Pete

It is one thing to encourage, it is another thing to kill someone. Killing is not encouragement. It is a final act of removing the life from someone. Killing by stoning a person or setting fire to them until dead is not compassionate, loving or encouragement (IMO). Do I think those who follow witchcraft, are gay or commit adultery should die? I have to say no. Where would be the humanity, compassion or understanding in doing that? Perhaps there should not be organizations like relate or marriage counseling. Maybe they should just be killed instead so we can feel happy about following the wording in a OT book. What do you think? Which do you think is the mostly Godly thing to do? First we are told by God thou shalt not kill. Then we are told to kill and then we are told we should love and forgive. Do you think God is having difficulty making up his mind here?

I would say that killing rebellious children, burning witches, killing adulterers, stoning gay people and killing those who choose a differing path, is evil. It is not a balance, it is just tyranny in my opinion.

I was not going to answer you because I believe Tsukino Rei has answered you beautifully (IMO). However, we keep coming back to this perception that liberals cannot believe in Jesus and also believe that the bible is not inerrant. I mentioned to you before, that I look for the lessons in the bible rather than declaring it all as fact. If this looks to you as if I am picking and choosing what I want from the bible then so be it, because there are many things in the bible I disagree with and think that they are not inspired, loving, or God given. I do not believe that God told us to love and that God told us he is love and then at the same time told us in the OT that we should kill those who are rebellious to their parents, practice witchcraft, find another religion, or for that matter kill those who commit adultery. I see a glaring contradiction here but I am sure you will continue to say you do not see it. Hey ho! my friend, that is the way of things.

Sure. Freewill is good. Each Liberal holds differing views. Even on this forum you will find liberal Christians with a wide spread of opinions. Even though Spong is on most of the UTube vides, I have to say there are things I agree with and things I do not, but that is what occurs when you take away dogma and allow people to make up their own mind.. As for blaming the rich etc etc, I am more a believer that if you believe in love, then you start with your own actions and not that of others. If a person feels the need to kill abortionists or others for not agreeing with them then I believe one has missed the point. However, that is my view. It would be interesting to hear from others too.

I like this too. It reminds me of the pain I was in when I saw all those people getting killed in the tsunami and I remember, someone saying here that they were being judged for not being Christian.

I could say that they deny your fundamental tenants of Christianity but they do not deny mine. Christ means anointed one (in other words I recognize him as being from God), and I do not personally deny that. Secondly, I believe Jesus died trying to get out a message of peace and in that sense he did die for all. However, as Spong said, if your saying that God gave us a set of laws (many of which I find despicable and I believe is a slander against God's love) which condemned everyone, saved none, and then he insisted in painfully killing his own Son as the only way to appease his own anger for people not keeping those laws, then I struggle with everything your saying and we do not agree on what it is to be a Christian.. Yet, whats new, you strongly base your faith in a book and I base mine in the spirit of love that Jesus represented, because I believe that spirit to be the true word of God. I guess we will not come to the same conclusions over this because we all start with a differing position.

Thought I would offer a few links of the many that are on the topic of Liberal Christianity with the hope that people can more clearly see how Liberal Christianity differs from Conservative. It is not the belief in two Gods as commented on another topic. It is the constant search for that which is seen as the love of God and to review ancient dogmas which I believe have become obsolete with the advancement of human thought. I know some are long but I hope people find them useful as I did. Christianity in the 21st Century (the religious right and tribal religion) Liberal Christianity Hell Theism Paul and Gay love Comment about atheism by an atheist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzEdDivxQj4&feature=related

There are studies that say it helps with a persons self esteem but none that, I know of, that says it actually can demonstrably heal someone physically. The court is also out on the issue of pray and ceremony. There are varying studies, some for and some against, and it just suggests that there is no real conclusive evidence to support either position. That said, I believe its up to whatever each individual wants to believe. I have to say I like it when people send me energies, well wishes and prayers, whether or not the research backs it up. I said earlier I did not want to debate it. I hold to my position until the credible research does appear. There is little use debating it (IMO). Whatever the research, I believe some find it helpful and it gives them hope in their lives and I am not going to knock that. Belief is important.

I recognise that touch is important to human beings. If you do not give stimulus to a new born baby it will die even if it got all other care. Everyone likes to feel loved and to be able to get undivided attention from someone can be rewarding to the esteem and I guess touch plays a part there. However, I have not seen any credible research that can justify that there is some sort of energy being passed between the healer and the patient when they are being touched. There are also some anecdotal articles where people have praised the power of touch in their lives, but again I know of no credible research from any reputable scientific body that says such "healing sessions" are more successful than the given norm (or experimental control). I therefore take the position of not saying it does not work but do say I know of no evidence that it does. Each to their own..

I do not really want to go back to this debate. I think we know how we both think on that one.

I also believe he did not answer Fawzo's statement. It was a smoke screen reply of judgments and threats (IMO). If God is Omnipotent and knows all then why allow such suffering in this world. If God is powerful enough to stop such suffering but chooses not to, then how can God be described as good and loving. If God knows the outcome of all that he is supposed to have created, then why judge us. God is supposed to have created us knowing we would fail. If God chooses not to see the outcome, then God has limitations (whether or not God made them) and is therefore not Omnipotent. There are so many differing ways of asking these questions about the biblical concept of God and they are worth while questions (IMO). To blame Fawzo for asking them and calling him soulless and earthly, is a sign of disrespect (IMO) and I believe reflects an inability to give a more considerate and appropriate reply. Even the bible says in Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". It is fine to say one does not agree with something that is said or have a differing opinion but few here would consider it respectful to back that up with overt or covert threats and name calling.

First you say you do not want to argue, but I do not understand what you refer too. . Then you tell me you do not have all the answers but you can promise me the answer is there. How, I do not not know. Thirdly you sense I have not read the bible. I possess over thirty differing version of the bible and yes, I have read the bible from cover to cover. So I guess your senses are not so tuned in.

Sorry Carpenter but that is just not true. Some maybe do and some maybe do not, but the Liberal position is not that there are many Gods but that we cannot fully explain God. God maybe God, Gods, or something else we are not aware of and we each see God according to our individual perception (a bit like the three blind men and the elephant). I personally only believe in one God but I can see the position of others who see things differently because we just do not know fully. The argument that if God is omnipotent and omnipresent and sees the cruelties of this world and does nothing then can God be loving? If God cannot stop the cruelties of this life then how can God be omnipotent or omnipresent.. I personally prefer to think of God as the fountain of the spiritual things in life, but that is only my view and in somethings we just do not have easy answer to it. Likewise some liberals believe in reincarnation and many lives towards spiritual growth and some do not. I personally do not have a position on this as just do not know enough to say. Being a liberal is the freedom to ask questions and to doubt and come up with things that appear to make sense to ourselves, rather than having a dogma thrust down one throat until they feel they say nothing more than just keep on repeating it. It is an acceptance that growth and faith is a growing revelation rather than one that just took place 2000yrs ago.

There is nothing to understand and it is good to hear from you. There was no hostile feeling when the ULC east forum went down and I miss people there. I am pleased with the news that the congregation is growing. Sorry I did not respond quickly. I guess I got caught up in the theme of this forum. I will write.

Does the account of Jesus have to be fully accurate for the lessons we learn from the stories of Jesus to mean something to someone. You seem to me to be very concrete as to my understanding of the bible. For someone to reject that it is fully accurate is not the same as saying it has no worth. I enjoy reading the bible but that does not mean it is the only truth for me. Tsukino Rei, I loved your post. Thank you.

The circular argument that causes the issue (IMO) is the one that says the bible is the word of God and we should know that because the bible says it. There are so many books that declare they are the word of God, but does that make it so? I am sure that you would not expect me to agree with all the other books that say they are the word of God and only want me to agree with the bible, but in essence you have no more going for you than they have (IMO). Does one have to believe that the bible is an accurate account to learn the lessons of it? I would say no but I guess you would say yes. Hence the debate keeps spinning. To accuse me by saying I have no belief because of my position is for me an error. I could accuse you that without the book you have no basis for a faith in God, but I do not. I believe you would like me to say I have no faith because it would allow you to go back to saying that a fundamentalist position is the only one that counts. Sorry Dan, but for me to say that would be a lie and something I guess you would not want me to do so.

As long as you keep seeing the bible as everything then I guess it will for you Dan.

I do not want to get in to a personal dispute here. Christianity for me is not whether a person is a believer of every word of the Bible but whether one believes in the same Spirit that was and is in Jesus. It is unfortunate, for me that many churches do not teach this distinction. To chastise me by quoting from a book that professes a perfect law as being given by God and advocates murder of ones fellow human beings is beyond me. I mean how does it express the will of God when one minute it is saying God drowned everyone but Noah and those close and at another point, saying God died that all can be saved. To say we should love and that God is love and then to say anyone who does not follow what you believe is damned to hell, is beyond me. Confused, I guess I am. That is why I am a liberal.

Oh! RabbiO.

I think Nestingwaves post is very pertinent. We each make a mental map of how we believe the world is and construct processes as to how best to make sense of it. Much of this is based upon our own experiences and our own personal journeys. These processes are a help for the main but it has to be recognized that the sense we make in our heads is the sense we make of things and not the actual world that exists outside of ourselves. The sense we make of things can change, even when the world does not do so at the same rate. Yet, many times we only re-address the thought processes we have when we hit a crisis or a big change in our circumstances that challenges us. I believe these events are important as I think without controversy and a regular challenge to our thought process there is little personal growth, either spiritually or cognitively. The fact that not all Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and in every belief and none belief there is divergence is a positive thing, because without such divergence there is also no growth. I mean would we keep coming to the ULC if everyone was agreeing with everyone to the point where all had been said by some one else? There is only so many times one can say I agree, before it loses its novelty. The fact that we may argue the point does not mean I do not think all in the ULC are wonderful people and I am not grateful to everyone. We ask the questions and think the thoughts where many other churches and religious bodies fear to tread (IMO) and grow accordingly.

It is a journey. No one is perfect in this life and I have to struggle over things too. I believe love is the power of the spirit and to seek its use is to live in the spirit. As 1 John 4:16 puts it " 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him." For me, it is foolish for me to say this is something I always achieve but I do respect love and believe it is a worthy goal to aim for. With God as a source of love, I believe we will succeed when we are wholly with God (IMO). I do not believe in the notion that saints lived lives without error. They were human and also given to the personal struggles of this life. I believe God understands that and loves us just the same. If one is love, as God is, what else can one do .

Sorry Hex but we do not get all the US news in the UK and so I am not sure of the circumstances of your comment. I could say the absence of the light of one makes it that much darker for us all but I really do not know if it is relevant, only to say that if you are saying this then there must be more too it.

Although grapha does refer to writing in the process given, I have to agree with you. Sometimes life can be more spiritually moving than all scripture put together (IMO).

I believe scripture is an educational tool. I feel the real voice of God is in the heart and not in any given scripture. Scripture or anything else only speaks when it means something to the heart of a person. It is a tool to understanding and not an end in itself. No one I know is going to feel close to God just because they are reading a book. That only occurs when one allows ones prayers, relationship with God, readings, ministry, and love to change and guide one. That is where the real scripture lies, not in any text, no matter how profound (IMO).

2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” This verse is often used by some to try to prove that the Bible is the God given word and it is therefore infallible. There is much debate as to whether Paul wrote this letter. Paul was said to be executed in 62AD and the letter was written in 67AD. This has led to many arguments as to when Paul was killed and some have tried to extend Paul’s life to accommodate this issue. There is also much debate as to the style of the letter being different from other written material of Paul’s. This has led many theologians to call - 2 Timothy a “Pastoral letter” (i.e. written by some unknown person in early Christianity, but not Paul). ‘1 Timothy’ and ‘Titus’ are also considered Pastoral letters. Some early Christians (Syria Orthodox for example) refused to accept the 2 Timothy as genuine and thought it a forgery. So let us now consider the verse in relation to the Bible. The Old Testament was agreed to be scripture by the Jews in 90AD at the Council of Jamnia and the New Testament was declared scripture by the Eight Council (at Carthage) in 397AD. Therefore, 2 Timothy, being written in 67AD preceded any recognition of the Bible (OT & NT) as scripture. This is not to say that many writings were not treated as scripture even if they were not fully recognized as such. The verse is believed to refer to the importance of scriptural writings in educating of new Christians. It is not meant to mean that the Bible or Scripture is somehow infallible and God spoken (IMO). The term used does not even mean “scriptural writings” (Grammata) but uses the word “Grapha” (meaning the process of describing and the grasping of moral or metaphysical truths). In other words it can be understood that all seeking of God and finding truths is God breathed. The Bible can be used to do this and indeed is important to all Christians, but in no way is the verse saying that the Bible is an exclusive way to do this. In this understanding, the verse makes sense to me, given some of the terrible things spoken of in some passages of the Bible. The Bible does have lessons that I feel are important but it also shows some of the very human mistakes that we can make in our understanding too.