Liberal Christianity 2

[Coolhand]

The reader for a liberal and all will find meaning for themselves.

The belief that God is the author is a factor for a fundamentalist but not one for a liberal. That is a belief we do not share Cool. We look for meaning from where ever it comes and make connections with it in our personal journey with God.

Then why would you argue with me about this? If you are correct, we can all determine the meaning for ourselves, and it can say something completely different to each of us, and we can all be correct, ineffect: 1+1= W (W meaning what ever you want it to mean).

According you what you just said, it would also be correct for me to assign the value and meaning to the text that the writer assigned. By the way, man authored the Scripture by the inspiration of God.

You claim that I argue that you must approach the Scrpture my way. But in doing so, you are arguing that we must all approach the Scripture your way. Is your way better or something?

Did you mean what you just wrote, or am I free to make it mean what I want it to say?

[Brother Michael Sky]

I have no idea why you are trying to make me take a side in your argument against inerrancy. You first had an issue because you said I believed in inerrancy. Now you are saying that I do not believe in inerrancy. All I said was that I do not argue for biblical inerrancy.

Inerrancy is a 'sucker bet' concocted by enlightenment thinkers in order to promote a liberal view of Scripture. It is taking the wrong approach altogether because it requires natural analysis of a supernatural document. Men do not know enough about the supernatural to evaluate it inductively or deductively.

Would you call a plumber to install an electrical circuit? Would you call a painter to install solar panels? Then why would you evaluate the supernatural according to natural standards?

Naturalists criticize things that do not conform to their rules, even though in this case they are talking about the supernatural. It seems to me that the only intelligent response to nonsense like this would be: “Duh.”

now, see... this is where I get off the fundamental bus....

" It is taking the wrong approach altogether because it requires natural analysis of a supernatural document. "

bull- oney.....

when as a child I asked the pentacostal minister what had him so upset ( after a sunday school class ) and described his energy to him - he actually shouted Satan out of me...... or so he said as i was rubbing my ears....

There are those among us who could answer many questions....

But a certain text loudly disclaims any such knowledge...

I've been following along this thread, and I have gone through a lot of emotions along the way...

I don't want to point at anything else specifically, but I do want to say...

Threads like this one are very revealing, and beneficial...

The range and fluctuations of belief displayed are interesting to say the least...

I have been very outspoken against inerrancy, but I probably will be much less so...

I'm beginning to have a new understanding on this subject...

I have said before, I believe each of us is destined for the same ultimate destination. To get there however, we will each travel an independant path. This, IMO, leads for a wide range of " exactly right " for all the participants in the drama. Meaning we may all fully believe different things - and those things may BE exactly right for us - but this, again IMO, Is exactly the right formula for the experiences we crave to come about. This IS the purpose.

For those star trek fans out there - we are in an infinite holodeck, creating our Truth as we go.. to bring it home as a gift to ourselves... to fulfill our purpose.

It is our differences which make the world go round.

The more homogenous we become - the closer we get to Godhead. whatever that means on the next octave... we'll understand when we get there... lol

Thanks to CoolHand for his rock steady devotion - you have the strong energy of one who has found a truth..

The Rev. Rainbow for his wisdom...

Fawzo for that stick he stirs the pot with....

Pete for that good chin... and his piercing desire to KNOW...

and all the rest who have contributed....

Y'all are great....

[Coolhand]

But God let him..

Not only did "my God" let him, but "yours did too." We have already heard from a couple of fundamantalists in regard to why the fundamentalist God allowed this to happen, what have you got Pete? Why would the liberal God allow this Pete?

now, see... this is where I get off the fundamental bus....

" It is taking the wrong approach altogether because it requires natural analysis of a supernatural document. "

bull- oney.....

when as a child I asked the pentacostal minister what had him so upset ( after a sunday school class ) and described his energy to him - he actually shouted Satan out of me...... or so he said as i was rubbing my ears....

There are those among us who could answer many questions....

But a certain text loudly disclaims any such knowledge...

I've been following along this thread, and I have gone through a lot of emotions along the way...

I don't want to point at anything else specifically, but I do want to say...

Threads like this one are very revealing, and beneficial...

The range and fluctuations of belief displayed are interesting to say the least...

I have been very outspoken against inerrancy, but I probably will be much less so...

I'm beginning to have a new understanding on this subject...

I have said before, I believe each of us is destined for the same ultimate destination. To get there however, we will each travel an independant path. This, IMO, leads for a wide range of " exactly right " for all the participants in the drama. Meaning we may all fully believe different things - and those things may BE exactly right for us - but this, again IMO, Is exactly the right formula for the experiences we crave to come about. This IS the purpose.

For those star trek fans out there - we are in an infinite holodeck, creating our Truth as we go.. to bring it home as a gift to ourselves... to fulfill our purpose.

It is our differences which make the world go round.

The more homogenous we become - the closer we get to Godhead. whatever that means on the next octave... we'll understand when we get there... lol

Thanks to CoolHand for his rock steady devotion - you have the strong energy of one who has found a truth..

The Rev. Rainbow for his wisdom...

Fawzo for that stick he stirs the pot with....

Pete for that good chin... and his piercing desire to KNOW...

and all the rest who have contributed....

Y'all are great....

Thanks for your thoughts brother!

I'll join you in that coffee.

[Pete]

Then why would you argue with me about this? If you are correct, we can all determine the meaning for ourselves, and it can say something completely different to each of us, and we can all be correct, ineffect: 1+1= W (W meaning what ever you want it to mean).

According you what you just said, it would also be correct for me to assign the value and meaning to the text that the writer assigned. By the way, man authored the Scripture by the inspiration of God.

You claim that I argue that you must approach the Scrpture my way. But in doing so, you are arguing that we must all approach the Scripture your way. Is your way better or something?

Did you mean what you just wrote, or am I free to make it mean what I want it to say?

You are very free to make of it what you want. What can I do about and why would I want to. The issues come when there is criticism that we are taking only one part of the bible and not other parts as if that is a given for all of us or we are not coming to the same conclusions with debates like its God's will that gay people are condemned and 6 million jews went to their deaths because of their own fault and the bible is the final authority and we should follow that. If you can accept that then maybe we are getting somewhere.

Making quotes from the bible without some sort of reasoning behind it and I do not mean because God said it and its in the bible, as that only serves to get up ones nose.

[Bro. Hex]

If you are correct, we can all determine the meaning for ourselves, and it can say something completely different to each of us, and we can all be correct,

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.

You claim that I argue that you must approach the Scripture my way. But in doing so, you are arguing that we must all approach the Scripture your way. Is your way better or something?

I don't think that Pete is saying this.

And if he was, it would of course be wrong.

am I free to make it mean what I want it to say?

No, not what you want, but what is spoken to you.

It is your responsibility to listen.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Pete]

Not only did "my God" let him, but "yours did too." We have already heard from a couple of fundamantalists in regard to why the fundamentalist God allowed this to happen, what have you got Pete? Why would the liberal God allow this Pete?

Thanks for your thoughts brother!

I'll join you in that coffee.

Oh very true but I believe in God as a spiritual force and not one of being all powerful and all knowing of materail things. You mention that your God let you down but mine did also as if we talk about two differing Gods. I do not believe we are but we do believe differing things about God. I thought we were reaching an understanding in a small way but I can see by that line of "yours and my God", that we did not.

Here we go again.

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.

Exactly as I understood it Hex.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

You are very free to make of it what you want. What can I do about and why would I want to. The issues come when there is criticism that we are taking only one part of the bible and not other parts as if that is a given for all of us or we are not coming to the same conclusions with debates like its God's will that gay people are condemned and 6 million jews went to their deaths because of their own fault and the bible is the final authority and we should follow that. If you can accept that then maybe we are getting somewhere.

Making quotes from the bible without some sort of reasoning behind it and I do not mean because God said it and its in the bible, as that only serves to get up ones nose.

My arguement is that it is the liberal Christian that uses parts of the Bible and leaves out others; but then accuses the fundamentalists of doing the exact thing he is doing.

My argument is based from using the whole Bible, which means understand each book indiviually, but also in light of the entire revelation of Scripture, in answering each question.

I'm sure you know what you meant by that last sentance, but I have no clue...lol.

[Pete]

My arguement is that it is the liberal Christian that uses parts of the Bible and leaves out others; but then accuses the fundamentalists of doing the exact thing he is doing.

I do not recall that. I may use the bible to point out differing things but mostly because that is a language that is being used and the only level of understanding with fundamentalists in my experience. Do you think I would quote this or that to Hex and Fawzo in the same way I do with you. No of course I do not because they have a differing understanding and differing language.

My argument is based from using the whole Bible, which means understand each book indiviually, but also in light of the entire revelation of Scripture, in answering each question.

exactly and that is why I quote the bible with you. I have read and studied the bible too, but there is not getting away from it we see what we have studied differently.

I'm sure you know what you meant by that last sentance, but I have no clue...lol.

Please elaborate?

Edited July 3, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Oh very true but I believe in God as a spiritual force and not one of being all powerful and all knowing of materail things. You mention that your God let you down but mine did also as if we talk about two differing Gods. I do not believe we are but we do believe differing things about God. I thought we were reaching an understanding in a small way but I can see by that line of "yours and my God", that we did not.

Here we go again.

So your God is a spiritual force that did nothing to stop the slaughter of 6 million Jews? Why would you even ackowledge such a God? What makes this force a God? His lack of action? How does this force exhibit agape love? How are we to observe the exhibition of this agape love? Did your God love these Jews with agape love during their destruction? How is that shown?

The good for you Pete, is that you have the luxury as a liberal Christian to interpret those questions however you want, like say as rhetorical questions.

Which is good for you, because those are some hard questions.

Please elaborate?

lol......elaborate on something I need clarification on?

[Pete]

So your God is a spiritual force that did nothing to stop the slaughter of 6 million Jews? Why would you even ackowledge such a God? What makes this force a God? His lack of action? How does this force exhibit agape love? How are we to observe the exhibition of this agape love? Did your God love these Jews with agape love during their destruction? How is that shown?

The good for you Pete, is that you have the luxury as a liberal Christian to interpret those questions however you want, like say as rhetorical questions.

Which is good for you, because those are some hard questions.

For me, I see God in action in differing ways.

Despite the killing of 6 million do Jews hate Germans?

Despite one of the most repressive racist governments in South Africa was there a vicious back lash by the government who freed them from that repression?

Despite the viciousness that the bible belt did on Black Americans, was Martin Luther Kings response to hit back with more viciousness?

That is what I see of God's spirit in action.

For me one can argue that mankind caused all these and other problems but if we argue for an all powerful God then we have to also say that God allowed these things to occur (IMO).

So your God is a spiritual force that did nothing to stop the slaughter of 6 million Jews? Why would you even ackowledge such a God? What makes this force a God? His lack of action? How does this force exhibit agape love? How are we to observe the exhibition of this agape love? Did your God love these Jews with agape love during their destruction? How is that shown?

The good for you Pete, is that you have the luxury as a liberal Christian to interpret those questions however you want, like say as rhetorical questions.

Which is good for you, because those are some hard questions.

lol......elaborate on something I need clarification on?

Okay what specifically did you not understand?

[Coolhand]

For me, I see God in action in differing ways.

Despite the killing of 6 million do Jews hate Germans?

I don't know, you would have to interview each one to find out, unless you have found a spokesperson to represent all of them that will comment on that. Antisematizm still exists however, so Im not sure what your point is.

Despite one of the most repressive racist governments in South Africa was there a vicious back lash by the government who freed them from that repression?

Here is another one of those sentances. I don't know if you are asking me something or telling me something.

Despite the viciousness that the bible belt did on Black Americans, was Martin Luther Kings response to hit back with more viciousness?

What did God do in this circumstance?

That is what I see of God's spirit in action.

What specifically?

For me one can argue that mankind caused all these and other problems but if we argue for an all powerful God then we have to also say that God allowed these things to occur (IMO).

You can get back to slamming the notion of an all powerfull God in a minute. What specifically are you claiming about why your God is a spiritual force that did nothing to stop the slaughter of 6 million Jews? In your opinion: Nazi Germany was more powerful that the agape love God that you talk about; true or false.

[Pete]

Cool, now I know your arguing for arguing sake.

[Coolhand]

Cool, now I know your arguing for arguing sake.

No Pete, this is necessary to show that in fact what we are dealing with here is a double standard.

Changing the subject.......

I watch Spong's video and Rev Scotty's video:

The thing i like about the liberal Christian mind set is the reaching out and crossing the boundaries to draw people together; I am really into that.

I was a little disappointed at the way Spong tried to paint some of his Christian brothers and sisters as tribal religionsts. I will agree that there are some simular elements, but the focus from the fundmentalists has been on thier relatiosnhip with God AT THE EXPENSE of the relationships of those who do not believe how they do. I agree with Spong here and I think that we can do better.

I realize that he grew up in the Bible Belt, which he points out is the "13" or the "confederate states." I also grew up there and it almost seems like were talking abotu two differnt places. Of course, he has a few years on me, and we lived in two different states, but no doubt we are both from the "glorious confederacy" as my Jr High history teacher called.

What appears to be absent from the two videos (Spong, and Scotty) are how the liberal Christians approach thier relationship with God. We see that it takes more consideration of the human relationships (which I note as something for fundamentalist should learn from the liberals in regard to), but how do the liberal Christians disciple new beleivers? Or is that something that they do not consider?

[Pete]

No Pete, this is necessary to show that in fact what we are dealing with here is a double standard.

Well it missed me..

Changing the subject.......

I watch Spong's video and Rev Scotty's video:

The thing i like about the liberal Christian mind set is the reaching out and crossing the boundaries to draw people together; I am really into that.

I was a little disappointed at the way Spong tried to paint some of his Christian brothers and sisters as tribal religionsts. I will agree that there are some simular elements, but the focus from the fundmentalists has been on thier relatiosnhip with God AT THE EXPENSE of the relationships of those who do not believe how they do. I agree with Spong here and I think that we can do better.

I realize that he grew up in the Bible Belt, which he points out is the "13" or the "confederate states." I also grew up there and it almost seems like were talking abotu two differnt places. Of course, he has a few years on me, and we lived in two different states, but no doubt we are both from the "glorious confederacy" as my Jr High history teacher called.

What appears to be absent from the two videos (Spong, and Scotty) are how the liberal Christians approach thier relationship with God. We see that it takes more consideration of the human relationships (which I note as something for fundamentalist should learn from the liberals in regard to), but how do the liberal Christians disciple new beleivers? Or is that something that they do not consider?

For a fundi it is essential that they recruit because they believe that unless they recruit then people will not be saved. It also essential to a fundi that a certain view of belief is adopted according to which group/denomination they join.

For a liberal one takes the first step in a relationship with God. That journey is a personal one. I (IMO) would say that most who become liberals do so when they can no longer digest fundamentalism but they still have a faith in Jesus' life and God, but not all. Some have other views or mixes of viewpoints that would not be tolerated by some churches but find a home in liberalism because people are happy to find God from what ever direction that revelation comes from and see that of God in all. I also would not feel that only one religion has a path to salvation with God. Something that most fundamental churches would not tolerate in my experience.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

For a fundi it is essential that they recruit because they believe that unless they recruit then people will not be saved. It also essential to a fundi that a certain view of belief is adopted according to which group/denomination they join.

lol.......hardly. "Fundies" believe that they are saved through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ; period end.

Has it occured to you that there a many denominations that are considered fundamentalist?

For a liberal one takes the first step in a relationship with God. That journey is a personal one. I (IMO) would say that most who become liberals do so when they can no longer digest fundamentalism but they still have a faith in Jesus' life and God, but not all. Some have other views or mixes of viewpoints that would not be tolerated by some churches but find a home in liberalism because people are happy to find God from what ever direction that revelation comes from and see that of God in all. I also would not feel that only one religion has a path to salvation with God. Something that most fundamental churches would not tolerate in my experience.

What makes a "Christian" a Christian Pete?

[Bro. Hex]

What makes a "Christian" a Christian Pete?

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.

[Coolhand]

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.

What affords one the basis to claim that they are a Christian? The claim itself?

[Coolhand]

1Chris•tian \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\ noun

[Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos]

(1526)

1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

1 b (1) : disciple 2

(2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906

(3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

2 : the hero in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress

2Christian adjective

(1553)

1 a : of or relating to Christianity 〈Christian scriptures〉

b : based on or conforming with Christianity 〈Christian ethics〉

2 a : of or relating to a Christian 〈Christian responsibilities〉

b : professing Christianity 〈a Christian affirmation〉

3 : commendably decent or generous 〈has a very Christian concern for others〉

— Chris•tian•ly adjective or adverb

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition

Christian, a term that, although eventually the accepted name for the followers of Jesus the Christ, occurs only three times in the nt (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). According to Acts 11:26, it was in Antioch of Syria that the term was first used, but it appears that the Greek word was derived from a Latin original. Some have argued that the designation was at first a term of derision; others, that it simply denoted a group loyal to ‘Christ’ (Christos in Greek). Although certainty is not possible, the term was likely coined by non-Christians. Whatever the origin, ‘Christian’ is the term that was increasingly applied to Jesus’ followers in the late first and early second centuries. J.M.E.

Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 163.

Christian — the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were “brethren,” “the faithful,” “elect,” “saints,” “believers.” But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name “Christian” came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).

M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897).

[Bro. Hex]

What affords one the basis to claim that they are a Christian?

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.

[Tsukino_Rei]

Coolhand, if it turned out that your God wasn't all powerful would your love for that god collapse, or would you simply incorporate your new understanding into your relationship?

If it worked out that Mary was bonked by a travelling salesman would that make a difference, to you, to the depth and power contained within the philosophies of Christ?

What kind of faith is so dependent on the specificities of dogma that all worth and value and meaning implodes in the absence of that dogma? Surely that is no faith at all. Rather it is a foundation of idols demanding that all reason be sacrificed on its altar.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Tsukino_Rei