Liberal Christianity 2

[Dan56]

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

From the fundamental point of view, its the biblical record of the true God.

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.

You would prefer a God who encouraged rebellion, witchcraft-idolatry, infidelity, perversion, theft, murder, deceit, etc? Would you prefer a God who encouraged married couples to cheat on each other in order to bring a little "balance" into the picture? I agree that God is a dictator in the sense that he sets the law and its not up for debate, but without law and order, the peaceful and loving utopia that we would all prefer could never exist. Sin (evil) is disobedience to God, punishment and death is the result of evil, not the source.

[Tsukino_Rei]

From the fundamental point of view, its the biblical record of the true God.

From the liberal point of view the accuracy and integrity of the biblical record are up for debate, and the true God transcends the written word.

Living word trumps written word.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Tsukino_Rei

[Pete]

From the fundamental point of view, its the biblical record of the true God.

You would prefer a God who encouraged rebellion, witchcraft-idolatry, infidelity, perversion, theft, murder, deceit, etc? Would you prefer a God who encouraged married couples to cheat on each other in order to bring a little "balance" into the picture? I agree that God is a dictator in the sense that he sets the law and its not up for debate, but without law and order, the peaceful and loving utopia that we would all prefer could never exist. Sin (evil) is disobedience to God, punishment and death is the result of evil, not the source.

It is one thing to encourage, it is another thing to kill someone. Killing is not encouragement. It is a final act of removing the life from someone. Killing by stoning a person or setting fire to them until dead is not compassionate, loving or encouragement (IMO).

Do I think those who follow witchcraft, are gay or commit adultery should die? I have to say no. Where would be the humanity, compassion or understanding in doing that?

Perhaps there should not be organizations like relate or marriage counseling. Maybe they should just be killed instead so we can feel happy about following the wording in a OT book. What do you think? Which do you think is the mostly Godly thing to do?

First we are told by God thou shalt not kill. Then we are told to kill and then we are told we should love and forgive. Do you think God is having difficulty making up his mind here?

[Fawzo]

It is one thing to encourage, it is another thing to kill someone. Killing is not encouragement. It is a final act of removing the life from someone. Killing by stoning a person or setting fire to them until dead is not compassionate, loving or encouragement (IMO).

Do I think those who follow witchcraft, are gay or commit adultery should die? I have to say no. Where would be the humanity, compassion or understanding in doing that?

Perhaps there should not be organizations like relate or marriage counseling. Maybe they should just be killed instead so we can feel happy about following the wording in a OT book. What do you think? Which do you think is the mostly Godly thing to do?

First we are told by God thou shalt not kill. Then we are told to kill and then we are told we should love and forgive. Do you think God is having difficulty making up his mind here?

I guess people are expected to be more loving and compassionate than God? The Bible tells us Agape love bears all, endures all, is long suffering and never fails.

Shouldn't withces, homosexuals, muderers, liars, etc etc fit under the "ALL" category. Or was Paul just blowing smoke up our arses?

The Christian God tolerates very little from what I've seen and read!

It's odd how the entity that I experienced as God truly did exhibit all the qualities that define Agape love in Corinthians. Maybe I just caught him on a good day, but wait how can that be, Dan tells us God never changes!

Edited April 21, 2010 by Fawzo

[Dan56]

From the liberal point of view the accuracy and integrity of the biblical record are up for debate, and the true God transcends the written word.

Living word trumps written word.

The problem is that when you discount the written word, what's left? Who is this "true God" that transcends scripture and where do you learn about him? Might I suggest that when you dismiss the written word, your simply left with your own ideological concept of what you think and want God to be. The written word tells us who the living Word was; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" ( John 1:14).

Do I think those who follow witchcraft, are gay or commit adultery should die? I have to say no. Where would be the humanity, compassion or understanding in doing that?

First we are told by God thou shalt not kill. Then we are told to kill and then we are told we should love and forgive. Do you think God is having difficulty making up his mind here?

The commandment being correctly interpreted is murder, not kill. Deuteronomy 19:10-13 defines it as "To lie in wait for the purpose of shedding innocent blood"(paraphrased). I agree that there is nothing compassionate about killing an adulteress or adulterer, but God's judgment is not ours. Without Christ, we are all dead in sin, and for the unfortunate souls prior to the cross, they were still under the curse of the law.

The Christian God tolerates very little from what I've seen and read!

It's odd how the entity that I experienced as God truly did exhibit all the qualities that define Agape love in Corinthians. Maybe I just caught him on a good day, but wait how can that be, Dan tells us God never changes!

The bible tells Dan that God never changes, and Dan tells you The Christian God tolerates very much from what I've seen, because He forgives every sin you commit when you repent of them.

[Kingfisher]

If the commandments were so vital, why did God provide Moses with an entirely different set of rules after he smashed the first set of tablets?

[Dan56]

If the commandments were so vital, why did God provide Moses with an entirely different set of rules after he smashed the first set of tablets?

The commandments are listed in Exodus 20:3-17. In anger, Moses broke the first set of tables (10 commandments) in Exodus 32:19. Then God made a second set of tables in Exodus 34. These can be read in Deuteronomy 5:7-21. Both sets are identical.

[Tsukino_Rei]

The problem is that when you discount the written word, what's left? Who is this "true God" that transcends scripture and where do you learn about him? Might I suggest that when you dismiss the written word, your simply left with your own ideological concept of what you think and want God to be. The written word tells us who the living Word was; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" ( John 1:14).

If the living word is living then then it can speak for it's own gosh darn self without the aid of any written word. You learn about this living word in your own heart and in nature. If you believe then when the written word is taken away all that all is left is ourselves then you must not believe than any real god exists at all. The written word does show us what happens when people depend on what men have written of their experiences rather than on personal observations and personal experiences -> we end up with a book of violence and self-anointed theologies through which anyone can and has justified any politically, human driven evil act and called it holy.

In the previous thread it has been shown at length how the current bible has been editted and the situation in which it was formed.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Tsukino_Rei

[Fawzo]

The bible tells Dan that God never changes, and Dan tells you The Christian God tolerates very much from what I've seen, because He forgives every sin you commit when you repent of them.

You added another condition to forgiveness. First belief and now repentance, next you'll be telling me something like I have to profess my beliefs also.

So it is my own actions and thoughts that save me after all. What did the cross do again?

I really don't care what the Bible tells Dan. I wanna know what God speaks into Dan's heart and mind.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

The commandment being correctly interpreted is murder, not kill. Deuteronomy 19:10-13 defines it as "To lie in wait for the purpose of shedding innocent blood"(paraphrased). I agree that there is nothing compassionate about killing an adulteress or adulterer, but God's judgment is not ours. Without Christ, we are all dead in sin, and for the unfortunate souls prior to the cross, they were still under the curse of the law.

Also all I can say about the judgment (stoning, burning, and killing people)you describe is I cannot see that this biblical description of God declares someone as agape with love, understanding, or forgiving. It would declare God as evil, cruel, narrow minded and vengeful. Nothing like I understand Jesus to be in any way (IMO).

If this was the only message and viewpoint around I would leave Christianity for good, but thank God (IMO) it ain't.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Pete

[Kingfisher]

The commandments are listed in Exodus 20:3-17. In anger, Moses broke the first set of tables (10 commandments) in Exodus 32:19.

So far so good.

Then God made a second set of tables in Exodus 34.

God did not write the second set, Moses did. It's argued that Exodus 34:28 refers to God, but "he" is inconsistent with the respect displayed throughout the rest of the book. God also clearly instructs Moses to do the writing in Exodus 34:27. Or do you think verses 27 and 28 are talking about different covenants?

These can be read in Deuteronomy 5:7-21. Both sets are identical.

Deuteronomy 5:7-12 lists the commandments on the first set, given in Exodus 20:3-17, not the second set. Of course they're identical, he's repeating the story.

Let us assume (or believe, whatever) that both sets of tablets were written by the hand of God and were identical. I ask again, why did God give Moses a different set of ten commandments in Exodus:12-26? If they weren't on the tablets, why not? I can understand Moses might have had his hands full inscribing just ten, but surely God could have written more.

[Pete]

Some believe the law and the commandments existed long before Moses

See:- Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

and also http://www.thercg.or...les/dttcpm.html (has some interesting points (IMO) even if I do not agree with it all).

Also note that the Sabbath was being kept before the Ten Commandments too:-

Ex. 16:21-29 "And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot it melted. And it came to pass that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake today, and seethe that ye will seethe and that which remaineth overlay up for you to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm there in. And Moses said, Eat that today. for today is a Sabbath unto the Lord: today ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my law? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let not man go out of his place on the seventh day."

Ex. 16:4,5 "Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or no. And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily."

It would seem to me that all Moses did was write a few of these down.. As I believe priests did later and then say God gave it to them.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Pete

[Dan56]

If the living word is living then then it can speak for it's own gosh darn self without the aid of any written word. You learn about this living word in your own heart and in nature. If you believe then when the written word is taken away all that all is left is ourselves then you must not believe than any real god exists at all. The written word does show us what happens when people depend on what men have written of their experiences rather than on personal observations and personal experiences -> we end up with a book of violence and self-anointed theologies through which anyone can and has justified any politically, human driven evil act and called it holy.

I agree that the Word is alive in the hearts of people, and that it can be observed in nature. The texts just explains the Word and leaves less speculation. Without that foundation, meaning is lost, lessons are lost, and revelation is limited.

You added another condition to forgiveness. First belief and now repentance, next you'll be telling me something like I have to profess my beliefs also.

So it is my own actions and thoughts that save me after all. What did the cross do again?

I really don't care what the Bible tells Dan. I wanna know what God speaks into Dan's heart and mind.

I didn't add another condition, it was there all-along, and my previous post included repentance.

You actions don't save you, in fact I'm quite sure of the opposite . Without the cross, we could repent until we were blue in the face

and still not escape judgment. Sins were not atoned for until his crucifixion, the law requires blood.

Also all I can say about the judgment (stoning, burning, and killing people)you describe is I cannot see that this biblical description of God declares someone as agape with love, understanding, or forgiving. It would declare God as evil, cruel, narrow minded and vengeful. Nothing like I understand Jesus to be in any way (IMO).

If this was the only message and viewpoint around I would leave Christianity for good, but thank God (IMO) it ain't.

I concur with your last sentence, I'd leave Christianity too. God is love and he is forgiving, that's the beauty of Christianity.

[Dan56]

God did not write the second set, Moses did. It's argued that Exodus 34:28 refers to God, but "he" is inconsistent with the respect displayed throughout the rest of the book. God also clearly instructs Moses to do the writing in Exodus 34:27. Or do you think verses 27 and 28 are talking about different covenants?

In Exodus 34:1, God clearly says that He would rewrite the same commandments, Deuteronomy 10:1-4, 5:22, and 4:13 confirm this.

I believe that Exodus 34: 27-28 are consistent with the writing of the Pentateuch, and all the other laws contained in the covenant.

There are references to a definite "book" being consistently written in, first mentioned in Exodus 17:14 and in 13 other places. "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord" (Exodus 24:4) and Moses read the book of the covenant to all the people (Exodus 24:7).

The first tablets were written by God and broken, the second set of tablets were written by God and placed in the ark. Moses also wrote the commandments as God instructed in that 27th verse; "Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant". We wouldn't have them today if Moses didn't also record them in the 'book'.

[Kingfisher]

What kind of fundamentalist are you, coming at me with coherent logic like that?!

Now we're back to the Word coming from God and the Book from Moses, so let's step up the game. Keep in mind that I don't question the Word, just the inerrancy of the Book. Faith in God, I have plenty. Faith in people, not so much. Considering that a fallible human might well have gotten manna crumbs all over it, here's the next test: Can you support the doctrine that the words (not just the ideas) are divinely inspired, with more than faith and circular arguments?

[Dan56]

Can you support the doctrine that the words (not just the ideas) are divinely inspired, with more than faith and circular arguments?

There's no definitive proof that any book is inspired by God, it must by accepted by faith. There is evidence of fulfilled prophesy, ancient biblical history, and in nature itself, but there is no tangible proof outside of what the writings themselves proclaim. By the same token, if the bible is spiritually inspired, then its truths would not likely be revealed by physical evidence, but through spiritual revelation via the Holy Spirit.,

[Fawzo]

and still not escape judgment. Sins were not atoned for until his crucifixion, the law requires blood.

Just keep repeating the end of that sentence to yourself all week and think about it "the law requires blood" "the law requires blood" soon within your heart you'll come to recognize how absurd and barbaric that sounds to modern man and maybe even come to realize that this was the mindset and reality of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age man and the kind of mindest that Jesus actually came to rid the world of.

[Pete]

What kind of fundamentalist are you, coming at me with coherent logic like that?!

Now we're back to the Word coming from God and the Book from Moses, so let's step up the game. Keep in mind that I don't question the Word, just the inerrancy of the Book. Faith in God, I have plenty. Faith in people, not so much. Considering that a fallible human might well have gotten manna crumbs all over it, here's the next test: Can you support the doctrine that the words (not just the ideas) are divinely inspired, with more than faith and circular arguments?

Just one thing. Moses is said to have written the first five books (the Pentateuch) and these also contain the story of his own death. Pretty neat do you not think?

Many people believe the books were written in the tradition of Moses but not actually by Moses. Either way we only have their word (whoever they are?) that any of the books are an accurate account. The other thing to note is when people write stuff throughout the bible, they use previous stuff to justify what they are writing and it therefore looks later as one forecasted the other. I believe much of the NT was written this way too.

[Kingfisher]

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?

if the bible is spiritually inspired, then its truths would not likely be revealed by physical evidence, but through spiritual revelation via the Holy Spirit.

Do you understand now?

[Carl Harry Carlson]

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.

By Dan's definition of Christianity I am not a Christian. I'm fine with that. I would not care to be a Christian under Dan's definition.

I am a Christian under my definition.