Pete

Liberal Christianity There is much comment as to what is a Liberal Christian or indeed does such a thing exist. Some say we are not Christian. I cannot speak for all Liberals, so I hope people will understand that I speak from a person viewpoint. Much of the criticism that is laid against the liberal school of thought is that the concept is not biblical. The answer, I give to that is that is, being not biblical is the whole point, as liberals describe the bible as a collection of documents from differing recourses, written by man, choreographed to fit some of the Old Testament writings, and not the actual infallible words of God. Conservatives, on the hand, argue strongly that the Bible is the actual inerrant word of God. Liberals and Conservatives are therefore polarised at differing ends of the spectrum that is Christian theology. Liberals do not argue that the bible is not inspiring but argue it is the fallible words of inspired men writing about their experience of Judeo-Christianity. Liberals may quote the bible but only where it has meaning to the topic being discussed but do not use it as the ultimate authority from which no argument can be placed. Liberals usually recognise that the gospels were written after Jesus' death and by people who never actually met Jesus. The nearest writer to the time of Jesus was Paul but I also recognise that Paul did not see eye to eye with those of the disciples in Jerusalem who actually met Jesus (Gal 1&2). Conservatives argue that "2 Timothy 3:16" gives authority to the bible being true. This has led many atheists to recognise the circular argument they receive when talking to conservatives. "How do you know the bible is inerrant?" "Well! Because the bible says it is." "But how do you know this is so?" " Well! Because the bible says it is", and so the argument goes on and on with no further progress. Liberals see Conservative Christianity has having become a faith about a book and not about the force of inspiration that inspired Jesus and the disciples. This is seen as a mistake, as liberals recognise that Gospels did not exist at the time of Jesus or his disciples, but were steadily written over a two hundred year period after the death of Jesus. The Gospels were not seen as holy scripts by the church until 400yrs later when they were canonised. The earliest gospel of Mark (which is seen as a building block for the synoptic gospels of Matthew and Luke) did not even declare that Jesus arose from the cross. The gospel ended when the tomb was found to be empty and thus leaving a mystery rather than a revelation of fact. The resurrection was added later. Liberals usually believe in the word of God portrayed in the giving of love and in social initiatives. They recognised that God is said to have spoken through the hearts of mankind long before Matthew, Mark, Luke and John existed and even before Abraham and Isaac and see Christianity at a progressive revelation and not one just stuck in the words written 2000 years ago or more. Jesus is seen as being inspired by God and yet, even he did not follow the OT to the letter, which led to conflict with the religious leaders of the time. Jesus is felt to be not inspired blindly and only by writings of his time but by their practical applications and how they could be interpreted in relation to the love of God. For liberals, one of the main sayings that Jesus is supposed to have said is about loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself. (Matthew 22:36-40 (Niv) 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a]38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.") The question this saying brings up for me, is the bible about loving ones neighbour as oneself? Does the bibles law and prophets truly support this notion? Sure, these verses can be found in the OT and the New Testament writings alike but the question I ask does the bible live up to this quote? (For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your Neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14 RSV), If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture,"You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well. (James 2:8 RSV), Deuteronomy 6:5 "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" and "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD. (Niv).) Let us take the sixth commandment "thou shalt not kill", which seems to me a perfectly good place to build a premise of loving ones neighbour and forgiving one another, but the bible does not leave it there It goes on to say:- Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10) If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11) If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14) If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27) If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9) Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16) The killing of homosexuals is condoned and encouraged in the wonderful laws of Leviticus. (Leviticus 20:13) If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) and so on. It is not hard to find such verses in the Bible but the question for me still stands. Does the Bible preach a consistent message from God, that we should love ones neighbour as oneself? If the Bible is the word of God and God is said not to change, then surely, it is a relevant question of which I am personally led to the answer, No! This does not mean I feel we should throw away all the teachings in the Bible but that we should read with a critical eye on what is important. For me, the question is always, is what I am reading consistent with Jesus' said commandment. For I believe it is in this commandment that Jesus has expressed the love God has for each of us. God is said to be spirit and I believe that Spirit is love. I am not going to pretend that my life always portrays a picture of love but I feel the ideal of Jesus' commandment worth the continued seeking, because it there I feel we see the real Jesus. I may not always have all the answers but I ready to admit that rather than just quoting a lot of biblical quotes and leaving people feel like a sinner because they have not understood. I call myself a Christian because I believe, I believe, in that same Spirit that inspired Jesus' to question and challenge things and to work for that love that he is said to and to work for the same commandment he is said to have saw as important. Liberals in my opinion are not Christians who have gone astray or backsliders but genuine deeply faithful seekers of truth. Fallible we maybe, human definitely, but with God's love we remain hopeful. We do not say that conservatives are not Christians, even though some say that of us. We just seek the truth in the Spirit of God rather than text alone. As Paul Tillich said, even if they found the actual bones of Jesus, it would not shake his faith in him. I believe love matters to God more than adherence to any text and as the bible puts it:- ( "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8. "And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." 1 John 4:16).

That is sickening (IMO). It is what we call "religious fascism" in the UK (The insistence of people not to or to have to hold a particular religion). People here are getting sacked for wearing crosses around their necks and offering to pray for people. I just do not understand it. Why cannot a person say they hold or do not hold a faith without fear of persecution. Since when was it an offence for someone to hold an opinion different from another? Would it offend me if someone wore a badge saying "God is dead" or "I am an Atheist" or do most atheists get upset when they see a theist badge or symbol, "no"! It is about freedom of expression and freedom to make sense of this life in what ever way they do. Atheism should be protected as any other viewpoint or faith. I am not saying that atheism is a faith, but I feel it should be treated with the same reverence as a faith (IMO).

I think that is a good point. Most faiths focus on both life and death (IMO). Also I understand Buddhism (a largely atheist faith) and its teachings of karma, also has teachings on life and death, and many do not believe in just the one life. I understand that atheists are often treated badly by some people who seem to think they have no right to exist (IMO), but not by all theists. I guess like the theists, no two atheists are alike.

Thanks Murph

------------------------------------------------------------- Actually Cool, it is. "Quaker faith and Practice" is a book that is supposed to help people understand the experiences of some quaker members. It is not scripture or a set of rules or a creed. If one reads it and they feel inspired then all well and good but if they do not then also all well and good too. I know one of the criticisms people throw at quakers is that they substitute the "Quaker Faith and Practice" for the Bible but that is only a thought held by those who have no real experience of its use in a quaker meeting (IMO). In most quaker meetings there are a number of books present for people to use (if they want) during the meeting. In our meeting, the Bible is also one of the books. Back to your original question. I would have to say no. Quakers often say that they believe there is that of God within everyone and the meetings are designed to have a shared experience of that of God. There is no ministers and everyone has an equal status. I find the experience of the meeting very moving and it is that which has led me to recognise that no one faith has the handle on the whole of the God experience. We have members from a cross section of beliefs and that does include atheists too. Members are very loving in my experience and their faith is very deep. As for your comment about Quakers being afraid of intimacy, I find that incredible. I find the meeting touches people at a very deep level and people of all persautions sharing their experiences together and finding unity with each other an amazing thing. It is odd but I have wondered whether fundamentalists often have a fear of intimacy in that they need a prescribed set of beliefs and code of conduct in order to meet each other. How the other half sees each other eh!

That was a question I was attempting to ask earlier. I can see that some are brought to God via the Bible and some I believe by other things and writings but I feel that the main thing that is important to me is not the scripture they read but the affect it has upon the persons life and their experience of that of God. I have no problem feeling I share a common faith with other faiths and Christianity alike, because I feel they are inspired by the same God (which we all have a problem fully defining). I have met many Christians on the street who get almost livid with me because I do not see things as they do and I also have had some pretty nasty experiences from church organisations ( Elim (AOG) being one of them) I used to belong. I just wonder, has there been a change in the AOG's stance or do they feel I have gone astray or something? I ask this because Elim AOG in my experience used to be pretty narrow about how they see other religious groups and what they feel constitutes a Christian.

Yep! My spelling is getting worse. I am working nights at the moment and I hope you can forgive my lack of function. I need more coffee!

I understand that Quakers in the US are sometimes different from those in the UK. Most UK Quakers are very Liberal in their outlook and although I see things differently at times, nothing has ever happened to me. There is also a broad spectrum of beliefs present in the meetings that I have attended. However, I have heard that some Quaker meetings in the US can be very fundamentalist/conservative. This is one of the reasons I only mentioned the UK meetings. I could of mentioned the Universal Unitarians, but I am not fully sure of where they stand on things in the UK and the US. Perhaps another colleague can help me on that?

I do not feel isolated by the experience of being different to fundamentalism and I would not say your not fully Christian just because a person is fundamentalist. I wonder if you can recognise me and others as fully Christian too (without qualification from that fundamentalism)?

Although I am not an Atheist, I have little doubt that Atheism does not prevent anyone from being inspired by the spiritual.

I do not feel I can agree with you there Cool. I am not saying that a person cannot experience God by believing in the Bible as inerrant, but I do believe it often comes down to a hearding instinct. Shall we say a safety in numbers and a fear of making ones own path. I mean how many would arrive at what they believe without a fundamentalist church pushing it at them and how many would feel free to stand up in that church and say they disagree with something. Remember I once sat on your side of the fence and found the experience very painful when I challenged something. Now, I think they just did me a great favour. Maybe Fawzo and myself can ask you if you can understand what it is to have faith and be outside fundamentalist principles, and still feel loved by God?

Most of those below do not share a given creed or a fixed set of beliefs. They would describe themselves as having a common diversity that they believe existed from the earliest forms of Christianity. Most individuals from the list do not believe that the Bible is inerrent and that there is only one way to God. They usually do rely more on ones personal experience with their faith, rather than insisting on a given set of beliefs. Personal note:- Although I am more involved with both the Quakers and the Liberal Christian movements, I do not deny the experience of others with differing beliefs to my own. For me the disciples were diverse in their experience and so is Christianity. I also believe God is at work in more than one religion. I do not believe anyone can describe God in a way that is clear to all or can be agree upon. Must of how we see God will depend upon ones personal experience. However, that does not deny that God exists (IMO). Religious Society of Friends (Quaker) UK. I believe .......................................... (please fill in the gaps with your personal view) Quakers share a way of life, not a set of beliefs. We base our faith on silent worship, and our own experiences of the divine. http://www.quaker.org.uk/ Liberal Christians Liberal Christianity, broadly speaking, is a method of biblical hermeneutics, an individualistic method of understanding God through the use of scripture by applying the same modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings. Liberal Christianity does not claim to be a belief structure, and as such is not dependent upon any Church dogma or creedal statements. Unlike conservative varieties of Christianity, it has no unified set of propositional beliefs. The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma.[2] A liberal Christian, however, may hold certain beliefs in common with traditional, orthodox, or even conservative Christianity. http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity Progressive Christians Holding to the ideals of Progressive Christianity sets the movement apart from other forms of traditional Christianity. Many, if not most, Progressive Christians believe that the Bible is not the literal word of God. While all Progressive Christians recognize Jesus Christ, some view him not as the only way to God, but one of many ways, continuing the Christian modernist paradigm. Inclusiveness and acceptance is the basic posture of Progressive Christianity.[3] Progressive Christians tend to focus on issues of social justice, rather than proselytizing efforts to convert others, as conservatives and mainstream Evangelicals tend to emphasize. http://en.wikipedia....ve_Christianity Gnostic Christians May or may not fall into liberal/Progressive camps. They generally draw on information found in the Gnostic Gospels and other sources that have come to light. See:- http://www.religious...rg/gnostic2.htm

I agree. The Popes have a lot to answer for (IMO). So many differing Christianities were put to the knife and some popes had little faith themselves and were more interested in power than Christianity. As this following quote shows (IMO):- "This myth of Jesus has served us well!" Pope Leo X

Just the first two chapters explains his difference (his argument with Peter and his early learning taking place away from those who knew Jesus first hand). However, I do love some parts that point out that Paul felt there is no difference between men and women in Christ (Galatians 3:28). Shame he ruined this statement in other writings (1 Corinthians 14:34), & (1 Timothy 2:12).

The only mention of Mithra was inrelation to the celebrations on the 25th of December. The clips portray the development of the gospels in relationship to the histrical events of the time. It gives weight to many of the things I have believed for some time now. Such as:- Paul was at odds with the disciples that knew Jesus. No one who had met Jesus, wrote any of the Gospels in the Bible. There was diversity both within Judaism and the early Christians. Roman bloodshed was the force that made them both to become narrow in what they believed and brought about the eventual split. Stories like Jesus' opposition to the Pharisees was unlikely to have happened as the Pharisees were a small group of little significance during the time of Jesus. The Pharisees came into their own after the slaughter and the invasions of Jerusalem by Rome. They (the Pharisees) were the main opposition to the Christians and therefore the Gospel teller invented an opposition section between Jesus and the Pharisees. There are many more things discussed and I can only recommend seeing for ones self. It also gives weight to the Gnostics, Orthrodox, Fundamentalists, and Judeo Christians as having roots from the very beginning Of Christianity. So, it appears to me, that true Christianity was and is diverse. Paul was just one voice and it just so happens his writtings remained longer in circulatrion (again more to do with the power of Rome than their acceptance at the time or by Jesus' disciples).

I found a four hour history of christianity told by a number of theological historians. You need adobe flash player to view it. I was not sure where to put this on the forum but having seen all the clips I feel it fits well with the forum title. It tells of the diversity of early Christianity and Judaism and how they were both changed by adversity. I found it interesting. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

Thank you too.

I found this article by an ex nun. Sounds good to me. What do you think? :- http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertai...im-1073217.html

Thanks Blackthorn. I believe in God but not in the sense that is expressed in the Bible but in the sense of the spiritual. I would agree that God created material but that would in my opinion be only a minimal part of what I believe to be God. I believe there is that which we see but also that which we do not in the spiritual realm. God for me is the source of both. In the material world we can always find other reasons to justify things. For example The genetical code of DNA can be described as a random event that took millions of years before it wrote the formulae for us. Darwin pointed out that evolution is driven by a competition for survival but it can also be noted that with evolving we have become not only advanced in the race for life in a material sense but also we have begun to turn to that which is the spiritual. I believe God is the spiritual force behind both the creation of the material and also the spiritual. I have found no better way to describe our existence and relationship to God then what one lady described in her near death experience. She saw a light and people in spiritual form standing in front of the light. The light appeared to feed and enrich all. She ask if the light was God and she was told no. She was told it is just the breath of God. That is how I see the experiece we have to both the spiritual and sometimes in the material world. We are all standing in the breath of God (IMO).

Question. Would a loving God ever reject people who love?

My thoughts and prayers are with you at this time. We all owe so much to all the Hensley family. I am so sorry to hear your news. Pete..

Just read a book by Robert Vande Weyer called 'The Call to Heresy' Lamp press, London. Talks about the formation of Christian belief. It was not a simple process or one in which everyone agreed upon. It draws from the differences seen by the disciples, Rome empire, pagan influences and the gnostic's. A very revealing book that leaves one realising just how close we really are to other religions. Sssss! don't tell the fundamentalists. The view that beliefs we hold today always existed is portrayed as in error when looked at from a historic view point. Lovely read.