Bro. Hex

Sure, now I can answer you. (thanks for the explanation, as I totally didn't get this at first): FOR ME, anyone who chooses to follow the teachings and example of Jesus as to how to live their life, that one is a Christian. I am sure that there are many, many answers to that question, but my answer is the one I give here.

Oh, so liberal Christians are perfect? They make no mistakes? I am afraid I really don't understand where this question is coming from, Cool. I didn't say anything about making mistakes. I didn't say anything (in the passage that you just quoted) about Liberal Christianity. When I said WE could rely on what Jesus said, I meant WE...US...you and me, Pete, Dan, anybody who reads this thread. I am no saying "me good you bad" I am just saying that I think that the "best answer" to the question of "what makes a Christian a Christian" was answered two thousand years ago by someone WE ALL OF US revere, okay?

Okay, I will take your word for that, but could you please explain in simple terms that we all can understand what it was that you were asking for by the question "What affords one the basis?". because don't know any other way to understand your question. If you weren't asking for justification, what were you asking for?

Of course, we could simply rely on Jesus' answer to that one: "By their DEEDS you shall know them"

What do you mean "what affords one the basis?". You seem to be asking a question "in terms of justification". As a Liberal Christian, I don't have to justify my faith to anyone. From my perspective, neither do you. and neither does anyone else. I do not choose to speak of being a Christian in terms of Justification. As a Liberal Christian, such justification has no meaning for me.

I can answer that one! Claiming to be a Christian is all you need to do. No one has the right to tell you that you are NOT a Christian.

This (above quote) is actually a pretty good statement of a core principle of the perspective of Liberal Christianity. We are all obliged to find meaning for ourself, within the Bible and everywhere else. My Father's house has many mansions. Ty Father's truth has many facets. But not this: "in effect: 1+1= W (W meaning what ever you want it to mean)." It is not a question of what I want or what you want or what Pete wants something to mean. We all hear, read, see, in our own way. God speaks to each of us directly and differently. Each has a responsibility to listen to what God says to them. Not what we wish was said. I don't think that Pete is saying this.And if he was, it would of course be wrong. No, not what you want, but what is spoken to you. It is your responsibility to listen.

RE: "You seem to be arguing now a different point" You are correct, I AM arguing a different POV. I thought I made that clear when I said "I have been thinking about what you said" (vis-a-vis Yahweh being the underlying text) and I have concluded that "I don't agree" RE: "My argument was what YHWH said " I never agreed (nor even imagined) that "Yahweh" was speaking. I took it as a given that "Micah" was speaking. If you were arguing that "it was Yahweh speaking", I didn't pick up on that. RE: "The point was not who we are to walk with" Well, YOUR point might have been "who was speaking", but that was never MY point. BTW I didn't hear any "command" spoken. If that really was your point, I don't think you made that terribly clear. I will re-read what you previously posted to see if I can "read that meaning into your words". In any event, not only do I believe that it was Micah "speaking" (not Yahweh), I want to emphasize that the words that I revere are "walk humbly with your God". It does not matter to me who said them... It is THOSE WORDS THEMSELVES...as they speak to me" that I hold sacred.

Good point, Pete. I am very familiar with the "wrinkle" that you describe here. Most languages have such idiosyncrasies, some languages more than others. Moreover I am not above altering my belief as to the "original intent" of the author, as, for me, all such beliefs are both tentative and provisional, always subject to being altered upon the arrival of "new information". For me there "is no fixed and final answer' to questions concerning things that can never be known "without doubt". In the final analysis, what the text of Micah 6:8 speaks TO ME about, is what it says in MY native tongue. That is the only version that I revere. And I certainly do not think of the mean and nasty "God of justice and retribution" that is portrayed elsewhere in the Bible. I reject that description of God. For me, that God does not exist.

Led to this reply: Putting aside, for the moment, the condescension reflected in the above reply, I have been thinking about your earlier claim that "the underlying text said YHWH", and I have concluded that this cannot be correct. I will proceed to explain exactly why I am personally convinced that this passage from Micah was NOT talking about Yahweh. As with all the other books in the Bible, Micah existed as a stand-alone work before it was compended into the Bible. It is my contention that the actual author of Micah (who I will refer to as "Micah", for simplicity's sake) was not a Jew. Next, I now raise the question: If the "original text" had indeed been written in the Hebrew tongue,and if YHWH had indeed been regarded by Biblical translators as the correct and original rendering, WHY didn't the majority of the translators use the word Yahweh when translating into English? Why is it that the translators consistently opt for the word God instead of using Yahweh? I say it is because they are aware of the dissonance in using either YHWH or Yahweh. They know that the text has been tampered with, and are restoring the perceived intent of the original composer ("Micah"). There is simply no excuse NOT to use Yahweh, if indeed that was the perceived original. Now for a little ad hoc literary criticism: Let's consider that "dissonance" that I mentioned: Try it out for yourself. Put the (English equivalent) of the original text as you claim it was written...into words. You get this: "and walk humbly with your Yahweh". Notice how easily it trips off the tongue?...NOT. Notice how two particular words in that verse "don't belong in the same sentence"? The words are "your" and "Yahweh". You can have EITHER of them, and you can make sense of the sentiment: Either: "and walk humbly with Yahweh" Or: "and walk humbly with your (God)". So, if these two words "ought not be in the same sentence", what can possibly explain how this came to pass? Enter my theory that "Micah" was not a Jew. His "work", however was recognized as both inspired and prophetic, and was eventually translated into "Hebrew" (a working assumption). What does the pious Jewish scribe do? He translates (accurately) "and walk humbly with". into "Hebrew"...and then he encounters a word meaning "God". Now, a pious Jew would never write the word/name-of "God", so what does he do? He substitutes the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) as he has been taught to do. A good Jew never writes or speaks the word Yahweh...and I suggest that he never even allows himself to think the name of God in his mind's voice. So he never realizes how Yahweh "does not fit" with the immediately preceding words. He does not allow himself to "hear" how stilted it would sound to say: "and walk humbly with your Yahweh". He cannot allow himself to even think the sound of that Holy Name. The professional linguists who translated the text of Micah into English are almost universally consistent in rendering Micah 6:8 as "walk humbly with your God". Why? It is not because they are all pious Jews...if that were the case, they would simply have retained YHWH. Why not simply say "Yahweh"? Gentiles have no problem doing so. I say it is because these professional linguists recognized that the original text was written "exactly as it now appears in almost every English version of Micah: "and walk humbly with your God".

Yes, The text "says that"... it's just not talking about YHWH.

Actually, YOU may be talking about "the same God" (YHWH, who I will now, for the sake of distinction, refer to as the demiurge), but when I am speaking about "God"; when I hear the words of Micah 6:8. I am listening to an echo of the voice of The All, the "God-above-god" of the Pleroma, who has existed from before the creation of time, and who would never have reason to say "there is no god beside me" (Isaiah 45:5) nor to say " Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). I am listening to the voice of THAT God...not YHWH...not the god who is mean, nasty, vengeful and cruel.

Likewise. Please let us know how he is doing.

Cool, now you have really got me confused. If the original text used the Tetragrammaton, Then the original text DID use the name of God (not Lord)...didn't it???

Okay, I can see that I must be more precise; Micah 6:8 As told in the version that follows, which represents a telling that I can honor (and which says nothing about any "guilt of Israel") American King James Version He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. I bet we can both revere that. BTW: The following is from a NON-Zondervan copy of the New International Version (©1984): He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (It says nothing about guilt of Israel).

You consider that to be a sufficient reason not to discuss differences? Really? I don't. Why would that "end the conversation"? Do you think that is the only difference... the absence of rigid dogma? And what about "similarities"? I am willing to bet that we both revere Micah 6. At least I hope that is true. I am willing to bet that we both revere "the Golden Rule".

Dan, you are absolutely correct. I was speaking in anger, and I was wrong to do so. My bad.

Thanks Pete, for reminding me of my favorite Bible verse: Micah 6 And what is it that is required of us? To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.

. In my opinion, miracles happen whenever God chooses. Is that "random"? Only God could answer that question. Can we in any way affect the occurrence of a miracle? I don't think so. Only God knows the true answer to that. As for myself, I choose to believe in a God who doesn't "play favorites", who doesn't answer the prayers of some, while turning a deaf ear to the prayers of others, who doesn't answer one person's prayer for a new car, while allowing the child of another petitioner to die. I cannot believe in a God who would be capable of such a thing. I choose to believe in a God who does not meddle in the affairs of men.

Miracles like spontaneous cure of a terminal disease, a cure for which there is no medical explanation. (I am speaking about my own idea of a miracle...not anyone else's)

I really think that it would be more productive, instead of surmising "what Liberal Christians see", to simply ask that question. If you want my answer, and please know that I do not speak for all Liberal Christians, I would have several things to say in reply, that you might better understand: (1) Liberal Christians do not "all believe the same things"...especially when it comes to "what we can know from the historic record" as opposed to "what is pious story-telling"; well-intentioned, perhaps even edifying, but not necessarily historically factual. (2) No one "speaks for" Liberal Christianity (authoritatively). There are as many potential "speakers" as there are Liberal Christians. (3) To conclude that "Liberal Christians do not see the supernatural" is a grave error. First of all, it is an overly vast generalization. It comes from thinking "all Liberal Christians see the same way", which is also "not so". Secondly, it wouldn't be true if you were even to say "most". Most of the Liberal Christians "that I personally know" don't fit this description. Most Liberal Christians that I know would answer "Of course I believe in the Spiritual" (a word that many of us, myself included, might prefer to the word "supernatural", which can also call to mind goblins, witches casting spells, and the dead speaking through seances). (4) It is wrong to conclude that "Liberal Christians don't believe in miracles". I know that I do. I know that many of my kindred do also, but again, no one speaks for all of us. (5) It is wrong to assume that Liberal Christians do not believe in "the power of prayer". Because I would say that "most do". Where I think you might find a difference of perspective, is in your belief (I assume that you believe this) that "you can obtain a miracle by asking for one". I know that I personally do not believe that to be true. Now that I am getting into the realm of my own personal beliefs, I caution you "not to assume" that All Liberal Christians think like me. They don't. (So far as I know.) I personally do not believe in "asking God for favors". I personally don't believe that "asking for something" is the true purpose of prayer. I think that prayer can be an effective means of "altering who you are". Which would naturally indicate that prayer, for me, is a pretty personal thing. Essentially, when speaking to God, I think that prayer is best reserved for "saying thank you", and not for saying "please". Please do not quote scripture at me telling me why you think otherwise...I already know why you think otherwise. I already know the scripture. I am not asking why Fundamentalist Christians are the way they are. I am just trying to correct your misunderstanding of "who Liberal Christians are"; a misunderstanding that is revealed to me "by your words", which I have highlighted in the quote above. Peace.

We already did, and it isn't pretty. "Fundamentalist" Christianity is controlling, condescending and extremely arrogant. BTW: I do NOT concede the term "Biblical" to the Fundamentalists, who seem to think that they have an exclusive claim to the Bible (yet more arrogance)... Liberal Christians, our Jewish brethren, and even some nondenominational or unclassifiable groups, such as the U-U, all use the Bible as the Spirit moves us/them. Get down off of your "Biblical horse".

With regard to (A) above, Why? You come up with an idea, and suddenly we are all supposed to do it? Is that how it works in your interactions "with your equals"? Who put you "in charge"??? Why do you need "everyone else" to join you in prayer "for these needs expressed" (whatever those were)? Can't you do it "on your own"? With regard to (B) above, Your humility is breathtaking...in its absence. What makes you think that you are ENTITLED to know the reason, if anyone should be so bold as to say: "count me out"? I am very familiar with many of the techniques and tactics of mind control, and "why don't we pray about this together?" in a well recognized classic. And the very simple act of "going along" with one of the "Why don't we..." questions, automatically confers a perceived status of (he is the leader) in the subconscious of any one who "goes along". (There, I just gave you "just one" of the many reasons I have for declining your summons... and that's "one-more than you are entitled to".) No, thank you. You are most certainly NOT my leader. It is time for you to start treating others here AS YOUR EQUAL... or reap the consequent harvest. And you are most certainly NOT ENTITLED to know my reason for not agreeing to do precisely what you are demanding (in ever so coy terms) that we all should agree to do. Thanks for reminding me why I hate prayer groups!

Actually this particular question WAS rhetorical... (The only question I wanted answered was "which of us created a dichotomy?") Perhaps I should have shown more stress on the word: "supposed". Let me put it otherwise: Why should I be obliged to supply you with hope? That is not my responsibility. You should not expect to find hope when you first confront a truth. You should be troubled by it: Jesus said, 1 "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. 2 When they find, they will be disturbed. 3 When they are disturbed, they will marvel, 4 and will rule over all." Logion 2, Gospel of Thomas No one can supply hope to another. You can be the reason, you can become the catalyst for someone else to "build hope" out of their own emotional, intellectual and spiritual resources. But you cannot provide hope to another. So, I'm sorry, but I can't give it to you. I am not sure that I can even begin to explain to you (or to anyone) how it is that knowing that good and evil are inside of us all, that there is no safe place where one can hide from evil, why knowing this doesn't bother me...but it doesn't. What I know is that each of us has to "construct his own bravery", each of us has to "create his own hopeful vision", in the face of "whatever truths" he encounter in life.