What exactly is a liberal Christian?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Samantha - I do think that the forgiveness of God is important and there are plenty of things I need forgiveness for. But as I said, one of the problems I see with penal SA is that it is not true forgiveness; not indeed of the kind of forgiveness God requires that we exercise. Nevertheless what you say is significant - Marcus Borg (not someone I agree with on all subjects) points out that there are actually several "stories" told in Scripture that illustrate God's salvation of His people - the priestly story of sacrifice for sin is only one of them; there is also for example the Exodus - freedom from oppression story. Different stories appeal to different people coming from different backgrounds. Someone who has primarily been sinned against than been a sinner might find the Exodus story more meaningful as a 'key' into the experience of God than the Priestly story.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the teaching of Scripture isn't important. I hold it secondary to Jesus Himself, and not to be inerrant, but that's a far cry from unimportant.
Polycarp - I agree with the No Free Lunch concept. It feeds into another model I have that God has a massive problem - the same people He aches with pain with over their sufferings are also the same people - i.e. humanity - that are causing the pain. If your kid is being beaten up by a neighbour's kid, it's easy - you feel anger towards the neighbour's kid and compassion and protectiveness towards your own. But when the kid doing the beating up is actually your other kid, you are stuck. Especially when both kids are actually beating up each other. You are going to feel pain, which I think the Cross illustrates.

 

[sjgore15]

Dear Karl, thanks for replying.

I didn't put some things very well before. I didn't mean to say that you don't value scripture at all, but if I understand your website right you see Paul as the main source of writings about substitution and reject them specifically.

In response to God forgiving us as he chooses, that he can change the method, I would reply that from our cultural viewpoint this might be acceptable, for example Tony Blair accepting Ken Livingstone back into the Labour Party recently. But in other cultures this isn't the case. I don't know of modern examples but in Daniel the king is unable to retract his edict by which Daniel is condemned because being consistent to his commands is seen as being more important.

The Bible teaches that death came into the world because of humans disobeying God. I accept that that raises many more questions that the Bible doesn't answer but nevertheless that teaching seems quite clear. So the idea of death because of our sin seems to me to fit very well with the later idea of substitution, and that Jesus accepted God's system of justice. This element is also part of the Exodus also, in that on the night of the passover each Jewish household was called to slaughter and eat a lamb, and the angel of death knew not to kill anyone in those households because of the lamb's blood on the doorposts. Whilst this doesn't directly imply penal atonement it certainly ties substitution to Israel's act of faith resulting in their protection fom God's judgement.

You compared our forgiving people to God doing so. If I understand you right I would want to say that I see significant differences between the two. God has the power to declare someone forgiven, to wipe out the consequence of what they have done. We don't. We are called to forgive because if we don't we are denying to others what we expect for ourselves. We can certainly ask God to have mercy on them when we have forgiven them the hurt they did to us, but we cannot declare them forgiven since ultimately it is God they have hurt. As a comparison, I cannot declare Hitler forgiven for the holocaust, only the Jews and God can do that.

I must admit I am not as knowlegeable about all these things as I would like, and some of my views might shift with time, but my understanding so far is that penal substitionary atonement is foundational to how God forgives us. At one level perhaps it doesn't matter, if we love and obey Jesus as God then God does the forgiving and we get on with living a life pleasing to him. But I have a niggle that if we don't hold up the key truths they and the rest will get lost and this and subsequent generations will not know God.

I take the view that God is love, and that the Bible is his word to us. Whilst not everyone accepts what the Bible teaches, I think most people are agreed that it does have its own system of logic which is consistent across the many years it was written. There are some things there that by the standards of our culture seem harsh. My response to that can be either 1. to reject God as cruel, 2. to reject what is in the Bible or 3. to accept that my viewpoint doesn't match God's and that it is me that needs to change. The 3rd option is the one I adopt. It may be that I am wrong. I can only say to God that I tried to obey him the best I knew how and he will have to judge me on that.

Well, I was trying to write briefly but have said rather a lot. I promised myself this year not to take part in any more of these sites as they can take up a lot of time. But as you can see, "self-control" is my middle name :o . I'm not expecting that you will agree with what I have said. Feel free to reply but it is quite possible I will not respond further (see above!). But the conversation here has shown me that we have more in common than I first thought, and it has been helpful to me to clarify some of my own thoughts.

Kindest regards and all the best, Samantha

 

[sjgore15]

On reflection, my 3 options are a bit black and white. I guess we all apply all three, to greater or lesser extents. To a young earth creationist I probably don't go anywhere near far enough on point 3. Perhaps no-one's too interested, but I just thought I would admit my mistake before anyone else pointed it out to me . Byee, S.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Dear Karl, thanks for replying.

I didn't put some things very well before. I didn't mean to say that you don't value scripture at all, but if I understand your website right you see Paul as the main source of writings about substitution and reject them specifically.

You read me wrong. I don't think I say that anywhere. To be honest, I consider Anselm to be the main source for PSA.

In response to God forgiving us as he chooses, that he can change the method, I would reply that from our cultural viewpoint this might be acceptable, for example Tony Blair accepting Ken Livingstone back into the Labour Party recently. But in other cultures this isn't the case. I don't know of modern examples but in Daniel the king is unable to retract his edict by which Daniel is condemned because being consistent to his commands is seen as being more important.

But I still think this view puts God under an obligation to a higher principle. The King has a limited viewpoint - he can make edicts he later regrets because he cannot know what will happen. But God is omniscient. He should not be getting into such a situation.

The Bible teaches that death came into the world because of humans disobeying God. I accept that that raises many more questions that the Bible doesn't answer but nevertheless that teaching seems quite clear. So the idea of death because of our sin seems to me to fit very well with the later idea of substitution, and that Jesus accepted God's system of justice.

But part of that system of justice is the statements in the OT that no-one shall be put to death for another person's sin. The PSA model breaks the OT justice system anyway. Certainly the idea of death being the result of sin and therefore Christ dying for us relieving that death is a good illustration, but once it becomes penal and substitutional, there is a massive justice problem.

This element is also part of the Exodus also, in that on the night of the passover each Jewish household was called to slaughter and eat a lamb, and the angel of death knew not to kill anyone in those households because of the lamb's blood on the doorposts. Whilst this doesn't directly imply penal atonement it certainly ties substitution to Israel's act of faith resulting in their protection fom God's judgement.

I don't see that it does. The only elements of penal substitution in the OT sacrifice system seem to be back readings and interpretations made by Christians already committed to the PSA model of the Cross.

You compared our forgiving people to God doing so. If I understand you right I would want to say that I see significant differences between the two. God has the power to declare someone forgiven, to wipe out the consequence of what they have done. We don't. We are called to forgive because if we don't we are denying to others what we expect for ourselves. We can certainly ask God to have mercy on them when we have forgiven them the hurt they did to us, but we cannot declare them forgiven since ultimately it is God they have hurt. As a comparison, I cannot declare Hitler forgiven for the holocaust, only the Jews and God can do that.

But I am referring specifically to our requirement to forgive others the hurt they have done us. No-one is given as a substitute to receive the punishment due them; but somehow God can't do this and requires that someone does. This I don't follow.

I must admit I am not as knowlegeable about all these things as I would like, and some of my views might shift with time, but my understanding so far is that penal substitionary atonement is foundational to how God forgives us. At one level perhaps it doesn't matter, if we love and obey Jesus as God then God does the forgiving and we get on with living a life pleasing to him. But I have a niggle that if we don't hold up the key truths they and the rest will get lost and this and subsequent generations will not know God.

But PSA is not a key truth. The creeds go no further than "crucified for us". They do not choose a particular model of atonement, and I think it's therefore a bit of a stretch to consider PSA a key truth. Especially since it leaves Christianity without this key truth prior to Anselm.

I take the view that God is love, and that the Bible is his word to us. Whilst not everyone accepts what the Bible teaches, I think most people are agreed that it does have its own system of logic which is consistent across the many years it was written. There are some things there that by the standards of our culture seem harsh. My response to that can be either 1. to reject God as cruel, 2. to reject what is in the Bible or 3. to accept that my viewpoint doesn't match God's and that it is me that needs to change.

The problem with option 3 is we can end up having to say that our objection to genocide is wrong, and it's perfectly acceptable, because God commands it in Joshua. It is the kind of thinking that ultimately can lead to people flying aircraft into buildings. My conscience is unreliable, I can think something is really evil but actually it's what God wants - you see the danger?

The 3rd option is the one I adopt. It may be that I am wrong. I can only say to God that I tried to obey him the best I knew how and he will have to judge me on that.

Which is why I don't adopt any of them. I try to work from Scripture, tradition and my own reason and conscience. Sometimes I am forced to conclude that Scriptural writers got an imperfect impression. But this is tangential, because I don't think that PSA is actually the primary Scriptural model - Christus Victor seems to be Paul's main model.

Well, I was trying to write briefly but have said rather a lot. I promised myself this year not to take part in any more of these sites as they can take up a lot of time.

They do. I shouldn't be here at the moment.

But as you can see, "self-control" is my middle name :o .

Seperated at birth, clearly

I'm not expecting that you will agree with what I have said. Feel free to reply but it is quite possible I will not respond further (see above!). But the conversation here has shown me that we have more in common than I first thought, and it has been helpful to me to clarify some of my own thoughts.

That's what the boards are here for. There is far more agreement between Liberal and Conservative christians than they think. Besides which, I'm not a liberal (I'm currently reading a book by a liberal theologian and keep on saying "No!", "That's wrong" and "I don't see why you need to do that"), I'm a post-evangelical, but by comparison with a lot of the people here, I'm a liberal. So are you according to some of them, if you're not a Young Earth creationist...

Kindest regards and all the best, Samantha

And you.

 

[TedMorgan3]

A liberal Christian includes people like the theologians John Cobb and Clark Williamson. They look at Christian doctrine and history critically and with intelligence. For example, in a post-Shoah world, Christians must examine the history of doctrine critically. It is important to bring to task the anti-Semitism in theologians such as Ambrose of Milan, Karl Barth, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Another example, no sane person expect time suddenly to end tomorrow as in the fables some folks dig out of the Revelation of Saint John. We have to deal with thinking about how the world actually works. One may or may not take time as real, but one has to deal with it.

 

[sjgore15]

Post-evangelical is a new one on me. Based on 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 and 1 Peter 3:18 for example I am sticking with evangelical for now. Cheers, S.

P.S. my last post, I promise (myself)

 

[rudenski]

<<< A Liberal Christian is liberal with love
short on judgement
long on forgiveness
heavy into peace
for the underdog
helps the poor & powerless

That sounds like Jesus to me....

 

[angeljan]

Liberal Christians are cautious about making dogmatic statements or claiming to have a monopoly on the truth. They see the search for truth as an ongoing task, rather than one that has already been completed.

Liberal Christianity, now almost two hundred years old, regards creeds as unimportant. It is "liberal" because it has "freed" itself from the past,

Of course it would indeed be a kind of heresy to think that we are saved simply by what we believe. We are required to be doers of the Word,not hearers only.

Jesus said, "This is My Body", or when He warned that no one could enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood?



Angel

 

[Routerider]

Liberal Christians for a starters, take many of the Bible Stories as myths and fables. This is the part they throw out.

Sounds like they're simply more "down to earth" or perhaps "honest".

 

[TedMorgan3]

Can one be a post-liberal Christian?

 

[Buck72]

Wow. This is going to be way out of place.

Politically liberal and theologically liberal have nothing in common.
Most of the threads in this forum seem to confuse this.

I'll argue they have much in common. "Liberal" seeks to break away from; "Conservative" seeks to hold onto. Liberal politics and liberal faith seek the same outcome...freedom from the 'old ways' of doing things.

If the have nothing in common why do liberals in politics and liberals in theology both seek to free the homosexuals from any slander or condemnation of what they practice is both abhorrent and deviant? What does God's word say? Why is it that both liberal politicians and liberal theologians seek to ELIMINATE Creation as an option to the evolutionary theory all the while obfuscating the dividing lines between scientifc fact and fiction in order to preserve some "agenda" that neither Christ, nor Congress has approved, sanctioned, or proposed.

Both liberal politicians and liberal theologians would rather "put aside" ecumenical differences in exchange for a worldwide "group hug" amongst all the faiths, to include those that HATE Christ, just for the sake of Christian harmony and peace. Again, what does the Bible say?

Jer 8:11 "They heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is no peace.

Jer 8:12 "Were they ashamed because of the abomination they had done? They certainly were not ashamed, And they did not know how to blush; Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time of their punishment they shall be brought down," Says the LORD.

Liberals in general desire to oppose the side that holds fast against change. I hear so many cry out that it is time to "modernize the faith", yet the Bible says:

Heb 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Heb 13:9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings...

Perhaps liberal christians are so affected by liberal politicians that they can no longer see the distictive line of difference (another liberal myopic syndrome...failure to practice DISCERNMENT).

 

[Polycarp1]

What does God's word say?

The Bible says a LOT of stuff -- including a passage that would, if I took it literally, require that I go to Erwin and demand that you be banned from this board.

But what God's Word (see John 1:1-18) has to say to me, and I believe to any Christian, whatever his theology or politics, is this:

"And the second is like unto it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

"Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto me."

"Judge not, lest you be judged. For with the measure with which you judge, you also will be judged."

"So also were some of you."

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, blind hypocrites. For you add to the Law your own customs, and drive from God those who would follow Him with your man-made rules."

"If you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and confess with your lips that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

In short, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, stop bringing the judgment of mortal men upon those who seek to follow Him, and if you believe that they continue in sin, then pray for them and uphold them as your brothers and sisters in Christ, granting to them the mercy and compassion that He showed to you and me when we were sinners just like them.

 

[MissFirerose]

I'll argue they have much in common. "Liberal" seeks to break away from; "Conservative" seeks to hold onto. Liberal politics and liberal faith seek the same outcome...freedom from the 'old ways' of doing things.

Do you still believe in segregation, slavery being okay, women having no rights? If you don't, than you don't hold onto the 'old ways' either. Just because something's old doesn't make it right.

If they have nothing in common why do liberals in politics and liberals in theology both seek to free the homosexuals from any slander or condemnation of what they practice is both abhorrent and deviant?

Abhorrent and deviant in your own personal opinion. I personally belive behavior such as yours is abhorrent and deviant because it insults the tolerance and kindness that Christ stood for. Neither of those groups believe in mindless hate. Both groups also fought for women's rights and against slavery. And both times, people like you decided we were doing wrong. Some day, people will look back on homophobic Christians the way they look back on Christians who supported slavery and segregation now, with pity.

What does God's word say? Why is it that both liberal politicians and liberal theologians seek to ELIMINATE Creation as an option to the evolutionary theory all the while obfuscating the dividing lines between scientific fact and fiction in order to preserve some "agenda" that neither Christ, nor Congress has approved, sanctioned, or proposed.

Evolution is backed up by actual scientific facts and evidence. Creationism is backed up by Bible quotes taken out of context and nothing else. The idea that scientists have some sort of hidden "agenda" is about as preposterous as the thread that PBS has some sort of evil attention. Yeah, Big Bird's turning against you.

Both liberal politicians and liberal theologians would rather "put aside" ecumenical differences in exchange for a worldwide "group hug" amongst all the faiths, to include those that HATE Christ, just for the sake of Christian harmony and peace. Again, what does the Bible say?

Please don't cherry pick. It doesn't give present whatever parts your presenting accurately or in their entity. And, just because someone is non Christian doesn't make them anti Christian. I'm not Hindu, but I'm not anti Christian. Where is your evidence that liberals are trying to unite those who "hate" *cough* may not believe in *cough* Christ? And please don't give some bogus excuse.

Perhaps liberal christians are so affected by liberal politicians that they can no longer see the distictive line of difference (another liberal myopic syndrome...failure to practice DISCERNMENT).

All caps doesn't make one's point more valid. Also, is it possible for you to converse with people here on this board with out insulting a certain group or demographic? Just wondering. And once again, where is your evidence that your massive blanket statement has any validity?

“The history of democracy shows that every time the extreme right succeeded in taking power legally, things ended very, very badly.”
-Jacques Chirac, Time Magazine

 

[Buck72]

Do you still believe in segregation, slavery being okay, women having no rights? If you don't, than you don't hold onto the 'old ways' either. Just because something's old doesn't make it right.

Have I claimed to support slavery? Such is liberalism...making false statements about the messenger when they are losing the argument.

All of you, including you Polycarp, turn your rage against me personally when I simply have been holding to posture grounded in scripture.

Liberal posture (an oxymoron) is grounded is emotionalism, subjectivity, and personal relevance. Liberals despise any limitations or absolutes, and deny a God that created such a place with any personal responsibilities or consequences.

Abhorrent and deviant in your own personal opinion.

My opinion does not matter...Christ's does and liberals do not like the "ugly parts" of the word of God like: hell, destruction, judgement, accountability, obedience, and eternal consequence.

I keep getting this "opinion" nonsense from liberals who cannot fathom a God who could be so "intolerant". My advice:

READ YOUR BIBLE.

I personally belive behavior such as yours is abhorrent and deviant because it insults the tolerance and kindness that Christ stood for.

Most people need a good insulting...especially if they are out of whack with reality. The problem with liberalism is that it attempts to shelter people from offense to the point that no one can handle anyone calling it like it is. Everything is watered down to the point that all we have left is a groundless chasm of religious mush, governed by an obsequious band of rudderless individuals (that fear man and not God) that have no grasp of reality.

Thus the gay bishop.

Neither of those groups believe in mindless hate. Both groups also fought for women's rights and against slavery. And both times, people like you decided we were doing wrong. Some day, people will look back on homophobic Christians the way they look back on Christians who supported slavery and segregation now, with pity.

You do well in highlighting extremes. Another liberal tactic. If the evidence against you is strong (gay bishop), the result of complying with that evidence is the antithesis, but with greater magnitude (slavery, women's rights).

How about simple OBEDIENCE to God's word?

Evolution is backed up by actual scientific facts and evidence.

Evolution is backed by fanaticism and obfuscated facts innundated with ASSUMPTION. It is a lie, nothing more than that, and one day there will be great pity for those that bought it.

It is both dehumanizing to man and slanderous to God. Read my post in the Theo-Evo/Creation forum: http://www.christianforums.com/t63553

Creationism is backed up by Bible quotes taken out of context and nothing else.

Creationism is the media upon which the entire message of the Bible is painted. There is major theological breakdown when the media is changed from "God created" to "We evolved". It shifts the entire order from God-centered, to man-centered (humanism)...liberalism is spawned from humanistic ideology, so is marxism, communism, and socialism. It is all a matter of who gets to be in control. Humanists believe they are in control and can abort babies without anyone telling them "no" because they have self-imposed rights...despite what God says.

We're talking MAJOR dichotomy here. Please be sure you are on the correct side.

The idea that scientists have some sort of hidden "agenda" is about as preposterous as the thread that PBS has some sort of evil attention. Yeah, Big Bird's turning against you. Please don't cherry pick. It doesn't give present whatever parts your presenting accurately or in their entity. And, just because someone is non Christian doesn't make them anti Christian. I'm not Hindu, but I'm not anti Christian. Where is your evidence that liberals are trying to unite those who "hate" *cough* may not believe in *cough* Christ? And please don't give some bogus excuse. All caps doesn't make one's point more valid. Also, is it possible for you to converse with people here on this board with out insulting a certain group or demographic? Just wondering. And once again, where is your evidence that your massive blanket statement has any validity?

Yeah, Buck is the only one with a bone to pick. Polycarp: take note.

First off the "agenda" is Satan's, but you did not care for the Biblical references for that thread so you're going to need to figure that on your own. Most major media is controlled by cash-flow, not truth flow. PBS is no different, they will put out whatever will keep the $ coming in. They exonerate Clinton for surrendering to terrorists, and villify Bush for refusing to surrender. Be sure an join Al-Qaeda is supporting the Democrats in 2004!

I laugh everytime I see you get all upset about my use of punctuation to highlight points, yet what does "cough" supposed to ensue...sarcasm?

I slander the following openly:

1. Unrepentant sinners that use sin as a means to assert themselves as "having rights", despite what the Bible (GOD) says.

2. Anyone that slanders the word of God by adding words to it, censoring words from it, and misinterpreting the crystal clear, plain text with delusionary support for abominations.

3. Anyone that sees no evil in murder (to include both abortionists and terrorists).

4. Anyone that despises the United States of America and seeks to give it away to the international community when it has been paid for by the blood of noble men that sacrificed, fought, and died for the freedoms the liberals use as a vehicle to sell out our independence and virtue.

5. France, because they are the epitome of spinelessness and shame...just noticed your signature, how appropriate.

“The history of democracy shows that every time the extreme right succeeded in taking power legally, things ended very, very badly.”
-Jacques Chirac, Time Magazine

 

[Buck72]

The Bible says a LOT of stuff -- including a passage that would, if I took it literally, require that I go to Erwin and demand that you be banned from this board.

Polycarp - why the hate? I have not slandered you, I replied to you with humility and preference. Yet you reply to me with personal disdain.

Fine.

Since you are so wise to the word of God, perhaps you'd like to indulge me in a discussion about context.

Since most (minus the political stuff) of my posts have predominatly been scripture-based support for assertions against liberalism, with special focus on the gay bishop, where I not only laid the groundwork from the Bible against homosexuality as a deviant practice, I also faithfully quoted the EXACT source document for the requirements of a Bishop.

For which of these do you seek to have me banned?

No matter, the Pharisees sought the same for Christ. Amazing how you quickly label me a Pharisee, when I have called you "brother" at almost every reply. Et tu Polycarp?

I must be hitting close to the mark to get such an angry and hostile reply.

MEMO TO ALL:

If you get offended really easily - please check your heart (and your Bible). If someone is just completely wrong, you'll not take offense so easily.

By the way, love is offering a gentle rebuke. I'll work on the gentle part, but if I did not love, I would not care.

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

[MissFirerose]

Have I claimed to support slavery? Such is liberalism...making false statements about the messenger when they are losing the argument.

I never claimed you did anything. The point I was making, which you appear to have missed, is that even though fundamentalists claim to go by the old ways, they in fact, have evolved right alongside the rest of Christianity. It is no longer acceptable to support slavery, or any other of the topics I listed, yet, in the past, it was. By saying that you don’t support such heinous acts proves that you do not follow the old ways as strictly as you think you do.

On a side note, I fail to see how I am losing the argument, since you just demonstrated the point I was making.

All of you, including you Polycarp, turn your rage against me personally when I simply have been holding to posture grounded in scripture.

No one is turning any rage against you. However, you seem to like using personal attacks against us. I’ll list the ones I caught.

1. being rude to France, who I’m sure has done nothing personal to you.
2. Implying that the Al-Qaeda is supporting the Democrats in 2004. That my friend, crossed the line.

…and the personal ones to me…
2. implying that I have not read my Bible.

3. implying I’m on the wrong side. Which side is that? Anti Christians? Satan’s?

4. Implying that I am spineless and shameful. (No, you're not hateful.)

Liberal posture (an oxymoron) is grounded is emotionalism, subjectivity, and personal relevance. Liberals despise any limitations or absolutes, and deny a God that created such a place with any personal responsibilities or consequences.

If you really believe that’s what being a liberal is about, I’d suggest you try and meet some liberals in real life.

Perhaps the defining characteristic of liberal Christians is that they are comfortable with ambiguity and diversity. They realize that life is a complex spiritual journey, and that each person on that journey is confronted with unexpected revelations and unique experiences. Liberal Christians therefore welcome a variety of approaches to understanding God, and are open to new ways of talking about the divine. Religious questions are seen as complex, and answers only tentative. Certain that "now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12), liberals are cautious about making dogmatic statements or claiming to have a monopoly on the truth. They see the search for truth as an ongoing task, rather than one that has already been completed. Perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are each given equal footing in determining Christian faith.

My opinion does not matter...Christ's does and liberals do not like the "ugly parts" of the word of God like: hell, destruction, judgement, accountability, obedience, and eternal consequence.

We do not blatantly ignore parts of the Bible we do not “like.” Instead, we seek to understand why they were written, and who they were written to.

Please don't attempt to imply that liberals have no sense of accountability or obedience, you have no grounds for such an accusation.

I keep getting this "opinion" nonsense from liberals who cannot fathom a God who could be so "intolerant". My advice:

From the moment you read the Bible, your setting your own opinion into it. It you can not interpret what is being said, you can not understand it.

READ YOUR BIBLE.

I have. Please don’t be so pious as to give me advice.

Most people need a good insulting...especially if they are out of whack with reality. The problem with liberalism is that it attempts to shelter people from offense to the point that no one can handle anyone calling it like it is. Everything is watered down to the point that all we have left is a groundless chasm of religious mush, governed by an obsequious band of rudderless individuals (that fear man and not God) that have no grasp of reality.

Thus the gay bishop.

Fundamentalism is reading the references to potentialities within the human spirit as historical events. It is reducing a beautiful metaphor to a newspaper article. It is a way for people to control people's spiritual yearnings, to say only they have the answer.

Elitist-fundamentalism allows its followers to de-humanize those not part of the 'in group'. This begets 'ethnic cleansing', and aggressive, repressive movements like the Christian Coalition and Colorado for Family Values. It is a weed that can spring up in any garden, and must be rooted out and thrown into the fire.

The most famous definition of fundamentalism is H. L. Mencken's: a terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun. There's something to this. Fundamentalism is too fearful, too restrictive, too lacking in faith to provide a home for the human spirit to soar or for human societies to blossom.

Fundamentalists spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed. Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase “overcoming the modern” is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.

Fundamentalists deny history in a radical and idiosyncratic way. Fundamentalists know as well or better than anybody that culture shapes everything it touches: The times we live in color how we think, what we value, and the kind of people we become. Fundamentalists agree on the perverseness of modern American society: the air of permissiveness and narcissism, individual rights unbalanced by responsibilities, sex divorced from commitment, and so on. What they don't want to see is the way culture colored the era when their scriptures were created.
Good biblical scholarship begins by studying the cultural situation when scriptures were written in search of their original intent, so that we can better discern what messages they may still have that are relevant for our lives. But if fundamentalists were to admit that their own scriptures are as culturally conditioned as everything else, they would lose the foundation of their certainties. Some scholars see evidence that St. Paul, for instance, had severe personal hang-ups about sex that may account for his harsh teachings about homosexuality and women. Many biblical scholars treat some of Paul's teachings as rants rather than revelations. But for fundamentalists, their scriptures fell straight from heaven in a leather-bound book, every jot and title intact.

But the task of liberals is much, much harder. To be a liberal, to be an awake, responsive, and responsible liberal—that can take, and that can make, a whole life.

You do well in highlighting extremes. Another liberal tactic. If the evidence against you is strong (gay bishop), the result of complying with that evidence is the antithesis, but with greater magnitude (slavery, women's rights).

How about simple OBEDIENCE to God's word?

What about Fred Phelps? He’s one of the worse examples of a Christian I have yet to see, yet I’m not going to try and disintegrate the entire fundamentalist frame of mind based on one man. Please do the same.

This is about how people interpret God’s word, not if they are or are not obeying it. Please try not to change the subject.

Evolution is backed by fanaticism and obfuscated facts innundated with ASSUMPTION. It is a lie, nothing more than that, and one day there will be great pity for those that bought it.

It is both dehumanizing to man and slanderous to God. Read my post in the Theo-Evo/Creation forum: http://www.christianforums.com/t63553

You have nothing to back you up on those claims. I’ll get back to you when you have some logical reasoning.

Creationism is the media upon which the entire message of the Bible is painted. There is major theological breakdown when the media is changed from "God created" to "We evolved". It shifts the entire order from God-centered, to man-centered (humanism)...liberalism is spawned from humanistic ideology, so is marxism, communism, and socialism. It is all a matter of who gets to be in control. Humanists believe they are in control and can abort babies without anyone telling them "no" because they have self-imposed rights...despite what God says.

We're talking MAJOR dichotomy here. Please be sure you are on the correct side.

See, this is what I don’t understand. The far more logical theory would be that God guided the evolutionary process. Why is it that if something evolves, it automatically rules out God, as if God has a set time frame for when he’s around. If God’s timeless, guiding evolution would be a cinch. Instead, people have to have it one way or the other. Either we popped on this earth from pure dust, or it was totally random. No one can ever have a medium.

Yeah, Buck is the only one with a bone to pick. Polycarp: take note.

First off the "agenda" is Satan's, but you did not care for the Biblical references for that thread so you're going to need to figure that on your own. Most major media is controlled by cash-flow, not truth flow. PBS is no different, they will put out whatever will keep the $ coming in. They exonerate Clinton for surrendering to terrorists, and villify Bush for refusing to surrender. Be sure an join Al-Qaeda is supporting the Democrats in 2004!

There is no fact or proof whatsoever that Satan has anything to do with our media. Why not just consider the fact that it’s probably our own wrenched doing? People don’t need Satan to mess up, we do a fine job of it all on our own.

Be sure an join Al-Qaeda is supporting the Democrats in 2004!

I have half a mind to report you for that.

I laugh everytime I see you get all upset about my use of punctuation to highlight points, yet what does "cough" supposed to ensue...sarcasm?

Yes, I suppose so. But I try not to use it in every single one of my posts. I’m glad to see there wasn’t too much capitalizing in this one from you though.

5. France, because they are the epitome of spinelessness and shame...just noticed your signature, how appropriate.

Once again, a personal attack. And you were complaining about us being rude to you…

I have a challenge for you, just once, I’d like to see you reply to something here without using insults as a way to further your cause. Just try it.. just once… you might feel better.

 

[MissFirerose]

Polycarp - why the hate? I have not slandered you, I replied to you with humility and preference. Yet you reply to me with personal disdain.

Fine.

Since you are so wise to the word of God, perhaps you'd like to indulge me in a discussion about context.

Since most (minus the political stuff) of my posts have predominatly been scripture-based support for assertions against liberalism, with special focus on the gay bishop, where I not only laid the groundwork from the Bible against homosexuality as a deviant practice, I also faithfully quoted the EXACT source document for the requirements of a Bishop.

For which of these do you seek to have me banned?

No matter, the Pharisees sought the same for Christ. Amazing how you quickly label me a Pharisee, when I have called you "brother" at almost every reply. Et tu Polycarp?

I must be hitting close to the mark to get such an angry and hostile reply.

MEMO TO ALL:

If you get offended really easily - please check your heart (and your Bible). If someone is just completely wrong, you'll not take offense so easily.

By the way, love is offering a gentle rebuke. I'll work on the gentle part, but if I did not love, I would not care.

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Hah, you're one to complain about people being "hateful" towards you.

 

[seebs]

I have not generally found that people are angry when I describe them well; it's when I impose my personal judgements on them that they get angry.

 

[MissFirerose]

I have not generally found that people are angry when I describe them well; it's when I impose my personal judgements on them that they get angry.

Neither am I. Some of the people here need to learn common decency.

 

[Buck72]

in a side note, I fail to see how I am losing the argument, since you just demonstrated the point I was making.
No one is turning any rage against you. However, you seem to like using personal attacks against us. I’ll list the ones I caught.

I hit "liberals" with facts. You hit "Buck72" with emotion because I step on the toes of liberals, not Polycarp or Firerose...just liberals.

1. being rude to France, who I’m sure has done nothing personal to you.

Are you French? Have you not noticed that France sets a new standard of gutlessness and cowardice at every turn of opportunity they have? This is a nation that seemingly acts with eager anticipation to comply with the desires of their enemies while resisting with inexplicable hostility to the the desires of their friends...and to what gain!?

Yes, right you are that France has done nothing. That is what they do best in a major crisis: NOTHING.

2. Implying that the Al-Qaeda is supporting the Democrats in 2004. That my friend, crossed the line.

Who do you figure they support more: Kerry (a pacifist) or Bush? Turn on the brain and let it warm up a minute before answering, we both know what the answer is...Al Qaeda wants an America that does not try to destroy them. Democrats are all about surrender because they lack the stomach for war and do not like the international political mess it makes because they want to roll over this country to be ruled by the international community.

(Wake up alarm going off....*)

…and the personal ones to me…
2. implying that I have not read my Bible.

I said READ YOUR BIBLE, I did not say that you have not read your Bible. I have to keep reading it, I cannot read it blithly and then say: "I have read it, I am finished". Stop the auto-reply that I imply when I do not imply. Please, I'm working in context here, a tough item I realize for most that hold to non-context.

3. implying I’m on the wrong side. Which side is that? Anti Christians? Satan’s?

Quote me, from any post where I say: "Miss Firerose is on the wrong side". You cannot because I have not said that.

4. Implying that I am spineless and shameful. (No, you're not hateful.)

Again with the "imply" clause. No, I did not imply, you miscontrue.

If you really believe that’s what being a liberal is about, I’d suggest you try and meet some liberals in real life.

I know many, most in my own family, and I win every single debate, because they debate emotion, I debate fact.

Perhaps the defining characteristic of liberal Christians is that they are comfortable with ambiguity and diversity.

I agree. It was Patrick Henry that declared: "Give me ambiguity or give me something else!". No, wait...he said: "Give me liberty, or give me death!". That is not ambiguity, that is clear conviction. That is something liberals do not have, they pin down their thesis like one nails jelly to a wall...not very easily.

They realize that life is a complex spiritual journey, and that each person on that journey is confronted with unexpected revelations and unique experiences.

Correct, which is why our blessed LORD gave us the Bible. To guide us through trepidation.

Liberal Christians therefore welcome a variety of approaches to understanding God, and are open to new ways of talking about the divine.

Too bad the Bible does not support that. Eve was open to new ways, which is why she listened to satan in Genesis 3:1. I am merely pointing out the danger here Firerose. God does not change, people do.

liberals are cautious about making dogmatic statements or claiming to have a monopoly on the truth.

To a fault...they lose the entire point of sin, repentance, and obedience.

They see the search for truth as an ongoing task, rather than one that has already been completed.

Ummm...it has been written for us. No need to search.

Perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are each given equal footing in determining Christian faith.

Show me scripture for THAT one! You can't, it does not exist but in the fantasy of liberal christians. Maybe Gene Robinson can teach us all about that one.

We do not blatantly ignore parts of the Bible we do not “like.” Instead, we seek to understand why they were written, and who they were written to.

Keep telling yourself that...God hates homosexuality (among all sin), yet he keeps an open door to the sinner:

Jam 4:6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE."

It is the pride of liberal theology that makes it so nauseating (ie: gay bishop). If Robinson would just say: "I have sinned and I repent", and stopped being a homo, and made an effort to submit to 1 Timothy 3, then I would have no platform to point out heresy.

But he does not submit...he magnifies himself against the standard of Christ, thus against Christ Himself to assert his own "lifestyle" over the faithful as a "leader" in the clergy, deserving of respect, honor, and patronage.

Madness.

Please don't attempt to imply that liberals have no sense of accountability or obedience, you have no grounds for such an accusation.

Yeah, see above.

From the moment you read the Bible, your setting your own opinion into it. It you can not interpret what is being said, you can not understand it.
I have. Please don’t be so pious as to give me advice.

Et tu Firerose? Look at who is giving me advice...you cannot even get past the notion that you COULD BE wrong here.

I admit I could be wrong, but I have the Bible to check myself against...thanks be to God!! I have been slammed many, many times by the word, but unlike most liberals, I submit to it and pray not to change God, or the Bible, but instead to change ME!

Fundamentalism is reading the references to potentialities within the human spirit as historical events. It is reducing a beautiful metaphor to a newspaper article. It is a way for people to control people's spiritual yearnings, to say only they have the answer.

Funny, I'd say the same thing about you, but that would be too "mean-spirited" of me.

Word of the day: HYPOCRITE.

Elitist-fundamentalism allows its followers to de-humanize those not part of the 'in group'. This begets 'ethnic cleansing', and aggressive, repressive movements like the Christian Coalition and Colorado for Family Values. It is a weed that can spring up in any garden, and must be rooted out and thrown into the fire.

You have now lost my respect, what thin strand you held as part of my willingness to "tolerate" your ravings.

Elitist liberalism seeks to destroy the precious life and replace it with a control mechanism by which all that is beautiful, lovely and pure is removed as an offence to the profane, because the profane has a greater right to exist than does the pure.

Liberals think:

Al-Qaeda is more respectable than America because America has instituted its economic grasp into the middle eastern countries for so long that the indiginous peoples had no other choice but to rise against the great "evil empire" and demonstrate their disapproval, and we, the liberals will support that, regardless of our duty to hold onto a modicum of patriotic nationalism; we consider that passe in light of the glorious hope of the global ecumenical group hug of all peoples, all religions, in a spirit of peace and harmony, global health care, trillions of dollars in taxes to support the illegal aliens that choose not to work (it would ruin their income if they did work), ....

The most famous definition of fundamentalism is H. L. Mencken's: a terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

You do not even know me. I'm a drummer in a rock band, I have more fun than most. I also use my brain when it comes to issues of great importance.

There's something to this. Fundamentalism is too fearful, too restrictive, too lacking in faith to provide a home for the human spirit to soar or for human societies to blossom.

Lacking in faith!? It is by faith I accept the FACT that God created the heavens and the earth is six days. You look for proofs like Thomas, who did not act according to faith, but according to sight.

Do me a favor sweetie and spare me the "faith" bit. I live my faith. Liberals live by feeling.

Fundamentalists spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed.

WRONG. Liberals want to "update" the Bible. It is quire contemporary and does not need to conform to the OP/ED in Teen Beat magazine, or whatever it is you read to get your ideas from...certainly not in your own.

Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase “overcoming the modern” is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.

I am becoming dumber for discussing this with you.

Liberalism celebrates: Humanism, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. All cling to evolution for their doctrinal lifeboat to support their godlessness and control.

You have nothing to back you up on those claims. I’ll get back to you when you have some logical reasoning.

You are one to talk Firerose. You have YET to back up anything you rage on about. I quote the Bible in my discussions to the point of dragging the text across the Hebraic Hermenutical Exegisis, something you can neither grasp nor comprehend.

I have a challenge for you, just once, I’d like to see you reply to something here without using insults as a way to further your cause. Just try it.. just once… you might feel better.

Ditto.

I will gamble my eternal soul on the premise the Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Everything else that contradicts it is a LIE.