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?

[trencacloscas]

There was a chapter of the West Wing that was named after this kind of fallacy. I guess Sagan also mentions it in the anti-baloney kit...

But we only have to take a look to this thread to take notice.

[Cathar1950]

If I was teaching a logic class. I would require these threads to be read and fallacies noted. I am sure I commit them. It is ok to use them for persuasion you just can't get caught.

[redstang281]

redstang281 wrote:
Not really, God gives people an escape to hide in if they choose to. Our english Bible is interpretated from the much more explicit hebrew and greek. So context is the key to interpretation. Skeptics prefer word X to mean whatever fits their agenda. Christians goal is to use context to find the meaning of word X even if that causes ones theology to be reconsidered. That's happened to me before.

The context it was written in will not change - the context in which it is read (and translated) is constantly changing. So will interpretations.

I agree, which is why there are many wrong interpretations in one correct one. In order to find the correct one we must strive to understand the correct context.

Do the Vedas scriptures flow like one smooth book or are there theological conflicts?

There are no theological conflicts in advaita vedanta.

The reason I ask is because my understanding is that reincarnation and other personalities, hierarchies, and attributes of the hindu gods varies between all their writings.

It is not theistic.

What do you mean?

"A major branch of Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta, served as the fertile grounds from which one of the first monistic philosophies of God was developed. According to Advaitins, Brahman is the only Ultimate Reality in this world, and everything else is an illusion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Binitarianism

redstang281 wrote:
Were you there to witness this?

Were you there to witness the flood, the Exodus or the virgin birth?

I don't need to be. We have their record in the Bible. Not only that but we also have external evidence left to support them such as the imprint of the flood in our rock layers from hydrologic sorting and Jabal al-Lawz with evidence to support Mt. Sinai in exodus.

redstang281 wrote:
This is just the opinions of atheist who first decided God was a man made concept then they had to come up with a model to support their view.

No - what you have stated is an opinion.

Do you deny that the earliest religons were animist? Show they weren't. And what about the feminine deities - leading up to the 'big fellow' - god almighty. Show that this progression did not happen and you will have made your point.

I believe that the faith of the Bible was carried orally from the beginning of time before the other faiths were invented. Animalist religions were not some sort of stepping stone in logic. The Jews for example adopting an animalistic religion while Moses was on Mt. Sinai for too long. So animalistic religions and others were all in practice alongside each other.

redstang281 wrote:
Wrong, Zoroastrian writings were even after the New Testament was finished. "The Holy Book of Zoroastrianism is called the Zend Avesta. .... The Avesta was composed orally, and learned from memory for centuries until it was finally written down in Sassanian Times (during the era of the second Persian Empire, from 224 until 651)."

So what? No one is denying religions their oral heritage, are they?

What I'm saying is, sense the traditions were oral there is no record to compare their older beliefs with what their beliefs were when their religion was recorded. So when someone insists that Christians or Jews invented their faith with some aspects of Zoro that is unjustified. You can't prove who copied from who.

redstang281 wrote:
Everyone is subject to wishful thinking especially evolutionists.

Excellent!

At least now you recognise faith includes wishful thinking.

Yes it does.

redstang281 wrote:
'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of
Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

perhaps you hadn't heard...

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

It's bait and switch, it's a deceitful tactic. It depends how you define evolution.

When scientists say evolution is a fact what they mean is micro evolution or adaptation, and that is true. But adaptation is also part of the creation model so adaptation alone in no way validates molecules to man evolution. What they do is show you proof of adaptation or micro evolution and then they start talking about common descent and molecules to man evolution which those are not fact. They are just theories of atheists who want to deny God.

redstang281 wrote:
My proof is that scientists are unable to prove abiogenesis.

Scientists were once not able to prove the earth was not at the centre of the universe.

Then you have faith in man.

redstang281 wrote:
It's an atheist theory and the burden of proof is on them.

I see no need for proof of abiogeniesis. What has that to do with whether I believe in your god or not?

It has to do with whether or not their is a need for God. If life can happen without the supernatural then there's no necessity for the supernatural. As it stands now there's no alternative to a supernatural creation of life. I decide to belief in God on faith, and you decide not to believe in God on faith.

[redstang281]

My God is a god with the ability to create things perfect from the beginning. He doesn't need millions of years of death and suffering to create man.

How funny, a certain mr Kent Hovind said exactly the same, but i had not the opportune to ask him about this; Do you mean the perfect creation the Flood eradicated ? Causing all does death and suffering.. gosh, i almost quoted you.......

or.. ehm.. How did you mean now? *big smile and waiting for THIS answer*

The flood was necessary because of man's sin. God had no choice. But when God does have a choice, such as how to create the world he wants he does not need death and suffering. Before this universe was made there was no man to screw things up for God. He had the ability to make the world however he wanted. God creating the perfect environment in the begging and he did not need the death and suffering that is the history of the theory of evolution.

[redstang281]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism.
One of the reasons that it is unlikely that the Persians copied from the Jews is because the concepts are missing in the early Jewish writings and they appear after contact with the Persians.

You'll have to be more specific for me to respond. I believe all the core doctrines of Christianity are found from beginning to end of the entire Bible. Zoroastrianism is a dualistic religion anyways which you can see clearly that Christianity and Judaism stand apart from.


"However, according to other scholars, the Persians may have gotten some of their ideas from the Jews, perhaps from a theology similar to Ezekiel. There are general ideas they have in common, but in terms of borrowing, no definitive evidence exists one way or the other, and a determination depends on the interpretations and datings of Zoroastrian texts. According to Edwin Yamauchi, Zoroastrian scholars offer no consensus on the subject; he cites one Zoroastrian scholar who believes that the Jews borrowed, another that says there is no way to tell who borrowed, and yet another who says that the borrowing was the other way.[4] R.C. Zaehner states "we cannot say with any certainty whether the Jews borrowed from Zoroastrianism or the Zoroastrians from the Jews or whether either in fact borrowed from each other"[5] and The Oxford History of the Biblical World states "There is little if any effect of Zoroastrian elements on Judaism in the Persian period."[6]"

The Christian faith is no way compatible with evolution. My God is a god with the ability to create things perfect from the beginning. He doesn't need millions of years of death and suffering to create man.

Only your Christian faith. There are many Christians that do see it as compatable.

That's because they want to go along with what the world says, because they prefer the acceptance of men instead of the acceptance of God.

It's obvious that the Christian faith is contingent on a literal Adam and Eve. Without them there is no need of Jesus Christ's work on the cross. So, therefore the Biblical God is incompatible with any model of evolution.

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If
Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

I would agree this is why some Christians fear evolution. I would say that they may have a poor sallow view of Christianity and there might be something wrong with their theology.

You mean they don't have a watered down version of Christianity that can be bent and molded to fit whatever is politically correct. What you don't understand is this robs people of all the real value of the Bible it's takes it down to almost meaninglessness. Not to mention, it's obviously not the intent of the Bible to be handled in that way.

[Scrotum]

(1)The flood was necessary because of man's sin. God had no choice. But when God does have a choice, such as how to create the world he wants he does not need death and suffering. Before this universe was made there was no man to screw things up for God. He had the ability to make the world however he wanted. (2)God creating the perfect environment in the begging and he did not need the death and suffering that is the history of the theory of evolution.

Now, i devided this in two sections, the Bolded 1, and the Bolded 2.


First you say that "the flood was necessary because of man's sin", and then you do a twister, and say that God´s creation was perfect. How can it be perfect if man sins?

This is a paradox which however you want to escape, wont. God made man, hence, he made imperfection (as we have sinned). This is nothing you can debate. Hence, God did not create a perfect "beggining".


What is it you missed when reading the bible? I dont get it. IF GOD NEEDED A FLOOD TO GET RID OF THE SINNERS, HE DID NOT CREATE A PERFECT WORLD DID HE.....

Cheezes, talk about bending your religion to what you want.

[MagusYanam]

That's because they want to go along with what the world says, because they prefer the acceptance of men instead of the acceptance of God.

It's obvious that the Christian faith is contingent on a literal Adam and Eve. Without them there is no need of Jesus Christ's work on the cross. So, therefore the Biblical God is incompatible with any model of evolution.

No, it's not obvious. In fact, quite the opposite would appear to me self-evident. Genesis is Hebrew scripture, and all reputable Judaist authorities now accept Genesis 1 and 2 as having metaphorical, rather than historical, significance. In fact, most scholars of the Old Testament will tell you that the very name Adham means 'red earth' (bearing the meaning of 'man') in Hebrew and that Hawwah (Eve) literally means 'life', both of which speak volumes to the allegorical nature of Genesis.

Thus, Judaism (having its most basic of tenets founded in the Torah) and its Biblical God (Yahweh) are not contingent on a literal man named Red Earth and woman named Life and not inconsistent with evolution, so why should Christianity's Yahweh be?

Also, it's not the case that liberal Christians seek to go along with the crowd and seek 'the acceptance of men'. This is absurd, given that the majority of our fellows in Christianity are creationist in this country. If we were seeking the acceptance of men, we would have adopted creationism.

It's because we see the signatures of God in nature that we theistic evolutionists accept evolution as the most plausible explanation. We see the mechanism of evolution in life as being a stroke of creative genius, that life can adapt to the world even as the world changes around it, having survived one and a half billion years of this earth's tumultuous history.

You mean they don't have a watered down version of Christianity that can be bent and molded to fit whatever is politically correct. What you don't understand is this robs people of all the real value of the Bible it's takes it down to almost meaninglessness. Not to mention, it's obviously not the intent of the Bible to be handled in that way.

Stuff and nonsense. The creation story still has relevance even in an evolutionary worldview, being an illumination of the nature of humanity. That you can't understand this makes apparent your shallow comprehension of the Scriptures. The fall of Adam Reinhold Niebuhr saw as illustrative of man's pride and want of direction, which seems to me to be close to the original intent of these two chapters.

And it is also nonsense that the Bible's intent is not to be taken metaphorically. Most fundamentalists even will allow that Jesus' parables are to be taken metaphorically, and that the Psalms being works of poetry are to be read as such. Given that Hebrew scholarship is largely agreed that the creation story was meant to be metaphorical, why does the hermeneutic apply differently for Genesis than for the Psalms or the Proverbs or the parables in the Gospel?

As to political correctness? That I see coming from the opposite side. The ID'ers and creationists I see trying to use the language of political correctness - 'equal consideration', 'fairness in presentation', 'letting students come to their own conclusions' et cetera - to make their hypotheses look like science in science classrooms where clearly they are not. Who is it here that is 'watering down' to make their views more palatable?

I'll give you a hint: it's not the evolutionists.

[bernee51]

The context it was written in will not change - the context in which it is read (and translated) is constantly changing. So will interpretations.

I agree, which is why there are many wrong interpretations in one correct one. In order to find the correct one we must strive to understand the correct context.

So the correct context can only be that within which it was written. Interpretions now are more influenced by belief than by context.

Do the Vedas scriptures flow like one smooth book or are there theological conflicts?

There are no theological conflicts in advaita vedanta.

The reason I ask is because my understanding is that reincarnation and other personalities, hierarchies, and attributes of the hindu gods varies between all their writings.

What hindus call gods are not so in the sense you use the term (omni-everything creator of the universe). Gods in hindu pantheon are manifestations of aspects of divinity. Ganesh, for example, is a manifestaion of that aspect of the divine which is meant to help in 'hopeless causes'.

The hindu writings are clearly mythological and allegorical. They make no claim to being 'divinely inspired literal histories'.

It is not theistic.

What do you mean?

There is no omni-everything creator of the universe.

"A major branch of Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta, served as the fertile grounds from which one of the first monistic philosophies of God was developed. According to Advaitins, Brahman is the only Ultimate Reality in this world, and everything else is an illusion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Binitarianism

I'm not sure of the point you are making. If you are assuming that Brahman is "the omni-everything creator of the universe" you are mistaken.

Brahman is believed to be pure consciousness. It has no other aspects.

Were you there to witness the flood, the Exodus or the virgin birth?

I don't need to be. We have their record in the Bible.

This is a pure circularity...the bible cannot be witness to its own veracity.

Not only that but we also have external evidence left to support them such as the imprint of the flood in our rock layers from hydrologic sorting

This has been thouroughly discussed in other threads. My personal conclusion from reading both sides is that the the creationist version is flawed and unsupported.

Do you deny that the earliest religons were animist? Show they weren't. And what about the feminine deities - leading up to the 'big fellow' - god almighty. Show that this progression did not happen and you will have made your point.

I believe that the faith of the Bible was carried orally from the beginning of time before the other faiths were invented. Animalist religions were not some sort of stepping stone in logic. The Jews for example adopting an animalistic religion while Moses was on Mt. Sinai for too long. So animalistic religions and others were all in practice alongside each other.

One did not replace the other. It is not a ladder of development. In any such system the preceding 'model' is included in and transended by its successor. In all societies the majority will be at a particular level, with a just a few who can see beyond.

So what? No one is denying religions their oral heritage, are they?

What I'm saying is, sense the traditions were oral there is no record to compare their older beliefs with what their beliefs were when their religion was recorded. So when someone insists that Christians or Jews invented their faith with some aspects of Zoro that is unjustified. You can't prove who copied from who.

I would think there would have been an interchange in ideas in all directions. Asoka sent buddhist missionaries as far west as Greece some 250 years before Christ. There are obviously influences from all over. It is highly unlikely that any one religion is the 'seed' of all others.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

It's bait and switch, it's a deceitful tactic. It depends how you define evolution.

Again this is discussed at length elsewhere and my personal conclusion from reading both sides is that the the creationist version is flawed and unsupported.

Then you have faith in man.

Which definition of 'faith' are you using: 1, 2 or 3?

I see no need for proof of abiogeniesis. What has that to do with whether I believe in your god or not?

It has to do with whether or not their is a need for God. If life can happen without the supernatural then there's no necessity for the supernatural. As it stands now there's no alternative to a supernatural creation of life.

Again with the logical fallacy.

I decide to belief in God on faith, and you decide not to believe in God on faith.

You can say that as many times as you like - it will never make it a fact.

The only reason you can believe in god is faith - if there was proof you would not need faith.

I come to the conclusion that the god of the bible is non existent not becaue of faith but due to total lack of faith.

[bernee51]

You mean they don't have a watered down version of Christianity that can be bent and molded to fit whatever is politically correct. What you don't understand is this robs people of all the real value of the Bible it's takes it down to almost meaninglessness. Not to mention, it's obviously not the intent of the Bible to be handled in that way.

I would think the opposite would be true. If the bible is regarded as literal it is as close to meaningless as you can get. It has one meaning and one meaning only and that is only one more than none. Reading the biblical stories for what they are, allegory and metaphor, gives full meaning to the many fine concepts they contain.

Take just one...John 10.30, when Jesus proclaimed "I and the Father are one." The literal version of this, I have been told, is simply Jesus saying that he is god. Taking a more mystical approach one can see that Jesus was in fact saying that man and the divine are one. When Jesus said 'I' he was not referring to himself as an individual, as a sense of a seperate self. He was referring to the "I-I', the 'Self', the 'divine' that is all sentient beings.

This view is reflected in other philosophies...Brahman is the universal consciousness, Atman is the individual consciousness. These are in essence the same. Brahman and Atman are one.

I see the literalist view of the bible as a 'dumbed down' version - which should perhaps come with one of those black and yellow covers.

[redstang281]

(1)The flood was necessary because of man's sin. God had no choice. But when God does have a choice, such as how to create the world he wants he does not need death and suffering. Before this universe was made there was no man to screw things up for God. He had the ability to make the world however he wanted. (2)God creating the perfect environment in the begging and he did not need the death and suffering that is the history of the theory of evolution.


Now, i devided this in two sections, the Bolded 1, and the Bolded 2.

First you say that "the flood was necessary because of man's sin", and then you do a twister, and say that God´s creation was perfect. How can it be perfect if man sins?

Because God created the world with the possibility to reject him does not mean that originally it was not perfect. It just means that he allowed for other wills then his own to have an influence on it.

This is a paradox which however you want to escape, wont. God made man, hence, he made imperfection (as we have sinned).

Err, no. God created man perfect in spiritual terms, ie originally sinless. He did not make man a God in that we are omnipotent and have infinite wisdom and knowledge to predict all possibilities and consequences of our actions. That's why he asked us to obey him which we choose to exercise our God given will and not adhere.

What is it you missed when reading the bible? I dont get it. IF GOD NEEDED A FLOOD TO GET RID OF THE SINNERS, HE DID NOT CREATE A PERFECT WORLD DID HE.....

Not perfect as you would define it (omnipotent), he created originally a sinless world, so much so that he could pronounce it "very good". That title would not fit with a world of Adam and Eve that was arrived at through millions of years of animals killing and eating each other through "survival of the fittest". Notice God doesn't say the world is "very good" again after the flood waters recede.