Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
fragmentsofdreams said:Liberal Christians look at what the point of the story is and how the original audience would have received it.
Great post, Karl!! I agree completely.Karl - Liberal Backslider said:Wrong.
I'm a liberal Christian because I take the Bible seriously, but not literally. All of it. I find I can't do both. When I took it literally, there were bits I had to just completely leave on the side. Now I don't have that problem - I can engage with the whole text.
Look at it this way. Christian doctrine has three pillars: Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
Protestants generally, and evangelicals and fundamentalists in particular, emphasise Scripture.
Catholics and Orthodox (and I include Anglo-Catholic and similar "wings" within otherwise Protestant groupings here) emphasise tradition.
Liberals emphasise Reason.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages.
The first approach tends towards phariseeism; rules of proscribed behaviour - drinking, dancing, movies, RPGs, rock music...
The second approach tends towards a difficulty in changing to adapt to changes in society and culture.
The third approach tends towards an overcritical attitude towards Scripture and Tradition.
Hence, whilst being essentially liberal, I have more than a nod towards both evangelicalism (where lie my roots) and catholicism (whence comes my preferred worship style and my context for understanding the nature of Scripture), and I wouldn't be without them.
It's really got little to do with origins. In the UK, most evangelicals are theistic evolutionists.
Interesting point though - if you ask for a Bible verse about a given topic, the evangelical will usually find something in the Epistles; the liberal from the Gospels.
Why do people today think these are "teaching stories"? Convenience?Karl - Liberal Backslider said:But this is a fallacy. Liberal Christians do not "throw out" those stories they think are not literally true (in my case, Job and Jonah both spring to mind), but rather consider them to be true in what they teach. Job, for example, does not primarily teach that there was once this bloke called Job who all these things happened to; rather it teaches about the inscrutability of God and the uselessness of conventional, pat answers from the religious.
You obviously don't know a lot about Christianity, then. Christ is pretty much the founder of liberalism.catch22 said:liberal and christian don't belong together in a sentence if you ask me. Conservative and christian on the other hand....yes.
I'm not really familiar with the YECers so I couldn't speak on that topic. Generally liberal Christians see no conflict between believing the theory of evolution is likely to be true and worshiping God but beyond that I couldn't say.Northern Christian said:Is there anything to being a liberal Christian other than being a theistic evolutionist instead of a YEC?
Conservative Christians do exactly the same thing, except they claim they don't.Anthony said:Liberal Christians are Burger King Christians; You know have it your way. They pick and chose those parts they like and throw out the rest.
Excellent post, Karl.Karl - Liberal Backslider said:Wrong.
I'm a liberal Christian because I take the Bible seriously, but not literally. All of it. I find I can't do both. When I took it literally, there were bits I had to just completely leave on the side. Now I don't have that problem - I can engage with the whole text.
Look at it this way. Christian doctrine has three pillars: Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
Protestants generally, and evangelicals and fundamentalists in particular, emphasise Scripture.
Catholics and Orthodox (and I include Anglo-Catholic and similar "wings" within otherwise Protestant groupings here) emphasise tradition.
Liberals emphasise Reason.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages.
The first approach tends towards phariseeism; rules of proscribed behaviour - drinking, dancing, movies, RPGs, rock music...
The second approach tends towards a difficulty in changing to adapt to changes in society and culture.
The third approach tends towards an overcritical attitude towards Scripture and Tradition.
Hence, whilst being essentially liberal, I have more than a nod towards both evangelicalism (where lie my roots) and catholicism (whence comes my preferred worship style and my context for understanding the nature of Scripture), and I wouldn't be without them.
It's really got little to do with origins. In the UK, most evangelicals are theistic evolutionists.
Interesting point though - if you ask for a Bible verse about a given topic, the evangelical will usually find something in the Epistles; the liberal from the Gospels.
In many cases, members of the Mainline Protestant Churches (Episcopals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ [also called the Christian Church but not be confused with the very conservative Church of Christ or Campbellites], Lutherans, United Church of Christ, United Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and several others) are liberal. But many of these have strong conservative factions. My father-in-law is a liberal Methodist minister. He has a guy in his church who is his "cross to bear" as it is, a conservative malcontent who loves the Lord but has a hard time loving his people. The Dude does stuff like gripe to Dad about how the Methodist Board of Social Concerns provided an attorney for Elian Gonzales' fatherTScott said:What exactly is a liberal Christian?
An Episcopalian?
A most excellent point, FoD!fragmentsofdreams said:I would also like to add that liberal Christians tend to see doubts as opportunities to grow in faith rather than signs of weakness.
To insist such tales as Adam and Eve are literally true is to not see the forest for the trees. To liberal Christians such as myself our minds demand we accept that the literalness of such a tale is quite doubtful, but the moral lesson involved is what counts. Had Christianity stemmed from Graecoroman tradition rather than the Hebrew, no doubt fundamentalists today would insist if you don't do what they say Zeus will fling a thunderbolt and zap you in the posterior with it, and teens developing awareness of sexuality will be visited by satyrs and nymphs.Anthony said:Liberal Christians for a starters, take many of the Bible Stories as myths and fables. This is the part they throw out.
Shame. Your cruel and intemperate post was reported.Spaarks said:There is no such thing as a liberal Christian. You can be one or the other but not both. Sorry.
Why wouldn't they be? What's convenient about it?Anthony said:Why do people today think these are "teaching stories"? Convenience?
Who knows? Real Neanderthals, perhaps.Were Adam and Eve real people?
Sorry, that's impossible except when considering Christ as a part of the godhead being omniscient. They were not contemporaneous so they couldn't have. There's zero evidence to support that.Jesus and Apostle knew them to be real people.
???Do they refer to Job as a fake person or someone real?
Okay.God's word is the truth it is not worded to decieve.
[/i]JAS 5:9-11 Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy
The heart of the matter is so-called liberal christians do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, but rather it the message of God overall. Accordingly they provide their own editorial editing of it, to suit what makes sense to them. Faith has been replaced with what makes sense
No he was speaking metaphorically, quite obviously. Just like Daddy Bush did when he said "Read my lips, no new taxes" (well, unlike Christ, Bush was lying, but nobody thought he was saying he believed Harry Callahan was a real person just because he quoted him).Was Jesus a liar in this passage in which he refers to Noah and the Flood?
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?