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?

[1John2_26]

Here is what evolution is all about on the religious level. A story that ran last year.

From beliefnet.com:

A Bishop Speaks
John Shelby Spong

The Right Man for a New World
The new Archbishop of Canterbury must get rid of the Jesus who "died for our sins."

In late February the Church of England, the mother church of Anglicanism, will install a new leader. He is an interesting man and, in my opinion, the best of all possible choices to head the third largest group of Christians in the world. His name is Rowan Williams.

The Jesus who "died for our sins" has simply got to go in our post-Darwinian world. Christianity must move beyond a rescuing Jesus, who overcame a fall that never happened, even metaphorically, to restore human life to a status it has never had, even mythologically. Williams' task is nothing less than to articulate a new Christianity for a new world.

This is creepy to say the least. It would be satanic even not coming from a church minister.

[McCulloch]

Here is what evolution is all about on the religious level. A story that ran last year.

From beliefnet.com:

A Bishop Speaks
John Shelby Spong

The Right Man for a New World
The new Archbishop of Canterbury must get rid of the Jesus who "died for our sins."

In late February the Church of England, the mother church of Anglicanism, will install a new leader. He is an interesting man and, in my opinion, the best of all possible choices to head the third largest group of Christians in the world. His name is Rowan Williams.

The Jesus who "died for our sins" has simply got to go in our post-Darwinian world. Christianity must move beyond a rescuing Jesus, who overcame a fall that never happened, even metaphorically, to restore human life to a status it has never had, even mythologically. Williams' task is nothing less than to articulate a new Christianity for a new world.

This is creepy to say the least. It would be satanic even not coming from a church minister.

Is any of this a surprise? The Anglicans have been one of the most liberal mainstream churches for quite a while. If you have read any of Spong's books, this pronouncement would not be shocking. He has been calling for a new Christianity divorced from supernaturalism and superstition for decades. Now please articulate for us how this ties into the topic for debate.

[bernee51]

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.

"very good" does not equal "perfect". Something is either perfect or it is not, unique or is not. God did not make a perfect world only a 'very good' one - not even an extremely good one.

Re: the "flood" - given that it would appear the world (and mankind) - i.e. it didn't even rate as very good - is intrinsically the same pre- and post-flood - why did he bother? Why all the death and destruction. Not only genocide, but all living things - biocide.

The more I read/write on these bizarre beliefs the more incredible it becomes that anyone endowed with 'god-given' sense of reason and logic could entertain it to be factual.

[1John2_26]

Is any of this a surprise? The Anglicans have been one of the most liberal mainstream churches for quite a while. If you have read any of Spong's books, this pronouncement would not be shocking. He has been calling for a new Christianity divorced from supernaturalism and superstition for decades. Now please articulate for us how this ties into the topic for debate.

I thought the topic was about liberal Christians shunning and shedding fundamental beliefs of the faith. Sorry if I got it wrong. I thought it showed the validation of what most fundamentalists constantly preach about and warned was the root danger of liberal Christians going too far. I would think that Satan would be calling for a Christianity divorced from supernaturalism and I think this is what Bible-based conservatives think Satan would want as well. I got a chuckle out of your use of liberal and mainstream together. But I guess it is accurate these days.

[CJK]

Is any of this a surprise? The Anglicans have been one of the most liberal mainstream churches for quite a while. If you have read any of Spong's books, this pronouncement would not be shocking. He has been calling for a new Christianity divorced from supernaturalism and superstition for decades. Now please articulate for us how this ties into the topic for debate.

I thought the topic was about liberal Christians shunning and shedding fundamental beliefs of the faith. Sorry if I got it wrong. I thought it showed the validation of what most fundamentalists constantly preach about and warned was the root danger of liberal Christians going too far. I would think that Satan would be calling for a Christianity divorced from supernaturalism and I think this is what Bible-based conservatives think Satan would want as well. I got a chuckle out of your use of liberal and mainstream together. But I guess it is accurate these days.

How absurd! Why would satan call for the end of supernaturalism when satan is alledgedly a supernatural being? How ridiculous! That would eradicate satan from the whole equation, and we know anyone with an ego would not want that. I got a chuckle out of your christian-brand fatuity! ](*,)

Fundamental christian beliefs ironically do not have a foundation at all. They consist only of supernatural folklore. Thus the wholly irrational behavior of holding 'satan' accountable for natural phenomena. Absolutely no different than saying Zeus is responsible for sunshine and lightning.

Christianity deviating from supernaturalism would allow people to elucidate for themselves what they see occurring around them. Considering we live in an perpetually complex universe, we would never find solace without believing mankind is the center of all things. Thus the need for an anthropomorphic god.

As for the topic, I think people are finally waking up. People are getting behind the wheel of their own lives and encouraging pragmatism and rationality. Forget the rapture, live for today!

[McCulloch]

Is any of this a surprise? The Anglicans have been one of the most liberal mainstream churches for quite a while. If you have read any of Spong's books, this pronouncement would not be shocking. He has been calling for a new Christianity divorced from supernaturalism and superstition for decades. Now please articulate for us how this ties into the topic for debate.

I thought the topic was about liberal Christians shunning and shedding fundamental beliefs of the faith. Sorry if I got it wrong. I thought it showed the validation of what most fundamentalists constantly preach about and warned was the root danger of liberal Christians going too far. I would think that Satan would be calling for a Christianity divorced from supernaturalism and I think this is what Bible-based conservatives think Satan would want as well. I got a chuckle out of your use of liberal and mainstream together. But I guess it is accurate these days.

The topic is about the claim that Liberal Christianity has its own type of fundamentalism. I was not meaning to imply that you were off topic, just that I sometimes need to have the link explicitly pointed out.
Spong and Rowan are liberal Christians, no debate about that. Being liberals, they reject the idea that religion should be tied to received texts , traditions and superstition which appear to have remained unchanged for centuries. They call for a type of Christianity which is more in agreement with what we have learned from science.

The questions in the opening post are:

• 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?

I think that the one that really sums up the intended debate is the last one. But I think that the question misses the point. I do not think that the Liberal Christians and certainly not Spong, believe that there are any "immutable Christian positions". They believe that Jesus articulated some great truths (they still call themselves Christians). Some of these truths are still relevant. Some of these truths have been distorted and twisted by his followers over the centuries and some of these truths have become outdated. The fundamentalists take a different position.

[redstang281]

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.

I'm sure that's not true of all of them. But I won't deny that many people compromise the clear meaning of the scriptures because of our worldly brainwashing with molecules to man evolution. I don't believe that anything inside the scripture itself would give someone the impression that Genesis is an allegory.

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.

That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the text is to be understood literally. God often ordains names that signify an event in someone's life or part of their destiny. For instance Jacob wrestled with God and then God changed his name to Israel which literally meant "wrestles with God". This just shows that God has built in depth meaning into the scriptures so that it works on different levels.

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?

Without Adam and Eve there's no reason why sin is here in the world.

Also, it's not the case that liberal Christians seek to go along with the crowd and seek 'the acceptance of men'.

I think it is. Evolution is promoted as the "intelligent" way to look at the world. The "intellectual" atheistic scientist believe it and if we don't then we are ignorant foolish people holding onto an archaic belief. People are afraid someone will think they are dumb for not accepting what is promoted by main stream scientist.

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.

That's just silly to say. Unfortunately molecules to man evolution propaganda is effective. Most polls I have seen may be close, but usually the evolution believers weigh in a little bit higher.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Beliefs of American adults: Creation 47%, evolution 49%
Beliefs among Internet surfers: Creation 27%, evolution 65%

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.

Again, what evolutionist never seem to understand is that creationist believe and accept the adaption we observed in science today. Like you said it shows God's signature in nature. Creationists disagree with evolutionists made up theories on common descent. I have not seen an evolutionist who could understand that distinction (otherwise they would switch camp).

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.

I believe God means what he says and says what he means. He doesn't have to make up some complex jargon of a story to explain evolution. If evolution really happened then he would have explained it clearly to us. Attempts to allegories things that aren't meant to be allegories is just to force your beliefs on the Bible instead of letting the Bible say what it means and receiving the point God intends. Again, without a literal Genesis we have no answer to the question of why is there sin in the world. Without sin Jesus didn't need to die. People decide to treat Genesis allegorically not because the text implies it but so they can rub noses with intellectual professors and those smarty pants scientists.

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?

Obviously, just because somethings are metaphors doesn't mean everything is. Jesus spoke in parables on somethings but at the same time believed Genesis was literal history sense he believed that the genders were created in the beginning and did not evolve overtime (Mark 10:6). When Jesus did speak in parables he announced it as so. Nowhere in the Bible does anyone make the claim that Genesis is a parable. The only reason to consider Genesis a parable is from extra biblical pressures such as silly theories like molecules to man evolution.

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.

I'm disagreeing with watering down the Bible which is what evolutionists try to do. Besides I don't think ID'ers are watering down the Christian faith. They are just presenting the science involved and not the faith. That's not the same thing.

[micatala]

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

I think that the one that really sums up the intended debate is the last one. But I think that the question misses the point. I do not think that the Liberal Christians and certainly not Spong, believe that there are any "immutable Christian positions". They believe that Jesus articulated some great truths (they still call themselves Christians). Some of these truths are still relevant. Some of these truths have been distorted and twisted by his followers over the centuries and some of these truths have become outdated. The fundamentalists take a different position.

Thanks for trying to get us back on topic.

I would mostly agree with your characterization here, except that I don't think liberal Christians say there are no immutable positions, only that there are many fewer than the fundamentalists would ascribe to.

For example, in some circles it is taken as an immutable truth that so-called macro-evolution did not happen. Certainly I and many other CHristians, including many who would not even describe themselves as liberal, disagree.

I would also say that even if one accepts that there are immutable truths, this does not mean we necessarily no perfectly what these truths are. Biblical fundamentalists might say 'just read the Bible and interpret it in the most plain way possible.'

It is a fact of history that intelligent and well-meaning people who have studied the Bible and be learned in other areas as well have interpreted the Bible to the best of their ability and been very wrong. The Copernican controversy is but one example of this. Luther, Calvin, the Catholic heirarchy and others all insisted that Copernicanism was inconsistent with sound Biblical doctrine. They were not ignorant people.

They were, however, very, very, wrong.

I'm sure that's not true of all of them. But I won't deny that many people compromise the clear meaning of the scriptures because of our worldly brainwashing with molecules to man evolution. I don't believe that anything inside the scripture itself would give someone the impression that Genesis is an allegory.

It seems to me that this view is ignoring the history discussed above. Are we who accept the Copernican/Keplerian version of the solar system compromising the clear meaning of scriputure? Luther, Calvin, et. al. would absolutely have said so. What defense would you make regarding our modern thinking with regards to astronomy to Luther and Calvin?

It seems to me that creationists insist not only on a literal Bible, but on their particular understanding of this Bible, an understanding that itself includes many assumptions. Why must Genesis not be interpreted allegorically? Most of the arguments I have seen are based on certain assumptions, such as 'Jesus did not take it allegorically, so we should not.' I frankly do not think this assumption necessarily follows from the words of Jesus in the gospel, and it also can be criticized on the grounds of circularity (the Bible testifying to its own validity).

If one accepts that God is the ultimate creator of the universe, then it seems to me that it is appropriate to look at the evidence that this creation provides to be evidence provided 'by God.' I don't believe in evolution because of 'brain-washing' but because the evidence provided by God's creation testifies that the universe is very very old, and the earth as well. It testifies that the life that exists today was very different than then life that existed in the past. It testifies that humans have only been on the earth for a tiny fraction of the earths existence.

Weighing all this evidence provided by the creator in the form of His Creation seems to me to outweigh the insistence of some on a particular interpretation of a document that, though divinely inspired, was authored by humans several thousands of years ago. This is especially the case given the very nature of the Bible as being written by numerous authors of varying backgrounds and of often consisting of highly ambiguous, allegorical, or metaphorical passages.

This just shows that God has built in depth meaning into the scriptures so that it works on different levels.

Agreed. In my view, the deeper meaning of Genesis includes the possibility of great age and evolution. Perhaps no one would have come to this conclusion without scientific evidence, but again, neither would we have come to reconcile the Bible with Copernicanism without the scientific evidence.

Without Adam and Eve there's no reason why sin is here in the world.

I don't at all see the necessity for making this assumption. As in other parts of the Bible, Adam and Eve could serve as a metaphor for how sin came into the world without there being an actual literal Adam and Eve as described in the Bible.

Sin exists under the assumption that God exists and that we can have a consciousness of his existence as well as a relationship with him. One definition of sin is that of an action or actions that negate this relationship or otherwise separate us from God.

It is certainly possible that as part of our evolutionary development, we reached a point where we could have this 'God-consciousness' and at this time sin could have entered the world. As God is a spiritual being, it could also have been that God performed a spiritual creative act at some point, giving man a spirit as well as free will, and at that point, sin becomes a possibility. 'Adam' in this sense would simply be a 'type of' the first person to be able to experience sin.

I would point to John Chapter 6 where, after the crowd becomes confused at the idea of Jesus 'literally' giving them his flesh to eat, Jesus says 'my words are spirit, and they are life. The flesh counts for nothing.'

Right here, I think you have Biblical justification, even in a 'literalist' sense, that God does not care one whit whether we believe in or dis-believe in biological evolution. It is man's spirit that is important. If a liberal accepts this truth as a 'fundamental', I don't see that this is any less biblical than the creationist or fundamentalist position.

Quote:
Also, it's not the case that liberal Christians seek to go along with the crowd and seek 'the acceptance of men'.

I think it is. Evolution is promoted as the "intelligent" way to look at the world. The "intellectual" atheistic scientist believe it and if we don't then we are ignorant foolish people holding onto an archaic belief. People are afraid someone will think they are dumb for not accepting what is promoted by main stream scientist.

I think it's fair to say it can work both ways. I have been in groups and communities where if one suggests one accepts evolution, one is subject to pretty severe disapproval, called 'not a real Christian' or 'satanic' or 'brain-washed by secularists' etc.. I have also been in groups and communities where creationist views suffer the same type of disapproval. I think this is unfortunate.

[McCulloch]

Without Adam and Eve there's no reason why sin is here in the world.

Whether taken literally or allegorically, the Genesis myth relates rather well the theological reason why there is sin in the world. This is the fundamentalist straw-man. The liberals allegorize biblical passages that the fundamentalists take literally. But they do not ignore or remove the lessons found in the myth.

I believe God means what he says and says what he means. He doesn't have to make up some complex jargon of a story to explain evolution. If evolution really happened then he would have explained it clearly to us.

The same way that he made the spherical earth or the fact that germs cause disease?

[redstang281]

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 and 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.

and you can understand the context is was written from the rest of the Bible and history.

Interpretions now are more influenced by belief than by context.

Some, but not all. Honest scholars change their view instead of forcing the scripture to say something it doesn't.

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'.

That's fine, I was more so interested in whether or not you believe the hindu gods attributes are consistent through history rather then what their exact attributes are.

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.

Many historians, including secular, hold the Bible in high regard in terms of historic accuracy. But we've more or less went round and round on that already.

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.

Have you looked into Polystrate fossils? I think that it's interesting that people say the idea of a global flood is just make believe yet creationists are able to build scientific theories off of the Bible that explain all same data that uniformitarianism explains. If the Bible was just a fairy tale book I don't think there's anyway it could even try to compete with secular interpretations of our modern world, it would be a hopeless effort. The fact that the global flood can explain the same data for those who are open to it shows that God does indeed present the world with two possible paths to take (Matthew 7:13).

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.

I don't necessarily think the Biblical faith seeded every religion. I don't have a problem with some religions being man made. I simply believe the Bible is of divine origins and if any other faith systems have similar principals then they copied from the Jews/Christians instead of the Jews/Christians copying from 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.

Again with the logical fallacy.

I don't see how that's a logical fallacy. It's like trying to fit a square block through a circle hole. It just doesn't fit. But instead of realizing it and admitting the ball goes through the hole we want the square to go in so bad that we keep trying to fit the square and say "one day we'll make it fit".

I decide to believe 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 because of faith but due to total lack of faith.

Would you really believe in God if he would reveal himself to you? Would you trust in Jesus? Then I ask you to pray to him and tell him that. I believe he will respond. I have already prayed for you too.