliefs about the world, as I never really have quite told anyone, but as it stands I hope you guys do understand that I do not believe in metaphysical things that are interacting with us and that I do not think that I (as you understand me, this individual talking to you) will continue to exist after death. Nor do I think my beliefs will change. I don't want to let anyone down, but I hope you guys understand that I'm not going to convert.

Thanks, Arkanin, for confirming a truism. Many liberals have never had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The liberal theology forum needs a thread about what God's Word says about how to recieve God's forgiveness for sins and how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Thanks for suggesting this, Midge.

 

[The Midge]

So Midge, that's what liberal evangelism amount to???

The Gospel.

Lk 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
Lk 4:19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."

 

[The Midge]

The liberal theology forum needs a thread about what God's Word says about how to recieve God's forgiveness for sins and how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Thanks for suggesting this, Midge.

Did I say that
I sure would be happy to help conservatives out

 

[Arkanin]

Gotcha Midge and I appreciate it. I would also definitely vouch for your point. Liberal Christians, or at least those who sincerely listen and such, are going to be far more effective at influencing others. Basically, because they come across as a lot more reasonable. And being receptive / capable of processing other perspectives is very important.

Of course, there are also respectful mainstream ones. But they in large numbers will have much less of an impact than the small number of liberal ones.

Seebs -- that's a reasonable observation, yes, but in this specific case I really wouldn't count on it.

Many liberals have never had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The liberal theology forum needs a thread about what God's Word says about how to recieve God's forgiveness for sins and how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Thanks for suggesting this, Midge.

As a former actively proselytizing fundamentalist born-again believing baptist-type, I would ask you what you think the status of my salvation is.

Before you answer, I hope you are aware as a Christian that the Bible says we are not to judge the salvation of others, nor are we capable of doing so.

 

[Polycarp1]

Woah, Dueling Prooftexts at 40 feet! LOL!

 

[Texas Lynn]

My advice to them is not to settle for a watered-down version of Christianity designed to overcome intellectual difficulties.

This is precisely what liberal Christianity is not.

 

[Anastasis]

My advice to them is not to settle for a watered-down version of Christianity designed to overcome intellectual difficulties. That denudes the true Christian faith of the Person of Christ as revealed in the Bible. A better -- and the only -- approach is to face the intellectual difficulties and accept or reject Biblical Christian faith. Don't compromise.

If you want to compromise the Biblical faith, you will have only a philosophy with a veneer of Christian terms.

But isn't compromising exactly what you're asking them to do? You're asking them to compromise what they feel and believe; and if something about Christianity is a real stumbling block for them, but they press it aside to believe all that Conservative Theology entails then what you end up with is a thin veneer of Christian life and a soul doubting and atrophing because they just can't have that relationship with Christ.

Plus I don't think Liberal Theology is compromising - during my brief stint as a fundamentalist I felt like I was compromising; I never want to go through that again.

 

[seebs]

Plus I don't think Liberal Theology is compromising - during my brief stint as a fundamentalist I felt like I was compromising; I never want to go through that again.

Liberals and conservatives tend to view each other as "compromising", because they have different ideals.

 

[Polycarp1]

I think it depends on what you consider "essential" or "important" -- for Sharp, some adherence to what he and his faith communion deems a "Biblical code of conduct" is the most important element, while for the rest of us, adherence to the spirit of Jesus's teachings about love, compassion, nonjudgmentalism, and respect for others is at the heart of Christian behavior.

But I don't water down or compromise my commitment to follow Christ. If I felt cantankerous, I'd say that that's what Sharp and his cohorts are doing, by taking other stuff from Scripture out of context and using it to excuse themselves from having to do what Christ explicitly commands. But I can understand their perspective that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, so all parts of it are of equal authority. But when Jesus says "This is the most important commandment, and this is second. Do these, and you've fulfilled the Law and the Prophets," I take Him as meaning exactly what He said.

I would consider it an act of Christian courtesy, Sharp, if you would apologize and withdraw that accusation. You are not obliged to do so, but I would hope you can understand, if not necessarily accept, the different approach than yours to following Christ's commands that the above explains.

 

[jgarden]

A weak atheist creates liberal theology? Smiles approvingly and says, "Ofcourse. Confirms everything ever suspected about liberal theology!"

So you say the creator of liberal theology's icon is a wink and a smile? Makes perfect sense...

Seriously I know there are many good people with the best of intentions who want to believe in Christ but cannot get past some intellectual difficulties. They respect the values as lived by their Christian friends and want to be a part of the family of faith. One must respect that sincere interest and welcome honest skeptics.

My advice to them is not to settle for a watered-down version of Christianity designed to overcome intellectual difficulties. That denudes the true Christian faith of the Person of Christ as revealed in the Bible. A better -- and the only -- approach is to face the intellectual difficulties and accept or reject Biblical Christian faith. Don't compromise.

If you want to compromise the Biblical faith, you will have only a philosophy with a veneer of Christian terms.

Sharp's narrow version of Christianity might produce a good Pharisee, but fails when he/she tries to "monopolize" God by attempting to reinvent Him in his/her own personal image. Blind faith and merely following a set of rules does not a Christian make. It all starts from a personal relationship with God and flows from there.

The Bible records that even the early apostles, Peter and Paul, had major differences concernig Christianity (Galatians 2:14). The former was a disciple of Jesus, while the latter received a revelation from Christ. If major differences can exist between these 2 major contributors to the New Testament, it is unrealistic to view Christians in terms of "cookie cutter" converts.

 

[Theresa]

The Bible records that even the early apostles, Peter and Paul, had major differences concernig Christianity (Galatians 2:14). The former was a disciple of Jesus, while the latter received a revelation from Christ. If major differences can exist between these 2 major contributors to the New Testament, it is unrealistic to view Christians in terms of "cookie cutter" converts.

-I don't think it's quite that simple, not in the way present your point, not what you are trying to allude to. Major differences? It appears in Galalations that the dispute was not about doctrine, but about the conduct of St. Peter. St. Paul might have well said, you know what the doctrine is, why by your conduct are you appearing to say otherwise?

And after St. Paul's revelation, where did Christ send him? To the Church to be baptised and confirmed in his calling by the Apostles most especially, who are the foundation of the Church with Christ the chief cornerstone? Not St. Paul, he only is so at the confirmation of the Apostles and St. Peter says that St. Paul does not contradict them, people misunderstand St. Paul "the unlearned and unstable twist his words to their own destruction."

If in fact, St. Paul and the Apostles teaching were so very different, the Bishops of the Church would not have included his writings in the New Testament. Doctrinally they are the same, each Gospel and insights by St. Paul, St. John and others just are different highlights and perspectives that emphasize the same truth.

Rom 16:17 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
1Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one
1Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to be one hope
Col 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body