What exactly is a liberal Christian?

[seebs]

The NT has a seemingly greater contribution as based on need:

And to whom is it paid, and how often? Is the greater contribution required? How much tithe is required?

The question isn't "how much do I HAVE to give?" It is "how much CAN I give?"

I would tend to agree, but:

1. Is there a minimum?
2. To whom is it paid?

66

And how do you arrive at this conclusion? What was wrong with the other books? When the KJV was first released in 1611, why did it have 79?

Joh 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

You haven't answered my question. If someone believes Jesus is Lord, is that a guarantee of salvation, or not?

(snip Matt 19:7-11)

Could you answer the question? I have read the text. What I want to know is, yes or no, is adultery grounds for divorce?

He hung, then his body fell and his guts burst out.

Why, exactly, did his body fall? Was it cut down?

Why doesn't either passage give the whole story? Why two separate stories, each partial?

Something phenomenal occured immediately. Whether is was "spiritual death" or not is up to debate, (I believe it was) but Christ's death opened the door of redemption of both soul, and body. Adam's body died after 930 years (how long before the curse we do not know); but his soul died that very day.

So, even though other references to "death" normally refer to physical death, this one is different. Why is that? It doesn't say "spiritual death" in my copy. Why do we need to interpret this passage, and add the idea that the death is spiritual?

What does it mean to say his soul "died"? Was he a zombie?

No. Folks arguing pre-Civil War entitlement to slavery were mostly Mormons who belive the Africans bear the mark of Cain and are unfit for freedom.

Think I'm kidding? Ask a Mormon what they believe about the "mark of Cain".

I don't think you're kidding, but I think this is one of the least plausible claims I've ever heard of.

Joseph Smith was born in 1805. The Mormon faith didn't exist until 1827. The Mormons have never been a large group. It is ludicrous to claim that the people arguing for slavery were "mostly mormons", given that the argument predates Joseph Smith's birth. Debates about slavery go back to the 16th century, and slavery was simply accepted by almost everyone for the previous 1500 years. In 1844, the Southern Baptist Convention was founded on the "right" of clergymen to own slaves.

Serious discussions of the history of slavery and Christianity don't even refer to the Mormons, who were a small and isolated group at the time, and didn't figure in the larger political movements. By contrast, the Methodists and Baptists, both fairly large groups, had splits over the issue.

But, fine. You say that the Bible doesn't allow Christians to own slaves. Could you post the passage whose plain, literal, reading tells you this?

1Co 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Well, it's nice that you have a clear and simple answer to this. What should an unmarried woman do, if she wants to learn about Christianity? She can't go to church and ask the minister, apparently, because she can't speak in church.

Tough stuff, but there is a DESIGN that is overlooked in our modern, cosmopolitan, 'new-age' society where women fulfilled a God-sanctified place of honor. Proverbs 31 comes to mind, plus dozens of noble passages which expand, compliment, and contextualize the above verses.

"Contextualize"?

What does context matter? Context is not part of a "plain, literal" reading.

You know, I wish I could belive you here, but it is quite obvious to me that you are looking to embattle me about the Bible. Okay then....shoot.

Indeed. I believe you are saying false things about the Bible which can only lead people into dire error and harm the faith.

 

[nami]

I have recently returned to Church and have found that it is an alarming reality. Many Churches call themselves Christian yet are active mediums and speak to the dead. If one will interpret the Scriptures in 'reason', someone else will always have a different conception,somewhere. There are drastic differences I have found. All of which are sure they are correct and that in time our interpretations of the Scriptures will continue to change 'with man'. I believe that God knew what He meant/intended to declare unto Man when He revealed His Word. Jesus said also, that He wants His Church to be of 'like mind'. How is one to interpret this? Since we are to have such a common understanding of His Word, something is wrong in the World. There are such drastic differences like: homosexuality, confession being 'necessary', baptism,'who' is saved or not, tongues,healings,spirituality,worship,to say a few. These differences are based on cultural,personal,philosophical,intellectual,conceptions of 'how' to understand the Word/context of. All of these Churches are established with guidance from the Holy Spirit. Since this is so, how is this possible?

 

[fastnrun]

I always thought the term "liberal" implied freedom, which Christ does give us. It is no longer about rules, it's about relationship. A Christian has the freedom to do whatever, really, but a person who is totally in love with Christ is gonna follow Him, whether it goes against culture or not. I guess that's just my two cents...

 

[freespirit2001]

Please define all the types of social diversity referred to here, and we'll examine them together through the lens of scripture. If there is any mention of that which is abominable to the LORD, then there is a problem.

I suspect there is already a problem, but no one wants to look at it Biblically, which is why liberals talk a lot about "feelings, acceptance, tolerance, love, etc" - all great things when under the control of the Spririt of God, not when under the control of the subjective, relative, idealistic enterprise of degenerate thinking that claims God says what He, in fact, did NOT say.

The Bible NEVER speaks of diversity as a good thing. Not once, not anywhere, ever. Diversity is a bad thing. Unity, on the other hand, is a good thing...rather, unity in Christ is a good thing.

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

Diversity - 1. the condition of being different or having differences 2. an instance or a point of difference.

What possible good can come about celebrating differences if they are in disagreement about what is right and what is wrong?

The Word of God is TRUTH. To the believer, that is a critical, deadly serious element of the faith. What distinguishes itself as different from this truth is an untruth (read: LIE) and is not worth celebrating in Christian circles.

Please straighten my definitions if I'm off key. (NOTE: I'm not talking about ethnic diversity, just what people CHOOSE to align themselves with on a purely social, moral plane....BIG difference).

I hope I can work out this technology...I'm still new, but am so inspired by this topic in this forum and your comment about diversity...from Zorilla's quote qbout liberal christians about diversity...I thought I might hope to encourage you to study more about concepts of freedom and wisdom than diversity issues....

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." II Corinthians 3:17

and St.Paul's words:

" I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." I Cor.9:22

This is a later message...but hope all is OK now...

 

[freespirit2001]

I might add I feel liberal christians are the great thinkers of the world....Scripture is naturally inspiring and the values in God's Word are highly inspirational and relaxing and comforting to the liberal christian's natural curious spirit:

"Great men are they who see that the Spiritual is stronger than the material force, that Thoughts rule the world." Emerson

"The fundamental fact about the Greek was that he had to use his mind. The ancient priests had said,"Thus far and no farther. We set the limits of thought." The Greeks said,"All things are to be examined and called into question. There are no limits set on thought."
Edith Hamilton

Liberal christians are more naturally curious about faith and spiritual knowledge....they step outside the lines of the traditions of their faith or congregation circle to ask questions.

I feel many of the conservative christians ---the traditionalists of the old school and the fundamentalists as well---still tend to suppress knowledge and values and inquisitive reasoning in their faith---I feel the liberal christian has more freedom with their reasoning skills and puts them more to the test than those who tend to suppress questions and knowledge and information...To a conservative christian " knowledge or a little knowledge is evil..."( I forget the quote about "a little knowledge is an evil thing"...I used to hear growing up with so much conformity early in life) Liberal christians, besides being the rationalists and the great thinkers of faith, are also information gathers...Information is power...as well as realizing the fact there are also other forms of power out there---expert power, referent power, legitimate power...in others we work with or know and love---I personally am wary of those who feel emotion is power--- coercive power is based on emotional exploitation. Reward power can be used in the same way in political behaviors for political motives... The conservative christian is more power oriented (than being spirit-led) on the social level to suppress information that would help promote unity of spirit...The liberal christian is more naturally spirit oriented and a free thinker. Liberal christians empathize more with the basic human needs of people and basic real life humanity---they tend to say it like it really is...---say what they mean/ mean what they say--- than those who are led more by pretense, and the pretenses of their religion ( dogma--doctrine---godless chatter---making or passing the buck)---and what they call power.

"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are a folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." I Cor.2:14

"Avoid godless chatter, for it will lead to more and more ungodliness." II Tim.2:16

"So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord with a pure heart. Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know they breed quarrels." II Tim. 2:22-23

In many faiths in general---the reward power is to "pass the plate"....

" The history of civilized man is the history of incessant conflict between liberty and authority." Charles T. Spradding

"The mind of man is being habituated to a new method and ideal:
There is but one sure road to the access of Truth---the road of experiement, record and controlled reflection." John Dewey

"The ultimate test of what a truth means is the conduct it inspires or dictates."
William James

"Curiosity will conquer fear even more than bravery will." James Stephen

"Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretense for evil; but live as a servant of God." I Peter 2:16

I think Liberal Christians will help encourage the bridge to identifying what are the healthy and unhealthy behaviors in the social arena in the churches out there...and where good quality of life stands in the spiritual community...


Maybe there will be...more studies of behaviors in general in all our churches--less suppression, oppression, repression...depression....more actualized faith and good spirit being shared....


(*?)

 

[Buck72]

And to whom is it paid, and how often? Is the greater contribution required? How much tithe is required?

2Co 9:7 Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Mat 6:3 "But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

1. Is there a minimum?
2. To whom is it paid?

You miss the point. Give to the poor, the widows, and the orphans. There is also a gift to the church to support the ministry. You give as you are able and give as you are led to give. Looking for a minimum is a pretty shabby way of seeking Christ first in all things.

And how do you arrive at this conclusion? What was wrong with the other books? When the KJV was first released in 1611, why did it have 79?

I arrive at that conclusion with much greater resolve than those who do not. I also believe that God is soverign, and has the capacity to eliminate the other books (not to detract from their value) from scripture. God does not sit atop His throne is complete dominion and shake His hands at how man has put the wrong books into the Bible.

You haven't answered my question. If someone believes Jesus is Lord, is that a guarantee of salvation, or not?

If I answered all your questions, I would not have time for my job or family, let alone time to eat. You'll need to start doing your own homework, or I'm going to start billing you for my time!

What does the Bible say?

Jam 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

Satan knows Jesus is Lord.

Could you answer the question? I have read the text. What I want to know is, yes or no, is adultery grounds for divorce?

Christ allowed divorce for the hardness of the people's heart. He hates divorce, but it is a necessary process in inter-human affairs (no pun intended). If my wife or I committed adultery, it would be a tough matter to work through, but the matter most glorifies Christ to follow Him and FORGIVE the other. That is what love is. Divorce is simply giving up, not saying it is flat-out wrong, but I'd be slow to see how divorce could be beneficial unless the person was unrepentant.

Why, exactly, did his body fall? Was it cut down?

I don't know Seebs, maybe the branch was weak, or the rope snapped, perhaps he didn't follow Chuck Noland's example of how to properly test a branch BEFORE hanging yourself like in the movie: "Cast Away".

Why doesn't either passage give the whole story? Why two separate stories, each partial?

Just to frusterate people like yourself I suppose. I don't have a problem with it, ask the LORD.

So, even though other references to "death" normally refer to physical death, this one is different. Why is that? It doesn't say "spiritual death" in my copy. Why do we need to interpret this passage, and add the idea that the death is spiritual?

1. Did he drop dead to the ground? (NO)
2. Is God a liar? (NO)
3. Did something drastic occur between Adam and God after his sin? (YES)

Why is this confusing to you? Christ says that we are born into death, how then can we be born alive and yet still be dead? Are we zombies?
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Rom 6:6-8 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Joh 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

What does it mean to say his soul "died"? Was he a zombie?

If the term: "zombie" is a jab, turn it toward God.

I don't think you're kidding, but I think this is one of the least plausible claims I've ever heard of.

The Mormon church taught that black people were inferior, and during the time of the slavery dispute contested that since they were inferior people it was grounds to continue slavery. There certainly were others I'm sure.

Serious discussions of the history of slavery and Christianity don't even refer to the Mormons, who were a small and isolated group at the time, and didn't figure in the larger political movements. By contrast, the Methodists and Baptists, both fairly large groups, had splits over the issue.

Okay.

But, fine. You say that the Bible doesn't allow Christians to own slaves. Could you post the passage whose plain, literal, reading tells you this?

The Hebrews had slaves along with the Law that prescribed how to care for them - I've already posted that. Slavery today is hardly an issue. Did Christ have slaves, or the apostles?

Well, it's nice that you have a clear and simple answer to this. What should an unmarried woman do, if she wants to learn about Christianity? She can't go to church and ask the minister, apparently, because she can't speak in church.

The answer is not clear and simple. Paul goes on to say that he does not allow a woman to exercise SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY over a man. What's your point?

What does context matter? Context is not part of a "plain, literal" reading.

Dude, take any book and explain to me how you can fail to read it as it is written without stretching it all over the place to conform it to your own "higher" standards.

Honestly...I don't get it.

Indeed. I believe you are saying false things about the Bible which can only lead people into dire error and harm the faith.

Now you are getting nasty. I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN FALSE THINGS HERE, YOU GOT SOME PROOF FOR THAT BASELESS ACCUSATION?

The greater error is the gutless liberal trash that teaches people to question God's word and do as you please, they will eat fire for their heresy; am I therefore "wrong" to tell them what the Bible says!?

Isa 40:6 A voice says, "Call out." Then he answered, "What shall I call out?" All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.

Isa 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass.

Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.

Isa 45:23 "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

Isa 55:11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Isa 66:2 "For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD. "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Isa 66:5 Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brothers who hate you, who exclude you for My name's sake, Have said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy.' But they will be put to shame.

 

[Buck72]

Liberal christians are more naturally curious about faith and spiritual knowledge....they step outside the lines of the traditions of their faith or congregation circle to ask questions.

Great post freespirit,

I do just that from the conservative side, only my point is the matter where many liberal Christians delve into things that God has forbidden, profane, or opposite to His very word.

Most that continue to argue will question the Bible's very own viability and exchange that foundation for something para/extra-Biblical.

I keep loitering around the broad road/narrow road comparison and find that my stance is becoming less and less "acceptable" in the church.

Maybe I'm out to lunch here, but I'm clinging to Christ with all I have, and also to every last word that He's given to me.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[seebs]

You miss the point. Give to the poor, the widows, and the orphans. There is also a gift to the church to support the ministry. You give as you are able and give as you are led to give. Looking for a minimum is a pretty shabby way of seeking Christ first in all things.

I entirely agree.

However, you are not answering the question I am asking.

Many people claim that it is a clear and unambiguous Biblical teaching that you are obliged to give no less than 10% of your gross income to the church. Is this true, or is it false?

If I answered all your questions, I would not have time for my job or family, let alone time to eat. You'll need to start doing your own homework, or I'm going to start billing you for my time!

I do my own homework all the time. I get different answers than you do. I am doing exactly what we are commanded; I am testing your teaching to see if it bears good fruit?

What does the Bible say?

Jam 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

Satan knows Jesus is Lord.

Okay. So, you're saying that believing that Jesus is Lord is not enough to give you salvation, I assume? (I have to ask, because I don't know your theology, and some claim that even Satan will one day be saved.)

Christ allowed divorce for the hardness of the people's heart. He hates divorce, but it is a necessary process in inter-human affairs (no pun intended). If my wife or I committed adultery, it would be a tough matter to work through, but the matter most glorifies Christ to follow Him and FORGIVE the other. That is what love is. Divorce is simply giving up, not saying it is flat-out wrong, but I'd be slow to see how divorce could be beneficial unless the person was unrepentant.

I don't either. But, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the plain literal reading of the Bible is that it is permissible, if undesirable, to divorce your wife on grounds of adultery, and remarry later, yes?

1. Did he drop dead to the ground? (NO)
2. Is God a liar? (NO)
3. Did something drastic occur between Adam and God after his sin? (YES)

Why is this confusing to you? Christ says that we are born into death, how then can we be born alive and yet still be dead?

This sounds to me very much like a strong argument for interpreting that text in a way other than the plain and literal one.

The Mormon church taught that black people were inferior, and during the time of the slavery dispute contested that since they were inferior people it was grounds to continue slavery. There certainly were others I'm sure.

Slavery in the US predates the birth of Joseph Smith by something like a hundred years.

While Mormons may well have participated at some point, it is very clear that they were not a significant influence in the original decision to hold slaves, and it is quite clear that the Southern Baptists were a very, very, large group of people by comparison.

So.

Does the Bible plainly teach that it is permissible to enslave others by force? Does it teach that it is not permissible?

Were the three hundred and something clergymen who founded the Southern Baptist Convention all incapable of reading the Bible?

The answer is not clear and simple. Paul goes on to say that he does not allow a woman to exercise SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY over a man. What's your point?

My point is that it seems very much as though we must, in the end, interpret the text to understand it.

If we interpret it, we may do so in error, but we cannot fail to interpret it.

In short, our beliefs, based on the Bible, may nonetheless be in error, whether or not the Bible itself is inerrant.

Dude, take any book and explain to me how you can fail to read it as it is written without stretching it all over the place to conform it to your own "higher" standards.

I think you are misunderstanding my position.

Now you are getting nasty. I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN FALSE THINGS HERE, YOU GOT SOME PROOF FOR THAT BASELESS ACCUSATION?

Well, you have said things I certainly believe to be false.

The most significant, of course, is that you keep referring to the Bible as being the Word, which is Jesus. This is idolatry.

The greater error is the gutless liberal trash that teaches people to question God's word and do as you please, they will eat fire for their heresy; am I therefore "wrong" to tell them what the Bible says!?

I see. So, the plain literal truth -- "whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life" -- is, in fact, not truth. It is not enough that I believe in Jesus; it is not enough that I follow Him to the best of my ability. I must get the doctrine correct, or, according to you, I will "eat fire for my heresy". Hmm. When did I become gutless, and what makes me so "liberal"?

And, once again, I remind you that the only Word that is of God is Jesus. The Bible is really coool, but it's not Jesus.

 

[Fideist]

The greater error is the gutless liberal trash that teaches people to question God's word and do as you please, they will eat fire for their heresy; am I therefore "wrong" to tell them what the Bible says!?

Which specific 'gutless liberal trash' are you speaking of, please? The original Greek for heresy just means free (or able) to choose. And you can try to tell 'them' what the Bible says, but in the end I suspect all they will get is just another person's interpretation of the Bible.

 

[James Sez]

gutless liberal trash

This thread was dead for quite awhile. It will probably die again soon until someone filled with the love of Jesus decides that God has called them to set hellbound apostates on the right path. Thank you Buck for being a wonderful example of God's love and judgement in trying to save those among us that believe gutless liberal trash and thank you Seebs for your wise answers. I'm learning a lot from you and your patience. We need you here more than those folks over at Internet Inf.

 

[Christi]

This thread was dead for quite awhile. It will probably die again soon until someone filled with the love of Jesus decides that God has called them to set hellbound apostates on the right path. Thank you Buck for being a wonderful example of God's love and judgement in trying to save those among us that believe gutless liberal trash and thank you Seebs for your wise answers. I'm learning a lot from you and your patience. We need you here more than those folks over at Internet Inf.

I'm learning more and more everyday, about recognizing spiritual fruit. You can't hide your light under a bushel, right? The contrast is startling, actually.

 

[seebs]

We need you here more than those folks over at Internet Inf.

I sometimes suspect that this is true; it seems often as though many of those people are closer to Jesus than many of the folks here.

 

[tulc]

gutless liberal trash

Whew! Looks like I dodged another bullet! If he would have said gutless liberal whitetrash I would have been cooked good!
tulc

 

[freespirit2001]

Thanks Buck for your words of encouragment....


Its too bad this thread got so caught up in so much crossfire...!!!!

As a new member I found this topic so wonderful and encouraging! I enjoyed learning and hearing about others insight into what a liberal christian is .....Many are so natural---say it like it is----say what you mean---mean what you say people that relate to basic human needs with good response and empathy. I'm hoping to live a "real world life" not a "fanciful religious life" or "pretensious hypocritical religious life" with spiritual knowledge, as close to Christ as possible, with my faith and sharing spiritual understanding with others. I trust much in my own spiritual integrity and insight...(I naturally tend to believe in the positive about all our human nature---about humanity in general--- I trust its God's plan and its His power, not our own human will that moves us and others through His Spirit and His Word and to His Word ) I personally feel this topic gives us a chance to toughen our minds and spirits and some fragile and some very powerful egos for a chance to work things out about what "liberal" means and what "living as free men and women" means....I do hope to find more relevant concerns added to this issue---knowledge and consciousness and integrity concerns, concerns about freedom and our basic human needs are very important to me. Also consideration of the knowledge of what is heathly and unhealthy behaviors in spiritual gatherings---as in the world around us, as this awareness leads to a better quality of life for all. These concerns will reflect on lower and higher natures in the spirit of God---This topic seems to have gone political and that is the way of the world. I just wish Christ would keep us moving as Liberal Christians to work things more through our minds and our good reasoning abilities to keep our thinking straight and staying relevant and accurate to this topic as possible...Staying perceptive of the whole picture and aware of those and others needs around them is important....to and be conscious and discerning of the emotional conflicts and the emotional elements involved with this topic and the issues that lead to more controversies and political behaviors are also imortant to observe how information flows or is repressed....Information and knowledge work together on so many levels and are vital to our growth as christians...This is a volatile topic....and a vital one...could there be a restart of this topic to the effect : What exactly is a Liberal Christian....part II...continued....?...????

" The Life of Jesus was a constant series of risky exploits, jumping over and short- circuiting the barriers which men erect between themselves."

Harvey Cox

" Love and religion are the two most volcanic emotions to which our human nature is liable, and it is not surprising that, when there is a disturbance in one of the spheres----the vibrations should readily be felt in the other."

" How shall be pass most swiftly from point to point and be present always at the focus where the grestest number of vital forces unite in the purest energy? To burn always with this hard, gem-like flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life."

Walter Pater

" For consider you call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,
not many of you were powerful....
not many were of noble birth...
but God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong....
God chose what is low and despised...."

I Cor. 1:26-29


" He who trusts in his own mind is a fool,
But he who walks in wisdom will be delivered."

Proverbs 28:26

 

[Buck72]

Seebs, we are trying to communicate on completely different channels. I'm on UHF and you are on VHF ~ the link is disrupted because we are not entering scripture at the same point. I'm IN scripture, you seem to hover NEAR scripture.

However, you are not answering the question I am asking.

I'm asking questions now. Why do you choose to allegorize the Bible without any Biblical direction to do so? Do you not realize that allegory automatically cheapens the treasure of God's Word to an "interpretive" document that you can choose to perceive as required for yourself? Does anything about that strike you as odd? The fact that you see no problem with a gay bishop confirms my position that you are in Biblical error. Christ does not give us the option for subjective selectability for which doctrines do and don't apply.

Many people claim that it is a clear and unambiguous Biblical teaching that you are obliged to give no less than 10% of your gross income to the church. Is this true, or is it false?

Read the scriptures yourself. Christ applauded the widow who gave all that she had when it was practically nothing. She gave all because to her, God was all she had. If you have to ask "how much do I have to give?", the question back at you is: "How much do you want from God?" a piece of God, or all of Him. Regardless of whether you give to widows, orphans, missions, or the church Christ knows your heart. That is the wellspring of the offering.

I do my own homework all the time. I get different answers than you do. I am doing exactly what we are commanded; I am testing your teaching to see if it bears good fruit?

Do your homework on Daniel 9 and tell me from that passge how the Jews could have possibly missed the Messiah as He was presented as King in Jerusalem. Then, we'll elevate our discussion to "turbo mode" about why literalism ALWAYS prevails over allegory. Also, see my related post here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t79172&page=2

Okay. So, you're saying that believing that Jesus is Lord is not enough to give you salvation, I assume? (I have to ask, because I don't know your theology, and some claim that even Satan will one day be saved.)

Actually I didn't say anything, I quoted James. If satan believes "God is one" what then about our faith? Of course satan will not be saved!! God forbid!! Whoever teaches that nonsense is in all sorts of heresy. God will clearly cast him into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:10).

I don't either. But, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the plain literal reading of the Bible is that it is permissible, if undesirable, to divorce your wife on grounds of adultery, and remarry later, yes?

Permissible? What does the text say bro? Permissble, yes, beneficial, no.

This sounds to me very much like a strong argument for interpreting that text in a way other than the plain and literal one.

How!? I would have never known the possibility if I had not carefully studied the literal text in Genesis and the NT. The conclusion I gave was a literally drawn conclusion. There is no mystique here. It is called hermenutical exegesis.

Does the Bible plainly teach that it is permissible to enslave others by force? Does it teach that it is not permissible?

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

The Hebrews had slaves. Israel was given the Law which covered slavery as they were conquering pagan nations that stood between them and the fullness of God's promise. God gave them the entitlement.

If you want slaves - go get 'em, but I contest you'll have a tough time doing so given today's social order in this country.

Were the three hundred and something clergymen who founded the Southern Baptist Convention all incapable of reading the Bible?

They were incapable of relating themselves within context. Slavery was permissible by the State, and the Bible gave clear instruction to the provisions and treatment of slaves (to the Hebrews), so where was their sin? I do not agree with them, but neither is there a Biblical injunction to accuse them either. It is not as if they elected a homosexual bishop to govern the Body of Christ.

My point is that it seems very much as though we must, in the end, interpret the text to understand it.

Then you'll know why the Jews failed to understand Daniel 9. And you'll be suprised to learn that Christ held them accountable to know it...LITERALLY.

If we interpret it, we may do so in error, but we cannot fail to interpret it.

I defer to my STOP sign analogy (used as it is) here once again.

In short, our beliefs, based on the Bible, may nonetheless be in error, whether or not the Bible itself is inerrant.

The Bible is inerrant. Our views are not.

I think you are misunderstanding my position.

Ditto.

Well, you have said things I certainly believe to be false.

Name them and I will recant. I'll argue that I quote mostly scripture, which is not false, although Buck is a man and therefore has the capacity for falsehood. Name the falsehood and I will either answer correctly or recant.

The most significant, of course, is that you keep referring to the Bible as being the Word, which is Jesus. This is idolatry.

Whoa. You fail to get me after all this time. I can only say the same things to you again and again. If you do not take the time to read them and hear them in a language other than: "The Book is God", then I may as well place my efforts elsewhere. I'm not even going to bother repeating myself. This has been clearly explained ad nauseum.

I see. So, the plain literal truth -- "whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life" -- is, in fact, not truth. It is not enough that I believe in Jesus; it is not enough that I follow Him to the best of my ability. I must get the doctrine correct, or, according to you, I will "eat fire for my heresy". Hmm. When did I become gutless, and what makes me so "liberal"?

Every soul shall live forever. Some will merely live in eternal torment (perish), while others will live to eternal life. There is no literal malfeasance in that verse whatsoever.

Forget doctrine for a moment. Look at WHAT you believe. I believe that the Bible is an integrated message system comprised of 66 books written over thousands of years by 44 different authors, preserved by the absolute soverign dominion of God throughout history. It is self-substantiating and flawless down to the tiniest letters and even the spaces between the letters. Christ Himself says this here:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

You hold the Bible to be a sort of reference manual, prone to fallacy and interpretive intrigue that opens it to a discussion topic rather than a means to pursue the Person of God in practical holiness.

So, our foundations are dislocated. And I NEVER said: "Seebs will eat fire for his heresy" - I said:

The greater error is the gutless liberal trash that teaches people to question God's word and do as you please, they will eat fire for their heresy; am I therefore "wrong" to tell them what the Bible says!?

That being the easy-believism that allows people to simply affix "God" to their life without so much as a modest change to their livlihood and then to muster the gall to question His word and lambaste the faithful who hold it is the STANDARD by which we are all measured as being: "mouth-foaming fundy's", all so that they may continue in their sin and allow their peers to do likewise. ie: gay bishop.

Sorry liberals - you lose.

And, once again, I remind you that the only Word that is of God is Jesus. The Bible is really coool, but it's not Jesus.

The Bible is really cool, just not cool enough to take seriously. Does God honestly expect us to lay aside the spoken, revealed word in discarded fashion, only to primp ourselves for church whereby we sit around and wait for Him to "prompt" somone to enlighten the fellowship with NEW TRUTH!?

This sort of liberal doctrine is madness. Christ Himself quoted the OT over and over again, and held the Jews accountable to know it!

Please syncronize your doctrine filter with the Bible:

**********

Jer 6:13 "For from the least of them even to the greatest of them, Everyone is greedy for gain, And from the prophet even to the priest Everyone deals falsely.

Jer 6:14 "They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is no peace.

Jer 6:15 "Were they ashamed because of the abomination they have done? They were not even ashamed at all; They did not even know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time that I punish them, They shall be cast down," says the LORD.

Jer 6:16 Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Jer 6:17 "And I set watchmen over you, saying, 'Listen to the sound of the trumpet!' But they said, 'We will not listen.'

Jer 6:18 "Therefore hear, O nations, And know, O congregation, what is among them.

Jer 6:19 "Hear, O earth: behold, I am bringing disaster on this people, The fruit of their plans, Because they have not listened to My words, And as for My law, they have rejected it also.

***********

Jer 23:16 Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD.

Jer 23:17 "They keep saying to those who despise Me, 'The LORD has said, "You will have peace"'; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, 'Calamity will not come upon you.'

Jer 23:18 "But who has stood in the council of the LORD, That he should see and hear His word? Who has given heed to His word and listened?

Jer 23:21 "I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied.

Jer 23:22 "But if they had stood in My council, Then they would have announced My words to My people, And would have turned them back from their evil way And from the evil of their deeds.

Jer 23:23 "Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off?

Jer 23:24 "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD.

Jer 23:25 "I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, 'I had a dream, I had a dream!'

Jer 23:26 "How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart,

Jer 23:27 who intend to make My people forget My name by their dreams which they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot My name because of Baal?

Jer 23:28 "The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?" declares the LORD.

Jer 23:29 "Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock?

 

[Buck72]

Which specific 'gutless liberal trash' are you speaking of, please? The original Greek for heresy just means free (or able) to choose. And you can try to tell 'them' what the Bible says, but in the end I suspect all they will get is just another person's interpretation of the Bible.

I knew that my language would rile people up. I do not like that everyone replied with "gutless liberal trash" when there was an entire post of CONTEXT that snippet was extrapolated from, WHICH, strikingly enough only serves to substantiate my point within the thread even further...

The "gutless liberal trash" that I so candidly (now to my regret for loss of the whole point made before and after that phrase) is the basis where one eliminates scripture for sake of something "greater". It takes guts to belive the Bible, and in the end it may cost me those guts, just as it did my brothers and sisters who have gone before us in faith and paid the ultimate cost for it. This nonsense of sitting among a large congregation with discarded Bibles and an "open mind" is borderline agnostic mysticism. Christ NEVER commanded such an act, and does NOT endorse such mindless surrender to whatever spirit shows up on the teleprompter. There will never be a world that will outright reject that faith (since it looks, smells, and tastes like every other kind of "faith" on the planet today). But the world LOATHES the Bible-thumping fundys right?

Bring 'em on. We are the only religion on the planet without a blanket of protection from the government. People can trash Biblical Christianity carte blanche, sounds a lot like the early church. My comparison to the mainstream focus is to shed light that mainstream always, always flows DOWN.

Mat 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

Just watch yourselves. Check scripture.

2Co 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

 

[cube66]

A Liberal Christian? That's like calling someone a black white. They are two totally different moral bases.

 

[Vedant]

A Liberal Christian? That's like calling someone a black white. They are two totally different moral bases.

Because as everyone knows, skin color is the basis for our morals.

right.................

heh

 

[seebs]

Seebs, we are trying to communicate on completely different channels. I'm on UHF and you are on VHF ~ the link is disrupted because we are not entering scripture at the same point. I'm IN scripture, you seem to hover NEAR scripture.

Well, the way I'd describe it is that you're in Scripture, and I'm in Christ. You are in the words; I am in the Word.

I'm asking questions now. Why do you choose to allegorize the Bible without any Biblical direction to do so?

Because that's how it was written.

Do you not realize that allegory automatically cheapens the treasure of God's Word to an "interpretive" document that you can choose to perceive as required for yourself?

No. I realize that it raises the document from mere historical trivia into actual meaningful statements about faith and morals.

Christ does not give us the option for subjective selectability for which doctrines do and don't apply.

Read Romans some time.

Read the scriptures yourself.

I do.

Then, we'll elevate our discussion to "turbo mode" about why literalism ALWAYS prevails over allegory.

You haven't yet demonstrated that you can correctly or fully answer simple questions about the Bible; indeed, you've simply failed to answer several of my questions. I think literalism has thus shown its true colors.

Actually I didn't say anything, I quoted James.

Well, then you didn't answer the question.

Of course, what you say above is false. When you choose which things to quote, and which things not to, you are saying something.

How!? I would have never known the possibility if I had not carefully studied the literal text in Genesis and the NT. The conclusion I gave was a literally drawn conclusion. There is no mystique here. It is called hermenutical exegesis.

Except that you are interpreting "die" to mean something other than "die".

If you did not have other passages to read, and you heard that God said someone would die if he did something, and that he did that thing, would you think it was a "spiritual" death? No. You'd think the guy would keel over and stop breathing.

That is the only plain and literal reading of the passage.

As soon as you admit that another passage changes your understanding of the first, you have accepted interpretation over literalism.

The Hebrews had slaves. Israel was given the Law which covered slavery as they were conquering pagan nations that stood between them and the fullness of God's promise. God gave them the entitlement.

A fine, fine, example of moral relativism.

They were incapable of relating themselves within context. Slavery was permissible by the State, and the Bible gave clear instruction to the provisions and treatment of slaves (to the Hebrews), so where was their sin? I do not agree with them, but neither is there a Biblical injunction to accuse them either. It is not as if they elected a homosexual bishop to govern the Body of Christ.

So, slavery is okay, then? You don't see the moral wrong there?

I'm sorry, but I can't take your position on this seriously. The wrongness of slavery is manifest. On the other hand, I have no idea why I should care about the sexual desires of a bishop, in general.

Then you'll know why the Jews failed to understand Daniel 9. And you'll be suprised to learn that Christ held them accountable to know it...LITERALLY.

Very surprised indeed. Are you saying God doesn't keep His promises?

I defer to my STOP sign analogy (used as it is) here once again.

Then you should, at some point, respond to the obvious fact that you interpret a stop sign. You go again, even though the sign doesn't say to. Why? Because you interpret it in light of other information. It's not literal.

The Bible is inerrant. Our views are not.

Then it doesn't matter, because we only have our views on what the Bible says; we cannot get past them.

Name them and I will recant. I'll argue that I quote mostly scripture, which is not false, although Buck is a man and therefore has the capacity for falsehood. Name the falsehood and I will either answer correctly or recant.

You have repeatedly called Scripture the Word, when only Jesus is the word. This is false. You have described Scripture as "inerrant" in a way that it plainly isn't.

Whoa. You fail to get me after all this time. I can only say the same things to you again and again. If you do not take the time to read them and hear them in a language other than: "The Book is God", then I may as well place my efforts elsewhere. I'm not even going to bother repeating myself. This has been clearly explained ad nauseum.

Yes, it has. Calling the Bible "the Word" is clearly idolatry, and no amount of hand-waving will change that.

Every soul shall live forever. Some will merely live in eternal torment (perish), while others will live to eternal life. There is no literal malfeasance in that verse whatsoever.

We have a problem here. If the non-believers live forever too, then what is this verse telling us? NOTHING AT ALL. If it doesn't mean that believers have salvation, it's useless. If every soul lives forever, then saying that whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life is not telling us anything; so will everyone else. If it means something different - if eternal life is, as Jesus so often said, salvation, and not mere continuation - then it seems to contradict your other interpretation.

Forget doctrine for a moment. Look at WHAT you believe. I believe that the Bible is an integrated message system comprised of 66 books written over thousands of years by 44 different authors, preserved by the absolute soverign dominion of God throughout history. It is self-substantiating and flawless down to the tiniest letters and even the spaces between the letters.

Which version, exactly, do you think is perfect down to the spaces between the letters? Why was it that this book didn't even exist in the 66-book form until sometime after 1700?

Christ Himself says this here:

No, He doesn't.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This refers to the Mosaic Law, not to the Bible.

You hold the Bible to be a sort of reference manual, prone to fallacy and interpretive intrigue that opens it to a discussion topic rather than a means to pursue the Person of God in practical holiness.

No. I hold us to be prone to interpretive error.

Anyway, if you want to pursue the person of God, pray. The Living Word is with us, now, right here. We need no leather-bound talismans to know Him.

Sorry liberals - you lose.

Are you God?

If not, why are you pretending you know?

The Bible is really cool, just not cool enough to take seriously. Does God honestly expect us to lay aside the spoken, revealed word in discarded fashion, only to primp ourselves for church whereby we sit around and wait for Him to "prompt" somone to enlighten the fellowship with NEW TRUTH!?

No, but since no one's doing that, I don't see what it has to do with anything.

I take the Bible seriously. That means I don't engage in idolatry towards it, or assume that everything in it will just fall into my lap if I read it without contemplation and study, the way literalists do. I recognize that the intent of a passage may take years to figure out.

This sort of liberal doctrine is madness. Christ Himself quoted the OT over and over again, and held the Jews accountable to know it!

Well, of course. They were, after all, under the Law.

Please syncronize your doctrine filter with the Bible:

My doctrine seems to me to be much better synchronized with the Bible than yours. Not the Bible as mangled and left for dead by fundamentalism, but the Bible as understood with the guidance of the Spirit.

However, I am reading the Bible. I am not taking on two thousand years of accreted political maneuvering; I'm reading the book itself. I'm reading the whole thing; I'm not throwing out thirteen books because Luther didn't understand the Jewish political scene of 0 AD. I'm reading multiple translations, and consulting references about the choice of words, because I know that translation from one language to another invariably loses some meaning; there are things you can say in Greek that you can't say in English, no matter how inspired you are, because the words don't exist.

And, unlike many people, I am coming to the Bible hoping to learn what it says, rather than decreeing what it shall be allowed to say.

I also actually read the stuff like Leviticus, which most fundamentalists ignore entirely except for the three verses they want to quote to attack the disenfranchised.

My doctrine is indeed synchronized with the Bible, but more importantly, it's synchronized with God, as best as I can manage; as time goes on, I am sure I will come closer to the Truth.

 

[seebs]

I knew that my language would rile people up. I do not like that everyone replied with "gutless liberal trash" when there was an entire post of CONTEXT that snippet was extrapolated from, WHICH, strikingly enough only serves to substantiate my point within the thread even further...

The "gutless liberal trash" that I so candidly (now to my regret for loss of the whole point made before and after that phrase) is the basis where one eliminates scripture for sake of something "greater".

Except that no one has done this.

People have just stopped accepting ill-considered interpretations of scripture, when reality and the Spirit have led them to think better of it.

It takes guts to belive the Bible,

Yeah, and it takes guts to believe the Koran, or any other holy book, especially when you're believing things that you read into it which were never there.

Christ NEVER commanded such an act, and does NOT endorse such mindless surrender to whatever spirit shows up on the teleprompter.

Nor does anyone here participate in such a thing.

But the world LOATHES the Bible-thumping fundys right?

When they do things which are loathesome, yes.

Bring 'em on. We are the only religion on the planet without a blanket of protection from the government.

Blatant lies, and stupid ones at that. First off, there's no "planet" involved; each country has different protections. Secondly, there are very, very, few places where Christianity isn't accepted. Thirdly, Christians in America are incredibly privileged, getting special tax benefits, and in some states, being the only people allowed to hold certain offices.

People can trash Biblical Christianity carte blanche, sounds a lot like the early church.

Except that it was invented in 1920, and the early church is still here.

2Co 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

Indeed.

The people who test, who question, are in a much better position to understand this verse than the smugly arrogant people who declare themselves representatives of Christianity, and claim to speak for Christ.