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?

[palmera]

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

First, the response Jesus gave, from which you draw your conclusions, was in regards to a question about divorce, not about what defines marriage. Secondly, homosexual marriage was not an issue on the table in Jesus's time, so we cannot say for certain how he would argue, other than to say, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

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

Support of condom usage has nothing to do with whether or not sex before marriage is right or not. Rather, its support is based on the fact that regardless what anyone says or teaches, teens and young adults will be sexually active; thus, teaching abstinence alone will not work. Those who support responsible sexual education do so because condom usage is the best, practical way to prevent teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs. Studies have shown that those areas in the U.S. (like west texas during G.W.'s gubernatorial tenure) that only teach abstinence and neglect to properly inform children on STDs and condom use are those areas with the highest rates of teen pregnancy. Advocacy of condom use is not advocacy of pre-marital intercourse, but rather an attempt to address the reality of sex in this country, to inform our children, and to effectively prevent teen pregnancy and STD transmission through education. Teaching abstinence alone simply does not work and is furthermore detrimental to the health of our children and irresponsible in practice.

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?

Freedom of choice is not a support of abortion, but rather support of the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body. It is the recognition that no one has the right to control another persons decisions regarding their own body. The rights of the father of the child are taken into consideration, but in the end it is logical that final say should go to the person who is actually pregnant. It's not about supporting killing, it's about respecting the inherent dignity of another human being. In this case, the mother of an unborn child. While abortion is something nobody wishes to occur, it is understood to be necessary is certain circumstances and it should not be up to the government to deny the right of a woman to choose.

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

I guess the same way conservatives can while doing the same thing.

[redstang281]

First, the response Jesus gave, from which you draw your conclusions, was in regards to a question about divorce, not about what defines marriage. Secondly, homosexual marriage was not an issue on the table in Jesus's time, so we cannot say for certain how he would argue, other than to say, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

I think that in the context of the chapter it's pretty obvious Jesus would not approve of homosexuality. Jesus says that Moses allowed a provision in their society's law system for divorce because of the people's sin. But that does not change the fact that divorce is a sin. The reason is because it's not what God intended. I think it's easy to see that misuse of what God created is sin. Just like divorce homosexuality also is a distortion of God's design for marriage.


Matthew 19:8-9 - He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

Freedom of choice is not a support of abortion, but rather support of the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body. It is the recognition that no one has the right to control another persons decisions regarding their own body. The rights of the father of the child are taken into consideration, but in the end it is logical that final say should go to the person who is actually pregnant. It's not about supporting killing, it's about respecting the inherent dignity of another human being. In this case, the mother of an unborn child. While abortion is something nobody wishes to occur, it is understood to be necessary is certain circumstances and it should not be up to the government to deny the right of a woman to choose.

Why is it always the right of the mother that is in consideration? What about the right of the baby who has no say in the matter? Furthermore the arguments you make could be also made for a two year old child. You could say that a two year old child is a problem for a mother because of the expense, responsibility, and inconvenience but should that be a good enough justification for her to kill it? After all she should have the right to who lives in her home, what her salary has to support, and how she spends her free time, right? It's obvious that would be wrong for her to kill that child. I don't know why people fail to see the connection. A baby is just an under developed child and development does not determine value, it's still a human. The government steps in and bands the killing a child after birth why should it not before birth too?

[redstang281]

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

I think that anyone who calls themself a "liberal Christian" is either confused or simply pretending to be a Christian in order to lure real Christians away from the truth and away from being an affective tool for Jesus. See the Bible is actively attacked by the secular world because it represents God. Anyone who follows the Bible will be persecuted. The true believers endure but the others will be lead away by the persecution. I believe those are the liberal Christians.

Mark 4:15-17 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown; when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them. And these in like manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.

Jesus was hated by the world and likewise a Christian should expect the same treatment.

John 15:19 - If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Being a Christian is not about conforming to whatever values the world finds value in at the time it is about standing up for God's truth which always stands the test of time. I feel that liberal Christians are more interested in siding with the world then with God.

1 John 2:15 - Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him.

[AlAyeti]

Redstang,

If you're running for President you have my vote.

Palmera,

Good post for the most part. Except that Jesus was an Orthodox Jew even celebrating the extra-biblical celebration of Hannukah. Marriage is immutable to the Israelites and Judeans and to Christ and should also be to His followers. Though, non-Christians can do what they want to. It's just that Christians should choose Christ.

When you wrote:

I guess the same way conservatives can while doing the same thing.

You proved that Liberals (as well) step outside of their faith to hold anti-Biblical beliefs.


Also, as God ses the unborn, they are people with inalienable rights. Though they can be held accountable for what their parents choose to do, the parent is held accoutable as well. What right does anyone have to kill anyone else?

If morality and good role models came forward in all of those sex ed classes, then children wouldn't be following rappers and movie stars, or Jesses Jackson or Bill Maher.

[redstang281]

Redstang,

If you're running for President you have my vote.

Thanks friend, appreciate it.

You proved that Liberals (as well) step outside of their faith to hold anti-Biblical beliefs.

I was thinking about this post last night after I wrote the first one and I thought of something else that I really wanted to add. I regret that this will most likely offend someone but I feel compelled to say it because I think it's better to offend somone and get them on the path to heaven then to not offend them and leave them where they are.

In the Bible it says that Abraham was justified because he trusted God when he was told that his elderly wife Sara would give birth to a child.

Romans 4:1-5 - What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Faith is essentially trusting that God can and will do what he says. So Abraham's faith in Sara's pregnancy is equivalent to our faith in Christ's death on the cross because it's the exact same substance. Now I would expect that if someone truly does have faith in Christ then that faith will be reflected in every other one of their beliefs.

In that respect I do not believe it is possible for someone to own true faith and at the same time hold worldly values that are in contradiction to the Bible. So I do not believe liberal Christians are at all Christian.

[AlAyeti]

In that respect I do not believe it is possible for someone to own true faith and at the same time hold worldly values that are in contradiction to the Bible. So I do not believe liberal Christians are at all Christian.

I am trusting that this will be the thread to debate the very fact.

Though, I do believe that good intentions are sometimes meant by some Liberal Christians, they will end up sadly supporting the Abomination that brings desolation.

But conservative Christians have supported the GOP when they clearly care little for the poor and needy. Though for the most part both Democrat and GOP politicians are filthy rich and support their rich lobbyists first and foremost.

Other than building a lineage for Christ, the other clear theme of the Bible is caring for the widow and the orphan. But, Liberals "technically" create more widows and orphans than conservatives.

If politics can be used to implement Christian values on issues then a weighing of what is good and what is bad is called for.

I cannot sellout the family and children and vote for a Liberal Democrat or Republican. Arnold may have done the right thing about same-sex marriage in Californian but he would just have easily sold out the family, children and real Christianity if the votes would have licensed the attack on all three.

But the topic question remains and one other question comes to the surface. Where are the Liberals to defend their Biblical views?

[palmera]

redstang281, AL,

red: Welcome to the forum!

I think that in the context of the chapter it's pretty obvious Jesus would not approve of homosexuality. Jesus says that Moses allowed a provision in their society's law system for divorce because of the people's sin. But that does not change the fact that divorce is a sin.

Well, gay marriage and divorce are not the same thing. From the passage it is clear that Jesus is talking about divorce- one can not infer from this passage that Jesus is against homosexual marriage. Further, Al mentioned that this is cleared up because Jesus was a practicing orthodox Jew. While Jesus was indeed a practicing Jew, the orthodox Temple is what Jesus fought and preached against. The oppressive practices and intolerance of the Temple were both things which Jesus spoke out against, so again, other than "love thy neighbor as thyself" I'm not really sure how we could know what Jesus' response would be.

You could say that a two year old child is a problem for a mother because of the expense, responsibility, and inconvenience but should that be a good enough justification for her to kill it? After all she should have the right to who lives in her home, what her salary has to support, and how she spends her free time, right? It's obvious that would be wrong for her to kill that child. I don't know why people fail to see the connection. A baby is just an under developed child and development does not determine value, it's still a human. The government steps in and bands the killing a child after birth why should it not before birth too?

Wrong. This example is in no way like a pregnant mother. Aside from all the obvious reasons, unlike an unborn child, difficulties with a two year old can not present a direct, possibly life threatening, health risk to the mother. Secondly, the child has been born, it is alive apart from its mother. In the womb a child is only alive as part of the mother. It is not a separate entity until after birth and the cutting of the umbilical cord, though there is a point where it is separate enough that abortions are not allowed even when legalized.

See the Bible is actively attacked by the secular world because it represents God. Anyone who follows the Bible will be persecuted.

That's quite a bold statement. Care to back it up?

I believe those are the liberal Christians.

Guess what Jesus was.... a liberal!

Jesus was hated by the world and likewise a Christian should expect the same treatment.

Not quite. Jesus was a threat to those in power. The thing is, Christians here in America ARE THE ONES IN POWER!!!!!! Christianity today, Constantinian Christianity today allows for this insane role reversal where Jesus teaches not about the material but the spiritual so it then doesn't matter if you're rich while others are starving and dying as long as you've taken Jesus into your heart. It's a load of B.S, but people are too comfortable, too scared of living on the edge, that they (Christians today) build up a framework of dogma and self-interest ideology to make themselves feel better, make themselves feel like the persecuted in the Bible when in reality it's THE EXACT OPPOSITE! So many Christians today are deluded, so high on Jesus that they forget about their neighbor- but not to worry, we haven't really forgotten, because we pray so hard for you, and we send checks off to stop hunger- the personal relationship with Jesus has become so sensationalized that Christians today, those held up in their tight corners with walls of literal scripture to protect them from ever actually doing or feeling anything real, have become the foundation of such an impersonal religion. Send a missionary! Send some money! Anything so that I don't actually have to stop my mechanical routine and actually change my life, my self.

Now of course this is an extreme viewpoint which I'm not using as an umbrella for anyone here to fit under. But it's appropriate in many ways for whatever flavor of Christianity you choose to align yourself with.

John 15:19 - If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Being a Christian is not about conforming to whatever values the world finds value in at the time it is about standing up for God's truth which always stands the test of time. I feel that liberal Christians are more interested in siding with the world then with God.

For liberal Christians it's absolutely about siding with the world- because that's where we are and that's where God is. You talk of not conforming, and yet what are you doing when you spit out scriptural interpretation you've been taught without giving another glance. What are you doing as as part of institutionalized Christianity but conforming. Liberal Christians fight against this- the same way Jesus fought against the establishment and the established way of thinking and acting out Jewish life.

Also, as God ses the unborn

Where does scripture talk about God seeing the unborn and how God feels about unborn or aborted children?

If morality and good role models came forward in all of those sex ed classes, then children wouldn't be following rappers and movie stars, or Jesses Jackson or Bill Maher.

Morality and good role models do come forward in those sex classs, hence the reality that those who are well educated about sex have and express a much much much much much lower risk of STD and teen pregnancy that those whose education was limited to "don't do it. the bible tells you so."

In that respect I do not believe it is possible for someone to own true faith and at the same time hold worldly values that are in contradiction to the Bible. So I do not believe liberal Christians are at all Christian.

Fair enough. But the problem with this statement is two fold. Not only are you judging others (un-christian) you're assuming that you've got it all right, that you've got a stranglehold on truth and the path to salvation. This arrogance is what liberal christians fight against. This sort of faith is dangerous because not only is it merely a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it's also exclusionary and full only of self-interest. It's this kind of thinking that Jesus fought and died teaching against.

[AlAyeti]

Good stuff palmera.

Not quite. Jesus was a threat to those in power. The thing is, Christians here in America ARE THE ONES IN POWER!!!!!!

Christians know all too well what will happen further if another Liberal majority takes control of power.

Christianity today, Constantinian Christianity today allows for this insane role reversal where Jesus teaches not about the material but the spiritual so it then doesn't matter if you're rich while others are starving and dying as long as you've taken Jesus into your heart.

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.

It's a load of B.S, but people are too comfortable, too scared of living on the edge, that they (Christians today) build up a framework of dogma and self-interest ideology to make themselves feel better, make themselves feel like the persecuted in the Bible when in reality it's THE EXACT OPPOSITE!

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.

So many Christians today are deluded, so high on Jesus that they forget about their neighbor- but not to worry, we haven't really forgotten, because we pray so hard for you, and we send checks off to stop hunger- the personal relationship with Jesus has become so sensationalized that Christians today, those held up in their tight corners with walls of literal scripture to protect them from ever actually doing or feeling anything real, have become the foundation of such an impersonal religion.

That's good preaching. I hear it in my conservative Church every Sunday and hear it in my Contemporary Christian Music every song. Just end with preaching repentance and holding sinners accountable for the licentious and un-Godly behavior and I'm moving to a town near your church.

Send a missionary! Send some money! Anything so that I don't actually have to stop my mechanical routine and actually change my life, my self.

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.

Now of course this is an extreme viewpoint which I'm not using as an umbrella for anyone here to fit under. But it's appropriate in many ways for whatever flavor of Christianity you choose to align yourself with.

The umbrella for those that repent is indeed very large. But remember the road to get there is narrow.

( I have to go read to my children. I'll be back for the rest of your post. )

[Bugmaster]

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".

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.