Liberal Christianity 2

[Pete]

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

[Tsukino_Rei]

Awsome Pete! Thanks for these!

[Fawzo]

Thank You Nestingwave...Well said, as usual!

Harrison Ford had a movie where he was Capt. of a, I think Russian, submarine.

The wine bottle didn't break on the hull at the launching, and it finally sank to the bottom, not to return.

Anyway...He told his crew;

Without Me...You are nothing!

and...

Without You...I am nothing!

(Just thought I'd throw that in...I'll never forget it!

Let's keep swimming...

FELLOW SWIMMERS!

Yes thanks Pete!

I'm watching the Spirit Talk Video now and enjoying it.

[Tsukino_Rei]

I like this dude too!

[Fawzo]

I like this dude too!

Of course I totally agree with the video. I say to my fundalmentalist coworkers all the time as soon as you demonize someone it makes it so much easier to kill them. I really don't know how they can stand living in such a world controlled by so many demons as they project onto everyone and everything.

[Bro. Hex]

Of course I totally agree with the video. I say to my fundalmentalist coworkers all the time as soon as you demonize someone it makes it so much easier to kill them. I really don't know how they can stand living in such a world controlled by so many demons as they project onto everyone and everything.

They who do this, create a "hell-on-earth" with their fixations and hatreds,

which are really fears in fancy dress. It is a "personal hell" which envelops those who "see evil everywhere".

[Dan56]

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 watched most of the video's and would not classify Bishop Spong as a Christian. The bottom line always comes back to the fact that liberal Christianity rejects Christ as the son of God, and rejects that salvation only comes through his sacrifice. The denial of these 2 fundamental tenants of Christianity does not support a full or true believe in Christ imo. I appreciate that the liberal prospective evolves around the love and compassion taught by Jesus, but in denying His sacrifice, they're forsaking the quintessential demonstration of God's love for us. The liberal philosophy would thereby leave a person in danger of God's judgment, because the wages of sin is death, and sin can only be blotted-out via the cross and repentance. We cannot save ourselves.

It is a "personal hell" which envelops those who "see evil everywhere".

Or perhaps those who 'see evil everywhere' are simply watching the nightly news

[Tsukino_Rei]

I have utterly no doubt in me that Bishop Sprong is a devout Christian with a heart full of Christ. However, if I type 'Radical Fundamentalist Christian' into YouTube I get LOTS of doubts about those people.

[Fawzo]

I watched most of the video's and would not classify Bishop Spong as a Christian. The bottom line always comes back to the fact that liberal Christianity rejects Christ as the son of God, and rejects that salvation only comes through his sacrifice. The denial of these 2 fundamental tenants of Christianity does not support a full or true believe in Christ imo. I appreciate that the liberal prospective evolves around the love and compassion taught by Jesus, but in denying His sacrifice, they're forsaking the quintessential demonstration of God's love for us. The liberal philosophy would thereby leave a person in danger of God's judgment, because the wages of sin is death, and sin can only be blotted-out via the cross and repentance. We cannot save ourselves.

Dan how can a Liberal Christian doubt Christ is the Son of God when many believe we are all Sons of God. Also your statement seems in conflict "that salvation only comes through his sacrifice". If this is true then everyone on the planet is saved and are Christian, since the sacrifice has been made and it is finished. If you add conditions to the sacrifice and add such necessities as belief and professing then the sacrifice means nothing and it is the actions and thoughts of each individual man which lead to salavtion.

If the wages of sin is death why did things die in our Universe before man was created. Did the Universe sin against God?

[Pete]

I watched most of the video's and would not classify Bishop Spong as a Christian. The bottom line always comes back to the fact that liberal Christianity rejects Christ as the son of God, and rejects that salvation only comes through his sacrifice. The denial of these 2 fundamental tenants of Christianity does not support a full or true believe in Christ imo. I appreciate that the liberal prospective evolves around the love and compassion taught by Jesus, but in denying His sacrifice, they're forsaking the quintessential demonstration of God's love for us. The liberal philosophy would thereby leave a person in danger of God's judgment, because the wages of sin is death, and sin can only be blotted-out via the cross and repentance. We cannot save ourselves.

Or perhaps those who 'see evil everywhere' are simply watching the nightly news

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.

[Pete]

I like this dude 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.

[panpareil]

Does liberal Christianity allow God given freewill?

Is a person to be unfettered in actions and beliefs that do not directly harm others?

Or does Liberal Christianity stick its nose into other people business as much as Fundamentalism?

Is being rich as bad as being gay? Is not sharing as bad as an abortion?

Are Liberal Christians driven to be the hand of God like Fundamentalists?

[Pete]

Does liberal Christianity allow God given freewill?

Is a person to be unfettered in actions and beliefs that do not directly harm others?

Or does Liberal Christianity stick its nose into other people business as much as Fundamentalism?

Is being rich as bad as being gay? Is not sharing as bad as an abortion?

Are Liberal Christians driven to be the hand of God like Fundamentalists?

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.

[Dan56]

Also your statement seems in conflict "that salvation only comes through his sacrifice". If this is true then everyone on the planet is saved and are Christian, since the sacrifice has been made and it is finished. If you add conditions to the sacrifice and add such necessities as belief and professing then the sacrifice means nothing and it is the actions and thoughts of each individual man which lead to salavtion.

There are 'conditions' to salvation. Salvation is offered by God through grace, but the message of salvation requires obedience in faith and repentance on our part. "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). This verse would seem to indicate that salvation is not automatic.

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.

Your correct about our different conclusions, since liberals don't view the bible as inerrant, scriptures will never apply to them. I don't understand the Liberal view of having faith in the 'spirit of love' represented by Christ, while simultaneously denying the accuracy of the scriptures which reveal the Spirit represented in Christ? Isn't your faith partly based in the same book? The difference would seem to be that Liberals pick and choose what they find appealing and discard what they find objectionable, while fundamentalist accept it all.

[Tsukino_Rei]

What it means to believe in the Son is debatable though. If the Son is an actual being present in reality today, and if he is the word written in our hearts, then just listening to our own consciences is believing in the Son. And if he's an actual force at work in the world today then we don't have to agree on the name of that force to respond to the actual presense of that force. A person doesn't have to know the entire history of another person to shake his hand and get to know who that person is at present. Think of how many names a person can have today! Maiden name, married name, nick names, online names, pen-names, professional names...

God is not incapable of taking on as many names and identities as a human, what would remain consistent is not how he is known or the name he is known by - but rather the character of the word which is written in our hearts.

What it means to be the son of God is also debatable - considering that the christian scriptures teach that we are all adopted by God and Jesus himself said that his followers would perform greater miracles than he, and that mankind would be as united in God as he was, and that we would sit on the throne of heaven with him. Also, if time is truly non-linear and a great big splodge of NOW which we perceive linearly than we are ALL present at the dawn of creation right NOW and just not aware of it. His purpose is met because he is fully human. Whether he was also fully god becomes irrelevant because however fully god he was we become equally fully god and so godhood just becomes another feature of being human.

[Pete]

There are 'conditions' to salvation. Salvation is offered by God through grace, but the message of salvation requires obedience in faith and repentance on our part. "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). This verse would seem to indicate that salvation is not automatic.

Your correct about our different conclusions, since liberals don't view the bible as inerrant, scriptures will never apply to them. I don't understand the Liberal view of having faith in the 'spirit of love' represented by Christ, while simultaneously denying the accuracy of the scriptures which reveal the Spirit represented in Christ? Isn't your faith partly based in the same book? The difference would seem to be that Liberals pick and choose what they find appealing and discard what they find objectionable, while fundamentalist accept it all.

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.

[Fawzo]

There are 'conditions' to salvation. Salvation is offered by God through grace, but the message of salvation requires obedience in faith and repentance on our part. "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). This verse would seem to indicate that salvation is not automatic.

Exactly, The cross is meaningless without the proper mindset. The most important factor in salvation is one's mindset or what one imagines to be true.

[Dan56]

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.

That's cool, we all believe what we believe and accept what we can. The OT laws were necessary to govern God's chosen, they may seem harsh and unloving, but what would have happened without them? God’s love is a balance between justice and mercy. In the absence of justice, evil runs amuck, and what loving God would allow that? The key to understanding God’s love lies in understanding the nature of God's wrath. God requires atonement and restitution for every sin, and this appears to be the unacceptable side of God from the liberal point of view.

[Tsukino_Rei]

That's cool, we all believe what we believe and accept what we can. The OT laws were necessary to govern God's chosen, they may seem harsh and unloving, but what would have happened without them? God’s love is a balance between justice and mercy. In the absence of justice, evil runs amuck, and what loving God would allow that? The key to understanding God’s love lies in understanding the nature of God's wrath. God requires atonement and restitution for every sin, and this appears to be the unacceptable side of God from the liberal point of view.

It appears to be the human-constructed side of a false idea of God, actually, from the liberal point of view.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Tsukino_Rei

[Pete]

That's cool, we all believe what we believe and accept what we can. The OT laws were necessary to govern God's chosen, they may seem harsh and unloving, but what would have happened without them? God's love is a balance between justice and mercy. In the absence of justice, evil runs amuck, and what loving God would allow that? The key to understanding God's love lies in understanding the nature of God's wrath. God requires atonement and restitution for every sin, and this appears to be the unacceptable side of God from the liberal point of view.

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.