What do liberal Christians believe?

[TerryWoodenpic]

Wouldn't you think that the earliest followers of Jesus had a fairly uniform religion when they were taught by Jesus during His human life (and possibly shortly after His resurrection too)?

Firstly Jesus only taught Jews... he never defined how a Christian should teach or what the church should become...... that seems to be entirely down to the individuals relationship with the Holy Spirit. and as we experience to day, that is very diverse.

When you consider what the Didache was teaching and was written down, only some 20 years after Jesus death, and compare that to what Paul Was teaching only a few hundred miles away at the same time. The rapid diversification of the church becomes all too apparent.
We have no idea what most of the Apostles were teaching at all. The expansion rate of the early church was astonishing.

I suspect they had all taken in a rather individual understanding of what Jesus taught them.

If you are interested in the early church During its Judeo-Christian period Aaron Milavec has written a modern interpretation/analysis/ translation and commentary of the Didache with Greek and English texts. which make it all very understandable.

 

[cloudyday2]

Firstly Jesus only taught Jews... he never defined how a Christian should teach or what the church should become...... that seems to be entirely down to the individuals relationship with the Holy Spirit. and as we experience to day, that is very diverse.

When you consider what the Didache was teaching and was written down, only some 20 years after Jesus death, and compare that to what Paul Was teaching only a few hundred miles away at the same time. The rapid diversification of the church becomes all too apparent.
We have no idea what most of the Apostles were teaching at all. The expansion rate of the early church was astonishing.

I suspect they had all taken in a rather individual understanding of what Jesus taught them.

I would imagine that if Jesus was inspired and cared about His teachings that they should have been preserved in spite of the natural tendency for clutter to accumulate. The confusion over whether Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism before becoming Christians seems like a huge oversight by Jesus. Either there is a lot that Jesus didn't care about or Jesus was a poor teacher. I agree that there were a lot of radically different ideas in early Christianity. I've heard some say there was actually more variation in the beginning than there is today.

If you are interested in the early church During its Judeo-Christian period Aaron Milavec has written a modern interpretation/analysis/ translation and commentary of the Didache with Greek and English texts. which make it all very understandable.

thanks.

 

[Starcomet]

For me, being a liberal/Progressive Christian, means being able to look at Christianity through the lens of reason, logic, and current biblical scholarship and archaeology.


God: All believe God exists and is certainly not some sort of soft marshmellowy being from a metaphorical standpoint (though some may think it is this way). To me God demands that our actions are righteous as well as our thoughts to a lesser extent. We must ask for forgiveness from God and should treat God with respect. Granted this is just what I believe about God as it is certainly possible it truly does not care if we are wicked and evil. Only an atheist would see God as just a metaphor.


The Bible: Most liberal Christians would agree that the book was composed thousands of years ago by Jews (Hebrew Testament) and later Christians who were trying to understand God and their place in the world. It is part history, theology, moral and ethical guide, and myth. It was written by humans who were trying to understand God and what they experienced as supernatural. It is not the word of God nor is it free of error. For many it is a guide to be followed and must be interpreted through our reason and current scholarship.


Jesus: All liberal Christians agree that Jesus lived and was crucified, but as to his nature it can vary. Some will hold that he is a divine being and is God incarnate. Most like me however believe he was 100% human and was not divine. Granted, I am an adoptionist and believe he was chosen by God for his faithful devotion to him. In my mind, heart, and soul he was filled with the spirit of God and he was one with God spiritually and thus understood many things and could do many miraculous things, but he was born a man and he died a man.


Virgin Birth: The majority (if not all) of liberal Christians believe that Jesus was born naturally and is the biological son of Joseph and Mary.


Crucifixion: All agree that he was crucified and put to death for his actions and teachings. All however do not believe his death was an atonement for sin and that he instead died a martyr for God, family, and friends.


Human nature: All believe that humans are endowed with free will and are capable of choosing to do good or evil. I myself am personally a Pelagian and believe we must choose to stay the righteous path and that the grace of God and teachings of Jesus primarily assist us with this.


Sin: Most do not believe in sin and believe it to be an outdated concept, but a few such as I still believe in sin and believe one should ask for forgiveness.


Salvation: This is a difficult subject with a variety of views by liberal Christians. A few believe there is no need to achieve salvation and that all will receive reconciliation at death. Some believe in justification by faith and works together, but greater emphasizes on works. There used to be a justification by character that very few seem to believe in anymore. I personally believed we are justified by our works and our faith but more so by our works. This in my mind is being justified by character as if you are righteous and virtuous, your character would be pleasing to God.


Hell: There are two views about hell among liberal Christians. The first is that it does not exist and is just a metaphor. The second is that it does exists, but is only temporary and all that go there will eventually be reconciled with God even if it takes millions of years. I subscribe to the second view.


Sacraments: All view sacraments as being largely symbolic or unnecessary with Baptism and communion being the only ones practiced. I am a rare exception however in that I believe that sacraments are more than just symbols and can impart divine energy (grace) when performed on an individual at least nominally.

Angels and Demons: All believe these beings do not exist and are just metaphors. I personally believe that there are spiritual beings that exists that are good and evil, but not in the same sense as they are described in the bible.

Satan: All believe that a powerful evil figure that rivals God (or close to God) does not exist and is a metaphor. I personally do not believe in such a powerful evil being that is master of all evil and wickedness. There may be powerful spirits that can command other spirits, but none that could even rival God.

Saints/Icons: All believe icons to be unnecessary and ostentatious for worship. I am personally fine with images in churches and worship areas, but all devotion must be to God and no veneration of images or objects is allowed in my mind. All recognize there are people who lived in the past and currently who are righteous, virtuous, and compassionate. They see them as saints, but only in a metaphorical sense similar to how Protestants view saints. I personally believe that an individual can become a Saint (as opposed to a saint which is all faithful Christians) when their lives are right with God and that no church authority can proclaim someone a Saint. Only God and another Saint can recognize a Saint.

 

[Starcomet]

I would imagine that if Jesus was inspired and cared about His teachings that they should have been preserved in spite of the natural tendency for clutter to accumulate. The confusion over whether Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism before becoming Christians seems like a huge oversight by Jesus. Either there is a lot that Jesus didn't care about or Jesus was a poor teacher. I agree that there were a lot of radically different ideas in early Christianity. I've heard some say there was actually more variation in the beginning than there is today.

This may have been an oversight by Jesus, but I think it is possible he just did not care. He likely felt that gentiles should be treated and accepted the same as Jews and that God's law and word were binding on all people. I am sure Jesus agreed with the sentiment that Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism if they did not want to. All they had to do was follow the Noahide laws and his teachings and that was that. And variations will indeed occur due to the nature of human beings and our need to try to address and find answer to things. Look at the disciples of many philosopher and other prophets. They could not teach exhaustively on everything to prevent their followers from forming their own opinions.

 

[Arius]

You might want to label me a liberal Christian, but I think it's because very few people have put the time into studying the bible I have, I've been on disability most of my life because of a mental illness, so I've studied the bible 35 years on disability, right now I listen to the old testament 11 times a year and the new testament more.

Hello @disciple1 .. wow, that's a lot of Bible reading. May I ask, .. since you said you are on disability on mental illness, .. if your Bible reading/listening helps you cope with your illness? Or it's that you are searching for something? If the latter, may I ask what New information/revelation have you found with all that Bible study?
Why would you say that we might label you a liberal Christian? Is it because of what you say next?

I don't persecute gays, I don't condemn women who have had abortions, if I die now I gain a lot because god has been the center of my life for many years.

Proverbs chapter 10 verse 12
Love covers all wrongs.

And it's not about sin, everyone sins and continues to.

Yes true, we should not persecute gays, especially women who already had abortions, .. but we must lovingly tell them about Gods Word, the one you listen to 11 times a year, about the law He created nature with, so they would turn back to God and live. For we know that a life in sin is death, .. right?

Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins.

And actually it's all about sin, and it has been since the Fall of Adam. It is what brought pain, suffering and death into the world.
Love, .. true Agape love could never ignore sin, or allow sin to reign over anyone. It would be hate that ignores sin, but true love covers, or 'reveals' all sins, like when we look upon Jesus, we are convicted, feel ashamed of our sins pushing us towards repentance.

God bless you.

 

[Arius]

I personally shy away from calling myself "Christian" because the term has been highjacked by liberals who are not following Christ. This includes 70% of those who say they are "Christian" but believe you can get to heaven without Jesus.

I use the term believer (in Christ).

I'm with you @drjean

Actually it was the RCC/Constantine who high jacked the "scrolls", letters, .. both the ones written by the Prophets of old, and later by the Apostles which now is the Bible.
The mock-name "Christian" did not come from the early Believers, or Disciples of Christ, but from gentiles in Antioch calling the Disciples "Christians", which would be like we call someone "goodie two shoes".

Google - the phrase "goody two-shoes", often used to describe an excessively virtuous person, a do-gooder.

Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Notice that both the "church", and the "disciples" have no reference to the word 'Christian' anywhere in the Bible. The Believers were called, .., like name calling; "Christian" by the Gentiles.

Acts 26:27
27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.”
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”

You can almost hear the laughter from the people assembled in the court with King Agrippa, because just before the King said this, .. as Paul was making his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!”

And how did Paul respond to King Agrippa?

29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”

.. and this name calling obviously started to take a toll on the Believers, the humble "servants/slaves" to Christ;

1 Peter 4:16
Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

 

[Carbon]

@cloudyday2,

Building on my earlier points that Christianity was created by liberals, that conservative doctrine is a moving target, and that there is no unchanging golden standard of "Christian doctrine" (as well as @TerryWoodenpic's excellent expansion of this latter point), I would go one step further and point out that several wildly counter-intuitive conclusions follow from these premises.

One is:

Liberals are arguably more traditionalist than the traditionalists.

How so? Because they follow the behavior of the earliest Christians. The New Testament authors and Patristics liberally created new religious ideas based on their ever evolving experiences, and revised or discarded old religious ideas as needed. Liberals are simply carrying on this tradition of creativity. Again, all the so-called conservative doctrines like Trinitarianism, biblical literalism, and the virgin birth were once considered radically innovative. Even though they have analogies in other religions, but that’s another story.

Cheers,
Carbon

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

Sins never push us toward repentance, It is the Holy spirit that does that.
Sin breeds sin.
However I do not believe in any form of original sin...
Nor do I believe sin is a long list of things we should not do, that can be mined from the bible.
Sin is anything that harms our fellow man and God's creation, or by omission does not act to counter such things by others. Sin is lack of love, in one form or another. It is the opposite to love.

 

[disciple1]

Hello @disciple1 .. wow, that's a lot of Bible reading. May I ask, .. since you said you are on disability on mental illness, .. if your Bible reading/listening helps you cope with your illness? Or it's that you are searching for something? If the latter, may I ask what New information/revelation have you found with all that Bible study?
Why would you say that we might label you a liberal Christian? Is it because of what you say next?



Yes true, we should not persecute gays, especially women who already had abortions, .. but we must lovingly tell them about Gods Word, the one you listen to 11 times a year, about the law He created nature with, so they would turn back to God and live. For we know that a life in sin is death, .. right?

Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins.

And actually it's all about sin, and it has been since the Fall of Adam. It is what brought pain, suffering and death into the world.
Love, .. true Agape love could never ignore sin, or allow sin to reign over anyone. It would be hate that ignores sin, but true love covers, or 'reveals' all sins, like when we look upon Jesus, we are convicted, feel ashamed of our sins pushing us towards repentance.

God bless you.

For we know that a life in sin is death, .. right?

Look at these verses.
1 Timothy chapter 1 verse7, 8
They want to be teachers of the law but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.
Galatians chapter 3 verses 24,25,23
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

Jesus said his yoke was easy and his burden light, the law is a heavy burden.

I learn every time I go through the bible.


I believe it's all about love.

 

[dlamberth]

Wouldn't you think that the earliest followers of Jesus had a fairly uniform religion when they were taught by Jesus during His human life (and possibly shortly after His resurrection too)?

They were Jews from beginning to end. That was their uniform religion that they all practiced.

 

[cloudyday2]

@cloudyday2,

Building on my earlier points that Christianity was created by liberals, that conservative doctrine is a moving target, and that there is no unchanging golden standard of "Christian doctrine" (as well as @TerryWoodenpic's excellent expansion of this latter point), I would go one step further and point out that several wildly counter-intuitive conclusions follow from these premises.

One is:

Liberals are arguably more traditionalist than the traditionalists.

How so? Because they follow the behavior of the earliest Christians. The New Testament authors and Patristics liberally created new religious ideas based on their ever evolving experiences, and revised or discarded old religious ideas as needed. Liberals are simply carrying on this tradition of creativity. Again, all the so-called conservative doctrines like Trinitarianism, biblical literalism, and the virgin birth were once considered radically innovative. Even though they have analogies in other religions, but that’s another story.

Cheers,
Carbon

I think the point you are missing is that I am taking as an assumption that Christianity is based on a real revelation taught by Jesus to His disciples. I want to demonstrate the absurdity of the Liberal Christian approach in view of that assumption. They need to face the facts and become honest atheists instead of clinging to the hollow shell of a religion that they know did not originate from a true revelation. By deciding to make up the dogma to suit their fancies, the Liberal Christians demonstrate that they are actually atheists because they are not trying to synchronize their beliefs to the original revealed truth IMO.

EDIT: Sorry, if I sound grouchy. I'm kind of worn-out this evening.

 

[cloudyday2]

For me, being a liberal/Progressive Christian, means being able to look at Christianity through the lens of reason, logic, and current biblical scholarship and archaeology.


God: All believe God exists and is certainly not some sort of soft marshmellowy being from a metaphorical standpoint (though some may think it is this way). To me God demands that our actions are righteous as well as our thoughts to a lesser extent. We must ask for forgiveness from God and should treat God with respect. Granted this is just what I believe about God as it is certainly possible it truly does not care if we are wicked and evil. Only an atheist would see God as just a metaphor.


The Bible: Most liberal Christians would agree that the book was composed thousands of years ago by Jews (Hebrew Testament) and later Christians who were trying to understand God and their place in the world. It is part history, theology, moral and ethical guide, and myth. It was written by humans who were trying to understand God and what they experienced as supernatural. It is not the word of God nor is it free of error. For many it is a guide to be followed and must be interpreted through our reason and current scholarship.


Jesus: All liberal Christians agree that Jesus lived and was crucified, but as to his nature it can vary. Some will hold that he is a divine being and is God incarnate. Most like me however believe he was 100% human and was not divine. Granted, I am an adoptionist and believe he was chosen by God for his faithful devotion to him. In my mind, heart, and soul he was filled with the spirit of God and he was one with God spiritually and thus understood many things and could do many miraculous things, but he was born a man and he died a man.


Virgin Birth: The majority (if not all) of liberal Christians believe that Jesus was born naturally and is the biological son of Joseph and Mary.


Crucifixion: All agree that he was crucified and put to death for his actions and teachings. All however do not believe his death was an atonement for sin and that he instead died a martyr for God, family, and friends.


Human nature: All believe that humans are endowed with free will and are capable of choosing to do good or evil. I myself am personally a Pelagian and believe we must choose to stay the righteous path and that the grace of God and teachings of Jesus primarily assist us with this.


Sin: Most do not believe in sin and believe it to be an outdated concept, but a few such as I still believe in sin and believe one should ask for forgiveness.


Salvation: This is a difficult subject with a variety of views by liberal Christians. A few believe there is no need to achieve salvation and that all will receive reconciliation at death. Some believe in justification by faith and works together, but greater emphasizes on works. There used to be a justification by character that very few seem to believe in anymore. I personally believed we are justified by our works and our faith but more so by our works. This in my mind is being justified by character as if you are righteous and virtuous, your character would be pleasing to God.


Hell: There are two views about hell among liberal Christians. The first is that it does not exist and is just a metaphor. The second is that it does exists, but is only temporary and all that go there will eventually be reconciled with God even if it takes millions of years. I subscribe to the second view.


Sacraments: All view sacraments as being largely symbolic or unnecessary with Baptism and communion being the only ones practiced. I am a rare exception however in that I believe that sacraments are more than just symbols and can impart divine energy (grace) when performed on an individual at least nominally.

Angels and Demons: All believe these beings do not exist and are just metaphors. I personally believe that there are spiritual beings that exists that are good and evil, but not in the same sense as they are described in the bible.

Satan: All believe that a powerful evil figure that rivals God (or close to God) does not exist and is a metaphor. I personally do not believe in such a powerful evil being that is master of all evil and wickedness. There may be powerful spirits that can command other spirits, but none that could even rival God.

Saints/Icons: All believe icons to be unnecessary and ostentatious for worship. I am personally fine with images in churches and worship areas, but all devotion must be to God and no veneration of images or objects is allowed in my mind. All recognize there are people who lived in the past and currently who are righteous, virtuous, and compassionate. They see them as saints, but only in a metaphorical sense similar to how Protestants view saints. I personally believe that an individual can become a Saint (as opposed to a saint which is all faithful Christians) when their lives are right with God and that no church authority can proclaim someone a Saint. Only God and another Saint can recognize a Saint.

Thanks for that detailed overview. Given the belief that Jesus was a supremely spirit-filled human, are prayers affected? Many traditional Christian prayers are addressed to Jesus.

 

[Starcomet]

I think the point you are missing is that I am taking as an assumption that Christianity is based on a real revelation taught by Jesus to His disciples. I want to demonstrate the absurdity of the Liberal Christian approach in view of that assumption. They need to face the facts and become honest atheists instead of clinging to the hollow shell of a religion that they know did not originate from a true revelation. By deciding to make up the dogma to suit their fancies, the Liberal Christians demonstrate that they are actually atheists because they are not trying to synchronize their beliefs to the original revealed truth IMO.

EDIT: Sorry, if I sound grouchy. I'm kind of worn-out this evening.

It is alright, I have been there hehe. I suppose what you say is true if a Liberal Christian rejects everything about the religion and all they have left is there belief in God and that Jesus was an okay guy, then they are no longer Christian and rather just a theist/deist. They should only be an atheist if they no longer except the existence of God or believe it is just a metaphor.

There are however many Liberal Christians who believe Jesus did have a revelation, but we understand what he said with modern eyes and adapt to what we now know. What makes a Liberal Christian a Christian is that they consider Jesus their primary master/teacher and worship God. They try to emulate the ethics and morals he set forth along with God's law through reason and do not let dogma or hatred distort that.

 

[Starcomet]

Thanks for that detailed overview. Given the belief that Jesus was a supremely spirit-filled human, are prayers affected? Many traditional Christian prayers are addressed to Jesus.

No, most liberal Christians tend to pray to God only and not Jesus and if Jesus is included it is usually done out of tradition and no more. I personally direct all prayer to God and if I say "in Jesus' name I ask this" it is largely out of tradition or habit.

 

[SolomonVII]

Atheism is the absence of belief in God. I think even for the most secular liberal Christian, to the extent that they still believe in themselves as Christian, they still would believe in God. They may reject all signs and wonders as nothing more than signs and wonders, and metaphor pointing to a higher truth. They would have Jesus himself backing them up on this, for it is an 'evil generation that seeks signs', or something to that effect. It is even conceivable that they reject supernatural completely.
Yet, they would still be capable of authentically claiming themselves to be Christian.
Maybe a point of illumination on how this could be may come from forms of Buddhism which is a form of belief in which an absolute supernatural being reigning supreme is not really a concept. Yet, this is not atheism either, for practitioners train themselves to take on the signs and the aspects of the Buddha into their own person. They in effect fill themselves full of the traditions handed down to them to become the living embodiment of the Buddha.
One might ask what is the form that the Buddha takes? Basically the answer would be that the Buddha takes on the form of the perfection of man. To take on the aspects of the Buddha is to create oneself into the form of perfection.
That is not even close in believing in nothing at all. That is not even close to atheism, which by definition is the disbelief in that higher form of being.
Now there is always a cultural dimension to religion. One can imagine a person from Western culture reading the texts of the Trantric traditions and actively imagining himself as taking on the aspects of the Buddha, taking on the aspects of the transcendant perfection of the man, as it were.

What I might submit to you is that the way that western man, schooled in the western tradition, would conceive of the Buddha would be very, very similar to the form that Christ would take in his own imagination.

Faith is not in the believing of signs and wonders. Many Christians believe in the signs and wonders, and believe in the impossible, and consider that to be the epitome of faith. To believe in the 5000 year old universe whilst at the same time doing physical measurement of the distance of stars that are hundreds of thousand of light years away, is taken by some Christians as proof of their faith.

Believing is in the living. One can measure what someone believes in by observing how he lives his life. What someone really believes in does not follow from what he says, but from what he does.
In that regard, even the atheist who says he does not believe in Jesus, but nevertheless spends his life feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting the afflicted, forgiving his transgressors, and sacrificing himself for the betterment of his family and friends, dedicating himself to truth and love and charity and faith in the goodness of life, is a follower of the Way, no matter what he says he is.
As much could be said about the liberal Christian who does the same. Indeed, the liberal Christian would be even more authentic than the self-professed atheist who similarly follows in the path of Christ while at the same time denying that this is what he is doing.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

I think the point you are missing is that I am taking as an assumption that Christianity is based on a real revelation taught by Jesus to His disciples. I want to demonstrate the absurdity of the Liberal Christian approach in view of that assumption. They need to face the facts and become honest atheists instead of clinging to the hollow shell of a religion that they know did not originate from a true revelation. By deciding to make up the dogma to suit their fancies, the Liberal Christians demonstrate that they are actually atheists because they are not trying to synchronize their beliefs to the original revealed truth IMO.

EDIT: Sorry, if I sound grouchy. I'm kind of worn-out this evening.

I for one object to being called an atheist because I do not follow your particular narrrow view of what christianity is.
Are you calling the early christians who taught the new gentile recruits using the Didache, not to be Christians, or all those who predate the Bible not to be christians.?

 

[cloudyday2]

I for one object to being called an atheist because I do not follow your particular narrrow view of what christianity is.
Are you calling the early christians who taught the new gentile recruits using the Didache, not to be Christians, or all those who predate the Bible not to be christians.?

The earliest Christians expected the Kingdom of Heaven to come within some of their lifetimes as Jesus promised. Liberal Christians have no expectation that the Kingdom of Heaven is imminent. If you want to follow a wise teacher, why don't you pick somebody with some wise teachings instead of Jesus? Some of the Greek philosophers had interesting ideas. Jesus was all about preparing for the apocalypse that never happened (unless you see the apocalypse in the Jewish revolts but that would have been a failed apocalypse because the Romans won).

I just honestly can't understand why people would go 99% of the way to atheism and then not follow through. I detest religion. The only reason I would cling to religion is if I thought it might be based on supernatural facts. I suppose some people like sitting in a church pew singing obsequious songs on Sunday morning, but not me.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

The earliest Christians expected the Kingdom of Heaven to come within some of their lifetimes as Jesus promised. Liberal Christians have no expectation that the Kingdom of Heaven is imminent. If you want to follow a wise teacher, why don't you pick somebody with some wise teachings instead of Jesus? Some of the Greek philosophers had interesting ideas. Jesus was all about preparing for the apocalypse that never happened (unless you see the apocalypse in the Jewish revolts but that would have been a failed apocalypse because the Romans won).

I just honestly can't understand why people would go 99% of the way to atheism and then not follow through. I detest religion. The only reason I would cling to religion is if I thought it might be based on supernatural facts. I suppose some people like sitting in a church pew singing obsequious songs on Sunday morning, but not me.

Actually Jesus hardly taught about the end of times at all. It is hard to understand where those early Christians got that particular idea from, as they had no bible to dig it out of. never the less the Didache makes it clear that is exactly what they did believe. Though by the time the Bible was brought together, they had pushed that Idea way into the future. Indeed Revelation only scraped its way into the bible after having been rejected many times, and by many Christians.

Christianity as we know it today is based on Jesus teaching, based on the love of God. and the way he wanted us to behave. some Christians, especially protestants and nonconformists, major on what they expect God to do for them ... like a guaranteed salvation, and their place in the Kingdom.
Jesus taught us how to live our lives in this life without regard for reward.
Liberal Christians do this because they love God. they know that they can not influence what, "if anything", their "reward" might be.

 

[Starcomet]

The earliest Christians expected the Kingdom of Heaven to come within some of their lifetimes as Jesus promised. Liberal Christians have no expectation that the Kingdom of Heaven is imminent. If you want to follow a wise teacher, why don't you pick somebody with some wise teachings instead of Jesus? Some of the Greek philosophers had interesting ideas. Jesus was all about preparing for the apocalypse that never happened (unless you see the apocalypse in the Jewish revolts but that would have been a failed apocalypse because the Romans won).

Some scholars do not believe Jesus to have been an apocalyptic preacher like John the Baptist was. Some argue that Jesus felt the Kingdom/Empire of Heaven was already present or could be made present if all people changed their ways in accordance with God's wishes. It could indeed be argued that much of the apocalyptic passages in the synoptic gospels and John were later Christian interpretations of Jesus' message about the Kingdom of God. @TerryWoodenpic said, Revelation, which deals entirely with the end of the world and God judging all living beings was rejected several times by many Christians as being heretical.

 

[cloudyday2]

@TerryWoodenpic and @Starcomet , I think the vast majority of historians believe Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. The evidence is overwhelming IMO.
- John the Baptist was the mentor of Jesus
- Jesus probably came from an Essene-like sect
- early Christians were concerned that people were dying and the Kingdom of Heaven had not yet arrived

It's fine though. I guess Liberal Christians will keep on believing what they want to believe regardless of whether I approve or not. LOL