Pete

First part, Can you inform me of a part of the bible that says the prayers of a believer can save a none believer? Second part, I see the same issue as Rev Rainbow did. Instead of answering the question straight on, one has taken it to a new question of your own chosing. Please lets stick with the scenerio that he had not called out to God. I answered your question without deviation.

Most conservatives will argue that the bible is the word of God. I am not saying that fundamentalist/conservatives cannot understand the terrible situation of Ken and would not pray also. True, we do not know if he did call out to God, but lets keep the scenario as I described. as I did not alter Coolhand's question. I also did not say that conservatives do not have the right to exist. Yet, I also do not get many conservatives rushing in at the moment to tell me that the God of their bible would forgive Ken should he never have called on God. As for your quote from Galatians, I do not see its relevance here. I do not say that conservatives are not Christians, even if I do not follow many of their arguments. I respect you Rev Rainbow but changing the scenario in order to answer my question is not answering the question (IMO). It is answering a different one. Labels exist, even if I or you do not like it. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090515113633AAN7V0t

Exactly. I prayed too and believe God and Jesus are more merciful than the bible shows God to be. I wish I could stop things like this and it happening to people, but for many in this world, Hell is now (IMO). It is heart wrenching. I hope people will understand why I personally can accept a liberal position, but I would struggle with a more conservative one. NB// I am talking form a personal position here and not from a one that is saying conservatives should have no right to exist.

Back to the topic of Liberal Christianity and a question in return. The story and person is fictional but the examples I give are sadly not unusual. Ken's mother was an addict and had to give up looking after him from a very young age (5yrs). He was cared for in a home where he was reported to have been sexually abused many times. He ran away and lived on the streets as soon after his entry in to his teens and took to taking Heroin, and crack. His friends on the street gradually died from various drug problems they had until he was alone and friendless. He was very street wise and knew how to pull of a scam and was a petty thief, which made him unpopular and also got him in prison at times. Trusting other people was a big issue for him and so he always kept them at an emotional distance. Life was what ever he could get and it mattered little who it came from. In his late teens he believed he was going to die as all his friends had done. He suffered much emotionally trauma but was difficult to help, because he was so independently minded and would not allow other people into his life. One night, he took an overdose. He possibly wanted to be found and rescued but unfortunately those he knew were late that night. We have no record of Ken ever believing in a God or even talking about a faith. His carer prayed for him and asked God to have mercy on Ken. As it is likely Ken did not call on Jesus' did she pray in vain and does Ken remain condemned by God as he had in this life?

I know I did not say about praying and offering to pray with them (and there is no harm offering (IMO), but I gave a generalised answer. Just because someone turns up at a church does not always mean they have faith or even want to know. Churches do seem to have an open door where many other places do not. I knew a dying man who asked to see a priest. When the priest arrived and he had checked out he was a priest, he swore and cursed at him and eventually (impolitely) told him to go. It seems all he wanted to do was get his own back on the priests he had experienced in the past. He died shortly after. Like I say one cannot take anything for granted. I felt sorry for both the dying man who had such experiences in his life and also the priest who probably would not of approved of what had gone on. Life is anything but easy (IMO).

I am not sure how and why you asked that question. Did I say life and what it throws at people is easy. Did I or anyone else say a ministers job was easy? It does seem to be picked out of the air, but lets play along. The first thing you do is listen, using all the active listening skills you have. Treat them with warmth, genuineness and empathy. Offer help to solve any issues. Do not preach at them, listen to what they have to say and only give your view if they want it. You can ask if they want it. If they are still set on doing themselves in and wanting to leave then, get a professional in (police preferably as they are good at getting the ball rolling with other professionals and are more likely to keep them safe until they come). Being able to build a relationship with them, showing you care, and listen, is a must. I am giving it brief here and there is a lot of differing directions it could go. I do not know what formal training you have with someone threatening suicide. I have 38 years working in mental health and formal qualifications in counselling and therapy and have been in the situation many times over the years. Even I have to say that sometimes things do not work for the best (although mostly they have). You just have to try.

Like sleep and breathing? No, I am not saying anything is any the less for being a belief. Heck! most what we have today has been based on someone somewhere, having a belief. Beliefs are important. They can make a person and they can also destroy a person. It is the air of life. Hence, Fawzo's breath in, breath out.

Yep! and all that based on a belief.

I know Phil Ochs was not talking about religion when he sang this but I feel many Liberals will sympathise with its sentiments :- Phil Ochs, I'm Going to Say It Now Lyrics Oh I am just a student, sir, and only want to learn But it's hard to read through the risin' smoke of the books that you like to burn So I'd like to make a promise and I'd like to make a vow That when I've got something to say, sir, I'm gonna say it now

I think this is a problem. Liberals are not usually so definite about what is truth except to say it starts with a journey of discovery. I feel one of the major problems we probably were once conservative in what we believed and have had the ground pulled from under us. When I say we find it hard to trust the church, I do not do so as an attack, but to describe the revelation of something that is a painful process. For example:- The church continues to say something is so and you feel it is a lie. This then leaves one feeling alienated and one is either left with the choice of giving in and dismissing what they believe or continue to pursue an original understanding, even if it does isolate them. Most of the problems are because the church has had about 2,000 years head start on covering its tracks and most liberals are just tentatively starting out on their journey. Most liberals would then ask themselves, is staying in a church more important than trying to get at a truth. People's journeys have taken them to differing places and differing discoveries but what none of us can say 'is this a truth' and being as we cannot be all authoritative on what knowledge is out there we are more than likely to suspend judgement of each other. One thing that most of us do believe is that God is at work throughout the world and affecting people. This is because we believe we find that of God no matter where we look with regard to many world religions. I am sorry that many of us cannot be so definite about what we believe in the same way as those who believe the bible is inerrant. Hey! no one says it is easy and the church has been at its activities for a long time.

One of the problems with Jesus in the Vedas is that many scholars think they were doctored by early evangelical missionaries in the 18oo's http://www.gosai.com...-the-vedas.html

Oh Hermano, I understand what you mean as I often found that liberals of each faith are able to see God at work in the other. Your welcome here no matter what you would call yourself. As I said in an earlier post I really do not think God minds what you call God. Thanks for the post.

Hi Nestingwave. Thanks for your post but I do not have to forgive my parents and as you rightly say, they were a product of their personal journey as I am mine. I told the story not to blame my parents or gain sympathy but speak about how a ministry of love can if not checked, can have the opposite affect. If we hang onto every word of something being so correct then it sometimes prevents one from seeing the reality of something else. I have heard from people who speak about heretics deserving their fate and how many deserve to suffer for ever because they contradicted a particular doctrine. The point I was attempting to make is that sometimes a person can be so right according to a dogma, they are wrong or end up achieving something that they thought they had hope to avoid or ministered against. I call myself a Liberal, not in a sense of politics but in the sense of where I mainly stand in the theological spectrum. See:- "What is a Liberal Christian? Sometimes liberals are thought to be Christians who have backslidden; people who don't have enough faith, or are too "in the world." Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. Liberal Christians are committed believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who have thoroughly studied the scriptures and traditions of the Church, and have examined their faith in the light of reason and experience. They believe in: Diversity Perhaps the defining characteristic of liberal Christians is that they are comfortable with ambiguity and diversity. They realize that life is a complex spiritual journey, and that each person on that journey is confronted with unexpected revelations and unique experiences. Liberal Christians therefore welcome a variety of approaches to understanding God, and are open to new ways of talking about the divine. Religious questions are seen as complex, and answers only tentative. Certain that "now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12), liberals are cautious about making dogmatic statements or claiming to have a monopoly on the truth. They see the search for truth as an ongoing task, rather than one that has already been completed. A Non-Literal View of Scripture Conservative Christians are often content to answer religious questions by appealing to the absolute authority of Scripture. Liberal Christians, on the other hand, find such an approach to be flawed. Many see the Bible as a witness to revelation, or generally inspired, rather than completely inspired in all its parts. Just as Jesus was fully human and wholey divine, so one must also see the Bible as a product of both human and divine influences. Indeed, liberal Christians are quick to point out that the falleness and imperfection of its human authors gives the Bible an imperfect quality and authority. Liberals view Scripture through a critical lens, and are not afraid to challenge traditional assumptions and interpretations. They rely heavily on higher criticism of the Bible, which looks into the origin and composition of the biblical texts, revealing a great deal about the human aspect of Scripture. Modern philosophical, biological, and cosmological theories that are well supported by evidence, and reflect the true nature of the world around us, can also shape the way liberals interpret Scripture. Traditional Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Atonement, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the Resurrection, are sometimes given new interpretations by liberals. Perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are each given equal footing in determining Christian faith. An Intimate, Personal View of God Imminent and personal images of God in Scripture are attractive to liberals. For some this takes on the form of a belief in panentheism (Everything-in-God-ism). Liberals also see little distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and therefore do not look for "miracles" to confirm the existence of God. Instead, they feel that faith in God allows one to see the Spirit moving in the everyday stuff of life. Universal Salvation The concept of personal salvation is not typically stressed by liberal Christians. Accordingly, traditional images of heaven, hell, and the End Times are not given much weight in their theologies. When salvation is discussed, liberals are more apt to stress its "this worldly" aspects, and appeal to a universalist interpretation of Scripture when confronted with questions of eternal punishment and rewards. For many liberal Christians, social justice is a central concern, and the transformation of society, rather than that of the individual, is more typically stressed. Equality for racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and the economically disadvantaged is seen as an essential part of the Gospel message. A concern for the environment, and other typically liberal social issues, also find a great deal of support among liberal Christians. Fellowship & Community Liberals tend to stress the centrality of community in the Christian experience. They can be found in almost all churches (from Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist), but tend to be in greater numbers in the mainline Protestant denominations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Disciples of Christ; Episcopal Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Presbyterian Church, USA; United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. The Unitarian Universalist Association and the Metropolitan Community Churches are even more liberally minded. .... I find many of the liberal Christian views on God, salvation, women, homosexuality, Scripture, and Creation to be convincing. When I was an evangelical Christian, I often felt the need to wash over historical and scientific evidence with "faith" because the world around me did not mesh with my preconceived notions about Scripture. I had questions about Evolution, the Bible, other religions, etc., but those questions were always met with criticism or simplistic answers by my fellow evangelical believers. As a liberal Christian, I don't feel like I have to be intellectually dishonest to myself any more. I can incorporate what I know about science, history, and theology into my world-view without conflict. In other words, liberal Christianity just makes more sense! It is ultimately the reason why I became one." from:- http://jmm.aaa.net.a...icles/13746.htm A conservative/fundamentalist on the other hand are described (for the most, however, there is variation in both conservatives and liberals) :- http://en.wikipedia....st_Christianity An example of a situation that often highlights our differences in the ULC forum has been when discussing whether God loves Gay people and would bless their relations. Most liberals would whole heartily say yes because it is within the spirit of love and most conservatives would say no because it contradicts the bible. Believe me, topics like this have been very explosive on this and other forums. Yet. saying that I note Coolhand's comment of wishing we could take the best of each other and my view is that one needs to overlook some our differences and to value them (even if we disagree) before this can occur, as neither side is likely to give much on what they feel is important. Hey! it is a big and varied world.

I think Revelations was written for a people suffering from a one world government (Rome) and ruled by a beast (Caesar) and hopeful of the coming of Christ again within their lifetime. I am not sure it is talking about a future world state. I know that would seem to some that maybe either the bible got it wrong or I am getting it wrong and there is another world government that will be ruled by another tyrant. However, judging by the last 2,000 years we have been threatened by many tyrants and the church has been one of them (IMO). I personally believe either we learn from the past or we will make misery for the future. Excepting an unexpected ecological disaster, the future is in our hands. Either that is tolerance and love by all or more of the same for the next 2,000 years (if we last that long?).

I feel I need to talk a little about my journey as Rev Rainbow and Nestingwave have done so. I do not want to go into every details, except to say it has been a life of some very painful knocks. I was brought up by a religious family. They were very strict (when I say very I mean very) in their upbringing. Something, that I am both grateful for and also regret. Grateful for the self discipline and the fact that I have not fallen into some of the perils this world has (crime etc), but regretful for not being able to see the Spirituality of those who did not think as we were brought up to. I was strongly encouraged not to mix with those who did not go to church. They were sinners and people of low morals or as I was led to believe then. I will not go into how strict things were except to say that when I left home, I was just about fearful of most people and situations. They did not think as I did and I feared going astray but at the same time feared being very lonely. I gradually made friends with people and started to release that fear of others and differing beliefs (although in my heart I remained judgemental of them at first). In finding their humanity, I felt challenged. I started to feel anger because of the control that I had been brought up with had far from making me more able to cope with life, had brought me to feel disabled socially and for many situations in life. I guess in order to grow among other people I needed to change. The anger led me to eventually reject the faith of my upbringing and I became an atheist and studied dialectical materialism in preference to religion. It was later in life that I began to feel that something was missing from my life and slowly I began to study more spiritual works and personal development. I then began to pick up some of my original faith and started going to church again. It is true, that I that I began again to believe that every word of the bible was true and I could take it for fact. On reading again God's judgement plan, I began to think of everyone who did not see things as I did. They were good people who were struggling with this life too. They attempted to make sense of things of life just as I had done but came to differing conclusions. I gradually began to recognise that what I believed was not loving at all. It was judgemental, condemning and lacked any sort of compassion. How could a loving God condemn these loving people I had met to eternal hell. How could a God who can see into the hearts of people not notice how hard it is for many people in this world and not notice that the efforts to make sense in this world was a call for something more. Some loving people I know are atheists, agnostics and also from other faiths. How could a loving God condemn these people who have struggled with a world that is so full of suffering and it is their love and humanity that appear to be the world's saving grace (IMO). I also began to read of some of the things the church had done over the years and became aware that not all things good came from the church or any other religion or none faith. It came from compassion and recognition of the humanity of others. It did not come from dogma or fancy argument. It came via people being able to love one another. I do not reject my faith in God or in Jesus but I began to realise that Jesus' life was made out of a struggle to make sense of things and to bring love into a world that needed to stop hating each other. What he said made sense to the mindset of the time. I began to recognise that God was not a force for dogma but for love. Dogma was just mankind's understanding and not that of God's. People who wrote the bible tried in their mindset to make sense of things for their time period, just as I believe we do today. Some of the verses in the bible were very loving. I love the declaration of God being love and commanding others to love and that Jesus' argued those without sin throw the first stone. I began to then recognise that in order to love that one often has to look beyond a person's beliefs and see who they truly are. Not evil, misguided, or fallen but making sense in a world that is in a mess but also could produce many loving things. How could a God condemn all on the basis of just one dogma. I then came to the conclusion that love it or hate it, I was a liberal and I could not go back. For me, either God is loving and understanding or God is not, and if not then God is not worth the worshiping (IMO). I believe God is loving and the source of love.

I believe that the Christianity that the disciples held was varied and this variation spread. It was not until Rome came along and said that they knew the only thing to believe that Christianity became much more narrow (IMO). A person who believes the bible is in my perception as much a Christian as one who doubts its contents but learns from its lessons. The reason why we have so much conflict is not generally over whether someone is a Christian but over the lessons they feel they have learned. Hence, we have problems agreeing on topics like gay relations. Yet, this conflict is in my view a healthy thing. Progress does get made (even if it is slow at times). If the bible was followed as it is written and women still had to remain silent and listen only to men then we would be at a loss of some very profoundly women ministers. Few conservative preachers today would say that women may only preach to women only. Much progress that has been made over the years has been made by someone who says "hey, I do not see it that way". The trouble has been many were killed and then called martyrs later. Although I feel conservative and liberal Christians are often polarised in debate, I also feel they often need each other to make progress and further learning. The issue I feel that is important is how to make progress and learn from each other without making more martyrs and to show that love that is supposed to be central to Jesus' message. Can we see from a more inclusive perspective, that does not say they are not like us and therefore they should be ignored and can we grow together and value each other without always agreeing? A difficult question that I struggle with at times, but one that I feel needs asking. Some liberal sites :- http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13746.htm http://www.suite101.com/course.cfm/18861/overview/34858

It has not occurred to my knowledge but I would not be surprised should it occure. Each person may see things differently but in the experience it still feels like a unity. Hi Dan, A question. Is the story of the good Samaritan profound because it is a true event or that it has meaning? Similarly, does everyone who reads the bible, do it because every word is true of because it has meaning for them? I am not asking for an answer here but just pointing out how different some may see things. Thanks Nestingwave and Rev Rainbow. I enjoyed the reading.

Thanks Fawzo, that works for me too. Jesus was Jesus because God is God. I recall the experience of sitting in a Quaker meetings. It is held in silence. Some are praying, some meditating, and some just in silence. The only time a person speaks (and that is usually just once in a meeting) is when they feel the Spirit moves them to do so. Many wonderful things are said and there is an incredible sense of peace felt by everyone. A waiting expectantly on God's intervention into the meeting and into the hearts of those present. It reminds me of the upper room in Acts where Jesus' followers wait expectantly on the Spirit. We come away feeling as one and touched by the same influence that we believe that spoke to Jesus and his disciples. The remarkable thing is that although the members of the meeting come from many faiths and non-faiths alike, we each have shared the communion with the same Spirit and each persons beliefs seem to matter very little and insignificant. There is just the influence of the Spirit within. Something I have never experienced eslewhere.

Cool, if you want to email me then please feel free. Dan, I find it hard to discuss with you as I believe you have a strong idea of how you think things should be and I feel I do not fit in there. The world as I see it is full of variance and diversity and yet, do you believe, God can speak to all according to the language of their hearts? I do.

I have recognised you as a Christian. However, I do not need validation from anyone as to whether I have a faith or not. That is between myself and God. I also suspect that is how you see things. All I really asked is do you see myself as a Christian but with differing views (something I view of you) or someone with a faith aligned to Christianity but not quite making it (so to speak). I ask this only because I have never met many conservatives that tolerate divergence on the use of scripture (Dan comment for instance). I also recall you saying that I had ruined a friendship because I had diversified from the conservative view. I said to you that my friendship did not depend on another person sharing my faith (and that still stands). Also I do not feel my criticism was that buried with regard to Dan's attempt to chastise me for using the bible and not seeing things in his way. Sadly that is the way I usually experience conservatives. Maybe, my post appears in differing directions but that is my attempt to explain things.

I think the problem that triggers off a debate on what I do not believe, usually starts with comments such as Dan's. I could of go off on a debate as why I do not feel that those who believe the bible is inerrant, should have the only take on the bible, but please note, I did not run into a long spiel about it this time or attack his faith. I think the main thing in which we differ is how we see the bible. I do not see it as a book full of definite statements or events. I see it as historical take on people who had faith in God who have gone before. It may or may not be accurate in what it says (IMO) but if I feel inspired by things the writers have said, did, or stories they told then I feel I can learn from them, but where I would differ is - you are not going to get a table of beliefs or a defined creed out of me. I know this is something that conservatives would find frustrating as they may or may not have something they can fully get a handle on. I see my faith as a journey rather than a state of arrival at a full sense of defined beliefs or statements. This is something most conservatives would struggle to understand. For a conservatives, the main question is are you saved or not. This is difficult to answer from a liberal perspective because we often believe that much of this talk is about controlling people (either from Paul doing so or by the church). The presumption is if one does not declare this or that belief then they are not saved and therefore outside of the body of Christ. This sort of talk can be found in the conservative talk of most major faiths. So, talking to me about a contradictory or challenging bible verse, does not do a lot for me. I believe in God and that God communicates to people. I believe God can be found in everyone. God is beyond our defining and is interpreted in many human ways. I believe God is loving but in a Spiritual way. The Spiritual is where I believe we return. I am aware of the debating statement, about this life, that if God is all powerful and sees suffering but does little then God is not good. If God is all good and created all, then how come suffering exists. I am excited by the fact the Golden rule exists within each faith and not just Judaism and Christianity. For me it appears as evidence that the hand of God is present within all. I believe God can be heard by those who listen and seek God. I also believe my journey may lead me to other findings and may challenge that which I believe now. I believe that being open to discover is the mark of a true seeker. Once someone presumes they know then that is where they stop listening and start telling people what they should or should not believe according to their model of the world and this life. Then I usually grow weary.

Are you saying only conservatives/fundamentalists should use and quote the bible? Is it wrong for me be inspired by parts of it without totally taking everything as a given? Do you think I should have some sort of licence before using the bible?

Do I feel superior to someone who believes the bible is inerrant? Strangely as it may appear otherwise Cool, I do not. I just do not accept that position for myself. The issue I have with those who see the bible as inerrant is that sometimes it can appear pretty harsh to some people. The times, I usually debate strongly is not when someone talks about their faith in the bible but when it seems like groups such as gay people are being attacked or I feel other Christianities are being described as invalid. I also believe there is a meeting place where many faiths meet. I do not think God cares whether he is called God, Goddess, Allah, Elohim, Brahma, Krishna , Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or the source of love in this world. I think God can be found in many places and that is something some with a biblical perspective often cannot see or agree with. I think God has been active in many places that we have not found possible and people have interpreted God in the best way they could. The biblical is inerrant way is just one of them (IMO). The usual response I would get to that is "one cannot be saved under any other name". The issue I have with that is I believe the name is God (a name many would have a differing name for). I also believe the church has done its best to fabricate much that I do not believe was in there in the time of Jesus and his disciples. I also believe the church has done some terrible things using the name of Jesus (the persecution of Jews, the inquisition and the burning of witches and killing of what they called heretics to name but a few). I do not believe Jesus would have supported any of this. I also note that according to the bible Jesus never said he would send some text that would lead us, he did say he would send a comforter (I believe that to be the Holy Spirit and not the Bible). Still, I do accept the position in where we can agree to differ (as long as I do not get a hell and damnation speech). If all this does not put you off friendship then I am still an open door and always have been.

I did wonder what the term "absolutely" actually meant when I am still having my friendship rejected because of what I believe. Do you remember how I have you on my list of friends but I am no longer listed on yours and have not been so for a long time. However, I did say in my original post here that "We do not say that conservatives are not Christians, even though some say that of us". I am a Liberal whose group does not say Conservatives are not Christians. Luckily it is faith that is said to matter and not being totally identical in doctrine.

Actually Cool, what led me to write was not the faith of conservatives but an article that declared Liberals were not Christian. It is at :- http://www.gotquestions.org/liberal-Christian-theology.html I felt I should reply (because I am sure the site named would not let me do it directly) and talk about the depth of faith that is held by non- conservatives. We may not see things the same way but I am not here to say your faith is not valid. All I am saying is my faith is valid also.