Liberal Christians only believe some "fundamentalism?

[AlAyeti]

There are now political Christians wanting to "re-claim" Christianity from whatever the "Right" is, or has done to it. Claiming that their way of Christianity is more like what Jesus would want.

But many of these Liberal positions hold to funadamentalism on the poor, the needy and anti-war and violence, but oppose Biblical truth on many other issues.

Why do Liberal Christians deny the truths of the New Testament on marriage and children as defined by Jesus himself?

Liberals will teach about condom usage but decry the Biblical truth about abstaining from sex until marriage as something ignorant or intolerant?

Why are not Liberal Christians funding missionaries to go to Muslim and other countries to spread the Gospel exactly the way Jesus described and exactly the way it is presented in the Gospels?

How can Liberal Christians support a womans right to kill her unborn child and encourage a woman to go and do it, while at the same time, denying the same rights of choice on the matter be given equal recognition to the father of the child?

How and why can Liberal Christians call themselves Christians while only preaching and teaching some immutable Christian positions and not all?

[AlAyeti]

Essentially, what AlAyeti is saying is, "my interpretation of the Bible is correct, and the liberal heathens are perverting its true intentions". However, the liberal heathens are saying, "our interpretation of the Bible is correct, and the right-wing ultra-fundamentalists such as AlAyeti are perverting Jesus's teachings".

If you could lay aside your emotionalism, I would be more than glad to have you sit as judge.

Use the New Testament just as it is written. Use any version KJ, NKJ, NIV, LB, NLB, whatever. Even a Jehovah's Witness NWT.

Just read the words and compare "beliefs" of a Liberal and a non-Liberal.

In regards to "divorce" the context is clear what IS being destroyed. Marriage IS a man and a woman. Now, to force same-sex marriage INTO Christianty as is brought to the world by the Gospels is impossible. The "context" of what Jesus defined as a "marriage" is obvious if just the plain meanings of words are applied. Forcing a wierd and intolerant view would be to put NEW meanings into the words of the Gospels.

I am not trying to just win arguments. Sometimes maybe, but certainly not when important things are on the line. The bottom line.

Sadly, there's no way to resolve this debate, because both sides rely on faith, and there's no external standard which we can use to compare them.

Jesus certainly presented an opposite opinion of settling the issues, or, as you put it, "resolve the debate." He defined words in proper context. In fact that is how Jesus can only be defined.

I have never presented my views on anything Biblical or otherwise "on faith." Ever. Marriage is an immutable subject matter.

Faith (or more accurately "hope") comes into this when someone tries to invent a new meaning for a word where it can never be applied. S T O P can never mean anything else. There is no such things as a complete stop. Stop is an absolute word meaning only one thing. Ask a cop, or, I'm sure, you can be truested to see the truth in words applied in their proper meaning.

Please put me to this test?

[Tim the Skeptic]

Al and Redstang,

Your vision of Christianity is based soled on your interpretation of the Bible. Certainly, that's your right but it is not necessarily the only way and it's not necessarily correct.

Remember, there was a church before there was a New Testatment. And for hundreds of years after there was a NT only a small minority of the population could read or had access to the Bible. So "Christians" then relied heavily on the traditions of the Church. I used quotes around "Christians" because I have to wonder if centuries of followers would meet your definition of a Christian.

When I flirted with the Episcopal church (probably the most liberal Christian church), I was told that Christian life should be based on three principles: tradition, scripture and reason. The last one causes a lot of the trouble. For example, if you had a family member with severe depression, would you have them exorcised like in the Bible or seek modern medical help.

As for marriage, it certainly has changed since the first century. Women today won't stand for being viewed as property. People live much longer than in the first century and grow apart. An Episcopalian might argue (I don't consider myself one, so any Episcopalians out there feel free to correct me) that it is only reasonable to consider these differences between life in the first century and life today when determining a Christian response.

Also, Episcopalians view the Bible as "true" without necessarily being factual. It is a centuries old record of mankind's struggle to find meaning in life and define a relationship with God. To understand its meaning for today, the Bible's historical context must be related to today's world. Some of what was written may have no meaning in today's world. Lepers are considered victims of a disease not sinners as they were in the Bible. Liberal Christians follow a tradition of "midrash" where what was written is debated, related to today's world and interpreted. It's messy, just like life.

I have argued in this forum that the Bible has become an idol for many fundamentalist followers. Rather than relate to their God by searching in their hearts and mind, they rigidly follow their own interpretation of the Bible, a book written centuries ago by human beings limited by the knowledge of their day. If I was to ever become Christian, it would only be as a liberal Christian. But to fundamentalists, I guess that's not different than being the atheist that I am.

[melikio]

Sadly, there's no way to resolve this debate, because both sides rely on faith, and there's no external standard which we can use to compare them.

The U.S. Constitution addresses this wisely enough.

Some people with a very religious view of humanity want this nation to be much more theocratic. Theocracies are proven to have or muster serious problems. I don't believe we need a purely secular society either, but religious people need to realize they ARE NOT God, and cannot speak for Him directly (he can and DOES speak for Himself); too many human beings and religious-sects have done massive damage PLAYING God (and should have known better than to try).

I believe it is better let people choose what they will practice and how they will practice it; as long as they do not use the FORCE of government and LAW to impose what they "believe".

And what some with very conservative-Christian views cannot abide, is that someone would choose outside of their limited view of what is "Christian". I'm virtually certain that a planet-walking "Jesus" today, would address many issues in ways that would upset conservative-Christians greatly.

Even so, because of the U.S. Constitution, people have rights to practice and not practice (regard) "religions" of their choice. This is NOT a "Christian Nation" for good reason. I couldn't understand that years ago, but I do today.

-Mel-

[Bugmaster]

If you could lay aside your emotionalism, I would be more than glad to have you sit as judge.

Er... I haven't been nominated to the Supreme Court, the last time I checked, so that's kind of irrelevant. But I think you misunderstand my position -- I truly do believe that both of you (the fundamentalist Christians and the liberal Christians) are wrong on the basic level (i.e., I don't think that God exists at all).

You tend to emphasize the parts of the Bible that deal with smiting, repentance, obedience, etc.; your liberal opponents tend to emphasize loving your neighbour, turning the other cheek, etc. Both sides claim to have the one true interpretation of the book, and, sadly, there's no objective standard that can tell us which side is right. That's the problem with any religion, realy.

I have never presented my views on anything Biblical or otherwise "on faith." Ever. Marriage is an immutable subject matter.

This is a self-contradiction. Faith is, by definition, immutable. It's the rational, empirically justified beliefs that leave some room for doubt.

Faith (or more accurately "hope") comes into this when someone tries to invent a new meaning for a word where it can never be applied. S T O P can never mean anything else. There is no such things as a complete stop.

Ok, what does "STOP" mean ? I assumed it meant, "cessation of all activity", but you just told me that there's no such thing as a complete stop. I don't think this word means what you think it means. I think you should follow your own advice, and avoid inventing new meanings for words.

[AlAyeti]

Remember, there was a church before there was a New Testatment. And for hundreds of years after there was a NT only a small minority of the population could read or had access to the Bible. So "Christians" then relied heavily on the traditions of the Church. I used quotes around "Christians" because I have to wonder if centuries of followers would meet your definition of a Christian.

Remember that the word Christian was used in the first years of the curch as denigration. Things do indeed not change.

Centuries of followers that do not follow the teachings of Christ? Those "Christians."

Are Cubans living in Cuba and wanting to follow Castro ands live as Cubans, are they Americans? What if they called themselves Americans but did what wasn't American?

They ARE not Americans.

There is only one way to define a follower of Jesus. Stephen died a non-Christian and was certainly a follower of the Messiah Jesus. In fact Jesus wasn;t even called Jesus and was would have only heard the word "Christ" when a Greek-Hebrew said it.

Please by all means return the definition to the foundation.

As for marriage, it certainly has changed since the first century. Women today won't stand for being viewed as property. People live much longer than in the first century and grow apart. An Episcopalian might argue (I don't consider myself one, so any Episcopalians out there feel free to correct me) that it is only reasonable to consider these differences between life in the first century and life today when determining a Christian response.

Jesus defined marriage. For His followers. I feel confident that His view is immutable. He said quite clearly that He did not come to change the law. Episcopalians have a bizaare view of "Go, and sin no more." You did well to avoid this group.

Also, Episcopalians view the Bible as "true" without necessarily being factual. It is a centuries old record of mankind's struggle to find meaning in life and define a relationship with God. To understand its meaning for today, the Bible's historical context must be related to today's world. Some of what was written may have no meaning in today's world. Lepers are considered victims of a disease not sinners as they were in the Bible. Liberal Christians follow a tradition of "midrash" where what was written is debated, related to today's world and interpreted. It's messy, just like life.

Liberal Christians today are follow the traditions of Sodom and Gomorrah as much as anything else. By their fruits you will know them. Do the conversations and opinions in the Talmud redefine marriage and family? Lepers are considered victims of disease. It is lucky for them that they do not lean on the excuse that they were born that way. Or a political activist group of Lepers didn't picket the AMA for human rights to live as lepers.

Please let us discuss the issues.

[MagusYanam]

Liberal Christians today are follow the traditions of Sodom and Gomorrah as much as anything else.

'All your base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.'

Your mastery of Engrish aside, your point is simply off. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were lack of hospitality more than anything else - that's the way the rabbinic tradition interprets it, and since they have more connection than anyone else to the original source material, I think that interpretation goes.

As opposed to sending condoms and free needles to sexual deviants and strung out drug addicts, I see conservatives doing a lot more for the Church than Liberals.

I shot this argument down the second it arose; you know it's wrong, why do you keep using it? Liberals are the ones who are still fighting the War on Drugs. I think we deserve more recognition - as a product of (liberal) anti-drug education, I can tell you that it works far better than anything the conservatives have done (having never touched drugs myself).

But, Liberal's do not preach Jesus and repentance. Just some other form of Jesus that somehow will never utter the words "go and sin no more." Liberals have expunged sinning from their vocabulary. Many do not even believe in the crucifixion or resurrection. But, somehow claim to be Christians. A radical opposite side of the pharisaical coin is what Liberals preach.

Alright, here I am urging you to repent your sin of libel. The noble Church of England still has in the Eucharist the penitence for, and forgiveness of sins. Unlike the Catholics, though, we don't believe the priest still serves as an intercessory.

We still have the Nicene Creed. Ergo, crucifixion and resurrection.

And we have the Lord's Prayer - something of which conservative Christians have long since lost the meaning.

Our Father, who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name:
Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven.

We are absolutely to concern ourselves with worldly affairs, and to make God's will manifest in this world. Having social and economic justice in this world. Having peace in this world. Having a clean environment in this world. If that's being too 'worldly', then so be it. We'll at least have the satisfaction of knowing that we are doing what is right.

But seriously, saying that liberals don't preach repentance is such a tired argument. It's boring and it has no legitimacy. It's not empirical. It's dead.

The worldly argument I can buy. But that's what we're obligated to be. We are God's agents IN THE WORLD.

Obviously you have never heard of the ACLU. Like never hearing Christmas carols in the city square. Christians are indeed in the gunsights of Liberals and anti-Christians.

Then you need to move. Move to Madison, one of the most liberal cities in the United States. During the season, they have a Christmas tree in the Capitol building, carols on the Square and on State Street et cetera. My family participated in singing carols at the University Hospital in Madison.

If the ACLU really is trying to outlaw Christianity, they're doing a really lousy job of it. I'm still here expressing myself freely as a Christian. You want to be persecuted for your Christianity? Move to France.

I am not trying to just win arguments. Sometimes maybe, but certainly not when important things are on the line. The bottom line.

Obviously you're not trying to win arguments, given the quality of the arguments you've presented. But saying that gay marriage is somehow an 'important thing... on the line'? That's just sad. Our national parks and forests are more important than gay marriage. Far and away. But I don't see you advocating a Christian view on maintenance and prudent use of our public lands.

[AlAyeti]

Your mastery of Engrish aside, your point is simply off. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were lack of hospitality more than anything else - that's the way the rabbinic tradition interprets it, and since they have more connection than anyone else to the original source material, I think that interpretation goes.

You left off "in their haughtiness" a perfect word for modern day Liberals. How many rock, rap and movie stars are Lib-Dems? Virtually every one.

While they go from lover to lover, they may throw a few bread crumbs to the masses, the little people. Now, of course raping Angelic messengers may fit the ol' "lack of hospitality" thought process as well. And we see the types of families and marriages being celebrated and sanctioned in Liberal Churches. I'm thinking that children raped by pedophiles as a lack of hospitality.

No Rabbi of yesteryear - the ones close to the original texts - would even consider it "tolerant" to marry two men or two women. But no prob' in Liberalism.

I shot this argument down the second it arose; you know it's wrong, why do you keep using it? Liberals are the ones who are still fighting the War on Drugs. I think we deserve more recognition - as a product of (liberal) anti-drug education, I can tell you that it works far better than anything the conservatives have done (having never touched drugs myself).

By legalizing drugs and redefining addiction as a disease instead of a moral shortcoming, Liberalism hasn't done anything to stop the proliferation of strung-out children. Those young people in downtown Seattle are not ingesting Tic Tacs.

Which states are legalizing marijuana? The states where the unborn and the aged are thought to be pests to disposed of.

I'm wondering if any of the Apostles would toke up or snuff out their mom or dad?

Alright, here I am urging you to repent your sin of libel. The noble Church of England still has in the Eucharist the penitence for, and forgiveness of sins. Unlike the Catholics, though, we don't believe the priest still serves as an intercessory.

I repent if I insulted a follower of the "risen" Christ. The ONLY Way and Truth and Life. But not the Liberal theologians that state for the record that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs (John Dominic Crossan). Or the Liberal Theologian that write books with the titles like Christianty Must Change or Die (John Shelby Spong)! They can take their positions in hades reserved for them. You have heard of the Liberal Theologians from the Jesus seminar? You know the ones on every TV program about "historic" Christianty. Their day of repentance is long overdue.

We still have the Nicene Creed. Ergo, crucifixion and resurrection.

Yes, it just reiterates the Biblical truth in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. You are quoting Biblical truth to a man that understands what he reads.

We are absolutely to concern ourselves with worldly affairs, and to make God's will manifest in this world. Having social and economic justice in this world. Having peace in this world. Having a clean environment in this world. If that's being too 'worldly', then so be it. We'll at least have the satisfaction of knowing that we are doing what is right.

And we have the Lord's Prayer - something of which conservative Christians have long since lost the meaning.

Our Father, who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name:
Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven.

"My kingdom is not of this world." Jesus the Messiah.

"Render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's." Jesus the Messiah.

Now, how does murdering the unborn to cover up sexual sin and where does redefining marriage fit with the sermon on the mount?

But seriously, saying that liberals don't preach repentance is such a tired argument. It's boring and it has no legitimacy. It's not empirical. It's dead.

This is bearing false witness brother. How do you require two sinners to repent and then marry the two guys? Because you do not see same-sex sexual activity the way the Bible does.

Jesus was clear about marriage. In regards to sexual sinners and sin: For this reason a man leaves his parents and is joined to his wife (woman) and the two become one. Thereforenwhat God has joined, let no man seperate." He qualified it undeniably as man-woman-marriage. "This is how it was from the beginning.

Yet in Liberal Churches what are we witnessing? Repantance preaching or permissiveness?

The worldly argument I can buy. But that's what we're obligated to be. We are God's agents IN THE WORLD.

In the world and not of it, is an easy concept to understand. The Ecclesia, "The Called Out Ones," the Church of believers are not supposed to be like the people they are trying to reach. Selling out the Gospel for Political Correctness is a grave sin. Literally.

Then you need to move. Move to Madison, one of the most liberal cities in the United States. During the season, they have a Christmas tree in the Capitol building, carols on the Square and on State Street et cetera. My family participated in singing carols at the University Hospital in Madison.

If the ACLU really is trying to outlaw Christianity, they're doing a really lousy job of it. I'm still here expressing myself freely as a Christian. You want to be persecuted for your Christianity? Move to France.[/quote]

Well, how refreshing, a Liberal supporting the view that Christians are being persecuted. At least the Feench aren't shooting them down like Muslims do in African countries.

God will not allow His Church to be trampled by the reprobates of the ACLU, until the Church accepets completely PC Christianty.

Those Liberal Churches do not offend anyone because they do not preach repentance to sinners. That would be intolerant, "hate speech" and not politically correct. My how things have come full circle. As long as Christians burn incense to the gods of Rome, they are free to be Christians. There were Liberal-Christians in the first century of the church era. They burned incense, got their ACLU membership cards and lived happily until they died of old age. The Christians that chose Christ didn't fare so well. Seems nothing has changed.

Obviously you're not trying to win arguments, given the quality of the arguments you've presented. But saying that gay marriage is somehow an 'important thing... on the line'? That's just sad. Our national parks and forests are more important than gay marriage. Far and away. But I don't see you advocating a Christian view on maintenance and prudent use of our public lands.

When Liberal Ministers start marrying men to trees, I'll be there with an accurate Biblical perspective on that as well.

I urge you to do the same.

[Cathar1950]

AlAyeti wrote:

You left off "in their haughtiness" a perfect word for modern day Liberals. How many rock, rap and movie stars are Lib-Dems? Virtually every one.

While they go from lover to lover, they may throw a few bread crumbs to the masses, the little people. Now, of course raping Angelic messengers may fit the ol' "lack of hospitality" thought process as well. And we see the types of families and marriages being celebrated and sanctioned in Liberal Churches. I'm thinking that children raped by pedophiles as a lack of hospitality.

Your emotional outburst was pure slander. It sounds like you could use some repentance and humility. Your logic is as flawed as you compassion and tolerance. You make sill connections that have no validity such as:

Which states are legalizing marijuana? The states where the unborn and the aged are thought to be pests to disposed of.

What kind of twisted logic is that? Save your insults for your church.

[AlAyeti]

Cathar,

Logic is following the evisdence where it leads. That is what we Christians are always reminded by our adversaries, in and out of the "Church."

Liberasl" Easy divorce, abortion, lax drug use laws, lowering the age of sexual consent, euthanasia, and now the redefinition of marriage. ALL celebrate within their churches. And they do it also, very vocally, outside of their church.

Your emotional outburst was pure slander. It sounds like you could use some repentance and humility. Your logic is as flawed as you compassion and tolerance. You make sill connections that have no validity such as:

I've used cold hard facts. Unemotional and in context. And my list above left off giving up preaching repentance, as in "Ordaining practicing homosexual Clergy." That is also a fcat is it not?

While "I" have acknowledged what Biblical truths Liberals agree to follow, I am just presenting the unbilical things they also embrace, celebrate and license.

What kind of twisted logic is that? Save your insults for your church.

Preaching the truth? Who does it insult?

I read the Tanakh often. I have several different printings of the Jewish Publication Society's printing of the Bible used in Jewish Synagouges. I do this to get a proper perspective. You should read a New Testament. You can even start anywhere within one.

I am confident, that you will observe that it will not support the Liberalizing of same-sex marriage, drug use, euthanasia, "easy divorce," and what the Israelites would call a "Sodomite" leading the congragation. All things Liberals advocate, even, preaching those teachings inside their Churches. Where, I found (as a Christian) they were embracing hypocrisy so not in keeping with either the Tanakh or New Testament, that I do not go in those kinds of Churches.

[melikio]

Preaching the truth? Who does it insult?

This only matters to the person who must deal with the insult.

And YOU should not be so...smug...about insulting anyone. If YOU can't really HURT WITH the people you would HURT FOR JESUS, then you haven't done ANYTHING worhtwhile.

If you were "sinless", there would be more validity to certain things you stand in judgement upon. But as it is, we can see your flaws/imperfections; nothing unusual about that Al, you aren't the only person who has them. Even so, you are in no position to be God's ENFORCINATIOR-CHRISTIAN. Al, you aren't any better than anyone else participating here (or anywhere else).

-Mel-