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?

[McCulloch]

Violence like same-sex marriage ... are not teachings of Christian orthodoxy.

Violence Physical violence against other human beings that inflicts injury or death, or threatens to inflict such violence, or any act dependent on such infliction or threat.
Violence Inappropriate physical contact that could harm another.
Can you show how same-sex marriage fits any definition of violence?

[melikio]

Can you show how same-sex marriage fits any definition of violence?

LOL. I'm waiting for that myself.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti wrote:
Violence like same-sex marriage ... are not teachings of Christian orthodoxy.
Violence Physical violence against other human beings that inflicts injury or death, or threatens to inflict such violence, or any act dependent on such infliction or threat.
Violence Inappropriate physical contact that could harm another.
Can you show how same-sex marriage fits any definition of violence?

Nice try to bait and switch my meaning. Neither violence OR Same-sex marriage can be found to be accpetable anywhere in the Bible. Secularists will do what secualrists will do.

But Christians and their votes cannot license unGodly things.


Matthew 18:

1About that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Which of us is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?"

2Jesus called a small child over to him and put the child among them.

3Then he said, "I assure you, unless you turn from your sins and become as little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

4Therefore, anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

5And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me.

6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who trusts in me to lose faith, it would be better for that person to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck.

7"How terrible it will be for anyone who causes others to sin. Temptation to do wrong is inevitable, but how terrible it will be for the person who does the tempting.

8So if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better to enter heaven* crippled or lame than to be thrown into the unquenchable fire with both of your hands and feet.

9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better to enter heaven half blind than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.

10"Beware that you don't despise a single one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels are always in the presence of my heavenly Father.*

///

I cannot read that text and sentence children to be raised in an environment that is not Man (husband) Woman (wife) and children.

Secularists and anti-Christians and non-Christians can do what they will, but not a follower of Jesus.

[McCulloch]

Violence like same-sex marriage ... are not teachings of Christian orthodoxy.

Violence Physical violence against other human beings that inflicts injury or death, or threatens to inflict such violence, or any act dependent on such infliction or threat.
Violence Inappropriate physical contact that could harm another.
Can you show how same-sex marriage fits any definition of violence?

Nice try to bait and switch my meaning. Neither violence OR Same-sex marriage can be found to be accpetable anywhere in the Bible. Secularists will do what secualrists will do.

I am sorry. My mistake. I misread your post. I will not deny that homosexuality is listed as a sin in the Christian bible. Some Christians do, but it is not particularly my concern. I will simply watch with amusement as the various sects and denominations of Christianity further multiply as this issue divides them. I will resist and deny the efforts of some Christians to impose specifically Christian religious values on the rest of us.

[melikio]

I will resist and deny the efforts of some Christians to impose specifically Christian religious values on the rest of us.

I believe you are right to do so.

And Christians should by now realize, that such "imposition" of religion or beliefs, is indeed wrong. If we had no models of what happens when religion becomes THE LAW, I might consider much of the politics I'm seeing today as possibly "valid", but I think most reasonable people understand why anything resembling a "theocracy", is not a real good philosophy.

Anti-religionists often tend to be extreme, but so are over-zealous, right-wing followers/enforcers of the Bible. Even something GOOD cannot be forced onto or into a person. I though Jesus made that clear.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

I am sorry. My mistake. I misread your post. I will not deny that homosexuality is listed as a sin in the Christian bible.

And are you somehow changed into a different person for seeing at least some biblical perpsective as accurate?

What I mean is that I will hope that you come to the defnese of independent and self-willed individuals to preach and teach their religious views without attack from new laws to silence them any further.

I'm OK with the violence but I do not think "telling" someone they are going to hell is the same thing as violence perpetrated against them. In fact, i absolutely believe that a free exchange of ideas would bring the numbers of Chrstaisn to five-billion.

Some Christians do, but it is not particularly my concern. I will simply watch with amusement as the various sects and denominations of Christianity further multiply as this issue divides them.

See how alike we are? I am watching with amusement the very fact of sects and denominations multiplying in peace and tolerance here in the US. But someone is wrong and someone is right. And that has no funny consequences for the wrong ones.

I will resist and deny the efforts of some Christians to impose specifically Christian religious values on the rest of us.

Why will you not see that secularism has been just as corrupted and is being just as forced onto society as religionists or sexualists are trying to achieve?

[McCulloch]

I am sorry. My mistake. I misread your post. I will not deny that homosexuality is listed as a sin in the Christian bible.

And are you somehow changed into a different person for seeing at least some biblical perpsective as accurate?

I did not intend to leave anyone with the impression that I believe what is in the Bible. I don't. But it is quite clear to me from reading it that homosexuality as well as wickedness, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanders, backbiting, hating God, drunkenness, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, disobedience to parents, breaking covenants, unforgiveness and lacking mercy are all listed as sins. Some of these I agree with and others I disagree. But none of them are wrong, as far as I am concerned, because they are in the Bible.

What I mean is that I will hope that you come to the defense of independent and self-willed individuals to preach and teach their religious views without attack from new laws to silence them any further.

So long as they do not want to make their religion into the law of the land and so long as they are not advocating or inciting discrimination against those whose values differ from theirs.

I'm OK with the violence but I do not think "telling" someone they are going to hell is the same thing as violence perpetrated against them.

Then please preach against your own brethren who are involved in violent gay bashing. I, for one, am not against Christians preaching from their pulpits and in their homes that unrepentant sinners will face God's wrath. I am against them trying to have the state sponsor their preaching. I am against them teaching that those who do not hold to their religion should be bound by their religion by force of law. I am against the idea that a select group of alleged sinners should be singled out by Christians for different treatment.

In fact, i absolutely believe that a free exchange of ideas would bring the numbers of Christians to five-billion.

I will have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Some Christians do, but it is not particularly my concern. I will simply watch with amusement as the various sects and denominations of Christianity further multiply as this issue divides them.

See how alike we are? I am watching with amusement the very fact of sects and denominations multiplying in peace and tolerance here in the US. But someone is wrong and someone is right. And that has no funny consequences for the wrong ones.

That is where you commit the logical fallacy of false dilemma. It could very well be that they are all wrong.

I will resist and deny the efforts of some Christians to impose specifically Christian religious values on the rest of us.

Why will you not see that secularism has been just as corrupted and is being just as forced onto society as religionists or sexualists are trying to achieve?

Why will you not see that secularism is the best solution to the conflicts that are bound to arise in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society? Secularism protects each individual religious group from having its rights trampled by a government influenced by another. By having our government organizations free from the influence of various religions, we can assure that the minorities' rights will be protected. Secularism is not official atheism. Secularism is leaving the matters of faith and the differences of faith, out of the hands of government and government agencies. The secular state does not close down religion as in the totalitarian Soviet Union or Maoist China, but neither does it endorse it as in various Islamic Republics or Israel.

Secularists , regardless of their religious preferences, believe that religious considerations should be excluded from civic affairs and public education.
Secularism : the neutrality of the State, local government and all public services in matters relating to one or more religions or to one or more creeds.
Secular: not having any connection with religion.

[MagusYanam]

Liberal Orthodoxy is oxymoron personified. What new version of Christianity is around the corner.

Liberal Christian churches hold that Jesus was not resurrected. That he is just "a way" to God, abortion is a womans choice and that people of the same-sex can "celebrate" their union within the "orthodoxy" that does not and has not ever existed. And according to the words in the Gospels, never can.

This is a statement which may be ignored, as it is a straw-man. Most liberal strains of Christianity do hold a theology of (and thus acknowledge) the Resurrection.

Jesus himself said he was 'the Way, the Truth and the Life', so I see no contradiction there. And abortion and gay marriage are still divisive issues even among liberals, so it's foolish to assume any position the churches haven't yet endorsed.

Also, newer 'versions' of Christianity are more conservative than liberal. All mainstream (orthodox, as far as the word may be used) Protestantism (Episcopalianism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism) is now largely liberal, conservatism forming splinter groups like the Millerites, the Mormons and the 'nondenominational' megachurches.

Liberals have only some fundamental truths to their credit.

I don't deny that we have our problems (especially where the PC is concerned), but we've got a lot better track record than conservative churches do. The liberal churches promulgated the Social Gospel, the democratisation and anti-war movements of the early 1900's, the New Deal, the Marshall Plan and the Civil Rights movement. All of which were moral ends on which we may justify ourselves; all of which were opposed by the racist, morally cowardly, isolationist conservative churches.

We can debate this point for point. And you will lose. Full stop.

Which version of Liberalism? The one that believes Jesus was eaten by dogs? Please see what Liberal Theologians at the Jesus Seminar hold as "orthodoxy." In fact they have jettisoned many crucial orthodix texts.

The Jesus Seminar is a group of historians and students of history, not of theology. There are actually a lot of liberal theologians who disagree with the methodology of the historical school (myself being one of them).

The word "Ecclesia" applied to "what" was the Church completely refutes that statement.

Gk. ekklesia, meaning 'assembly of citizens', from the verb 'to summon (an assembly)'. So the Church (=Ekklesia) is an assembly of citizens. What's your point?

This a libelous statement. Violence like same-sex marriage and killing unborn children as birth contol are not teachings of Christian orthodoxy.

And this is a straw man. No liberal I know advocates abortion as a form of birth control, but they see it often as an infringement on privacy. In fact, many of us (including me) would be glad to restrict abortion access if there were some pragmatically viable way of doing so without causing widescale societal mayhem. Same-sex marriage a form of violence? What am I missing here?

Fundamentalists were, in general, in favour of the Gulf War II, which by Augustinian just war standards was not a just war. Christian just wars are never pre-empted, and they are never fought over issues of national interest, but of human interest. They were, contrary to all tradition and scriptural teaching, advocating destruction and violence. This is immoral and evil, and they must be censured for it.

Liberals endure the same testing and fail in far more categories.

The only category I see liberal Christianity failing in is kowtowing too often to the politically correct. So, until you give me some more examples, the burden of proof still lies on you.

As usual, Jesus is perfect again.

When was he ever not perfect?

[AlAyeti]

My view was that you indeed weren't changed by agreeing with something in the Bible. Nothing on earth can get me to believe that secularism hasn't been as parasitized by anti-Christians as the Democrat party.

Even polite Democrats. I can agree that a few things Demo's believe are cool but that won't make me a Democrat. But the list you put up shows the nature of fundamantalism and the way it judges itself and others that call themselves Christians (or not). Very fair.

AlAyeti: What I mean is that I will hope that you come to the defense of independent and self-willed individuals to preach and teach their religious views without attack from new laws to silence them any further.

McCulloch: So long as they do not want to make their religion into the law of the land and so long as they are not advocating or inciting discrimination against those whose values differ from theirs.

Why is it OK for secularists to rule the world? The godless nations in very recent and current history are indeed (other than Islamic countries) the worst on earth for freedom of expression.

AlAyeti wrote:
I'm OK with the violence but I do not think "telling" someone they are going to hell is the same thing as violence perpetrated against them.


McCulloch wrote: Then please preach against your own brethren who are involved in violent gay bashing. I, for one, am not against Christians preaching from their pulpits and in their homes that unrepentant sinners will face God's wrath. I am against them trying to have the state sponsor their preaching. I am against them teaching that those who do not hold to their religion should be bound by their religion by force of law. I am against the idea that a select group of alleged sinners should be singled out by Christians for different treatment.

The Gospel is quite clear about bashing anyone. But, that is only an assumption on your part and a very mean accusation at that.

I'm sorry McCulloch, "thinking secularly" if a guy finds out that the lady he picked up in a bar is a liar and is really a man, that lying man is responsible for what happens during the intense emotions that arise from sexual proclivities and promiscuity.

I know of no Christians "bashing" anyone these days. Indeed Christians are terrified to even talk to gays and lesbians. These LGBT's have no desire for dialog, just the same old relentless push to find new recruits. And from looking at what is going on in the Catholic world, religion is not out of bounds for that pursuit.

AlAyeti wrote:
In fact, i absolutely believe that a free exchange of ideas would bring the numbers of Christians to five-billion.
McCulloch: I will have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.

I would love to see what Arabic women would do with the freedom found in Evangelical Churches! Oooh, baby! Arab men would meet their match.

[redstang281]

redstang281 wrote:
There's no justification for anti-semitism in the Bible. You want to blame someone for Christ's death then blame me. It was my sin that put him on the cross. He choose to suffer for the sins of all of us, no one forced him. The jews and romans were just the instrument he used.
Besides Christ is a jew and God loves the Jews! They are the chosen people who he still has a plan for once the all the gentiles are gathered.

Would that all christians throughout the centuries have interpreted the bible as you do. Many Jews would not have gone to an early grave.

Maybe so, but I think a lot of other groups have killed jews as well as either ignorant Christians or so called Christians.

If you think about it being anti-semitic makes absolutely no sense from a Christian perspective. Jesus's death is the best thing for Christians. What kind of Christian isn't happy their sins have been covered? An anti-semitic Christian is an oxy moron.

McCulloch wrote:
The bible itself is very clear on what to do with witches.
redstang281 wrote:
Not an open ended commandment. It was meant for the jews during a specific time in history for specific reasons.

That is one interpretation. Others differ.

Yes, but what is the correct interpretation? What was the intended message? That is the only one that counts. I believe anyone's goal during Bible study should be to figure out what the text is trying to say instead of trying to force certain beliefs into the text and then claim it equally valid because it's our interpretation.

Why would an unchanging God condemn a practice with a death sentence in one era and tolerate it in another?

God doesn't ever tolerate sin. All sin has to be dealt with. It's just that sometimes he deals with it differently for different reasons and at different times. We all die because of sin. I guess the verse you are referring to is the one from Exodus chapter 22? Apparently God wanted the Jewish nation free of witchcraft and decided to offer a stern punishment. Christians, who are mostly gentiles are not under the jewish law. The Lord instructed us to follow the ten commandments so those are the open ended commandments.

McCulloch wrote:
Slavery is explicitly dealt with and not forbidden in the New Testament.
redstang281 wrote:
Not the same as slavery in this country. The slavery mentioned was more of a form of a willing servant. Jacob became a slave in order to earn his wife.
Perhaps you are right. But in order to get to that interpretation, one must have completed a study of comparative history. A literalist reading the bible in the pre-Civil war South could and did read and interpret differently.

Sure, which is why I do not hold Christian faith responsible.

McCulloch wrote:
Your church, and many other churches, look upon these things and other biblical evils (like genocide) as unbiblical. But read the book! They are all there.
redstang281 wrote:
Context is the key. Think about it, if they were really biblical values wouldn't we be fighting the world on this issues? After all we don't conform to abortion and homosexuality.

So when Joshua and his tribe committed genocide in their God's name it was a good thing but when modern sectarians commit genocide in their God's name it is a bad thing. Your Bible has a strange way of making the distinction.

The Lord led Joshua into preemptive defensive strategy. Back in those days all the civilizations were fighting against each other for control and power. In order for God to establish his chosen nation he had to play the same game. If the Lord would not have had Joshua destroy the other nations they would have destroyed the jews. It served two fold, not only did the Lord accomplish his goal but he also proved to the ancient world that he was indeed the one true God sense most nations determined divine legitimacy based on what the deity could accomplish. But the Bible is not like the Koran. We don't have any verse saying go to war if this or that. The open ending commandments the Lord leaves with us are the ten commandments and most importantly to love one another.