Liberal Christians only believe some "fundamentalism?

[AlAyeti]

There are now political Christians wanting to "re-claim" Christianity from whatever the "Right" is, or has done to it. Claiming that their way of Christianity is more like what Jesus would want.

But many of these Liberal positions hold to funadamentalism on the poor, the needy and anti-war and violence, but oppose Biblical truth on many other issues.

Why do Liberal Christians deny the truths of the New Testament on marriage and children as defined by Jesus himself?

Liberals will teach about condom usage but decry the Biblical truth about abstaining from sex until marriage as something ignorant or intolerant?

Why are not Liberal Christians funding missionaries to go to Muslim and other countries to spread the Gospel exactly the way Jesus described and exactly the way it is presented in the Gospels?

How can Liberal Christians support a womans right to kill her unborn child and encourage a woman to go and do it, while at the same time, denying the same rights of choice on the matter be given equal recognition to the father of the child?

How and why can Liberal Christians call themselves Christians while only preaching and teaching some immutable Christian positions and not all?

[redstang281]

I believe so. Jesus says that divorce is a sin because it changes the original design of marriage.

Jesus's response does not say this. His response is that divorce cleaves apart that which was joined together by God. Divorce is not a sin because it changes the original design of marriage; rather, it may be seen as a sin because it spits in the face of that which God has unified.

There's more then one reason why divorce is a sin. Jesus does say Moses allowed divorce because of the peoples sin and that divorce was not approved of originally. I take that to mean that the original design of marriage is something that we should not depart from. Considering homosexuality itself is a sin I don't think it's too far of a stretch to conclude homoesexual marriage as a sin as well.

'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

This goes so much deeper than mere definition of marriage. It's not even a response to: "what defines marriage?" but in response to a test used by some Pharisees to trick Jesus.

This comes just after a remark about divine union. The point here is not about defining marriage (though the model of marriage then was man/woman) as man/woman but rather a statement regarding what God joins together. The point is that "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." There was no need to define what marriage is regarding gender in the Bible because during that time historically and in that place, it was understood that man + woman = marriage. The Matthean community did not (at least no evidence suggests such) deal with homosexual marriage.

That being said, we're still taking this statement out of context. Within context, the Pharisees are testing Jesus regarding Mosianic law. They're testing him to see if he's heretical in his teachings; Jesus, as is characteristic of his portrayal in the NT Gospels, understands their attempted trick and responds accordingly. The whole talk about marriage was a vehicle for the Pharisees to catch Jesus blaspheming against Jewish law. To say then that 'it's clear Jesus defines marriage as man + woman' then becomes an act of irresponsible interpretation.

The thing that you're not realizing is that the Bible can have more then one truth taught in one statement. I agree that this is a response to the pharisees attempt to trick Jesus but I still also believe this affirms Christ's position on marriage. Jesus uses the beginning as the point of reference as a correct model. Marriage is something that he requests remain modelled as it did in the beginning. In the beginning divorce was not tolerated and it was a man and a woman.

The only time I would support an abortion is in the case where the mother will most likely not survive the pregnancy. In that situation there is really no a choice. However I do not support a "choice" in any way.

On a side note- there is still a choice. If you don't support choice in any way then you can't (by your own logic) support abortion simply because the mother may die. So where do you stand? Abortion in some instances but not others, making amendments to your position in times of crisis? Most people, I think, feel this way. It makes sense- that way, you're saving the most lives (probably.) But at what cost?

Well it's not much of a choice, if the mother dies then the baby does too. That's why I said it's not a really a choice.

disagree. Children are not alive apart from their parents. They can't take care of themselves or provide for themselves without an adult. Parents have a responsibility to them and they can not legally gain freedom from that responsibility by murder. Likewise they should not be able to gain freedom from pregnancy by murder either. If we're going to allow abortion we might as well allow all parents to consider their own feelings an emotions before their childrens and reserve the right to kill them up until 18 years of age.

You logic here is a little skewed. I'm not going to harp on semantics again with you. But the idea of equating aborting a child before it's even in human form, and killing a living breathing, separate person is absurd. I understand the whole pro-life thing, but you can't possibly be serious in making an argument like this.

I value a human in the womb as much as a human outside the womb. It's not tissue it's a baby.

What you consider liberal in Jesus's day would have been a conservative today in our country. The common factor is adhering to Biblical principals.

You really think so? Conservatives by and large hold the most political sway in this nation,

Then why don't we have prayer, Bibles, and creation in our public schools?Why can't I mention my faith at work without getting fired but members of various religions may place paraphernalia all over their cube?

hold the most wealth, and basically run the country through their corporations. Jesus, on the other hand, was a poor Jew who fought the corruption of the systems in his day....

Jesus lived in a different day and age. We live in a what at least used to be a Christian nation that God has blessed because of the faith of it's founders. Unfortunately that is changing and maybe soon

hmmmm, sounds like a liberal to me here. Conservative Christians spend more time trying to save souls than save lives in their missionary approach. Jesus actually fed and healed people, producing physical, material changes in their lives rather than preaching about their souls. Paul's aim was about souls and heaven, Jesus's aim was about physical wellbeing, and hope for a better future here on earth. Jesus, again, was a liberal, just as much today as back then.

I'm not sure why so many people have this concept of the conservative churches not helping people. My church is very active in that area. Maybe the reason is because they do put a focus on salvation. But I think that is rightly so. The reason Christ came to earth was not to feed or heal primarily but rather it was to give his life as a ransom for us. The Salvation of mankind is and was always Christ primary focus and the churches try to model that as well. You'll notice in this verse that Christ directs people to salvation first before concerns of this world.

Matthew 6:30-33 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

2 Corinthians 4:4 - In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

Is this supposed to support Satan as a world ruler? Do you not see that this is a direct reference to something Jesus said about the purpose of his gospels?

I see that it says not only is there a "god" of this world but he is not Christ and he stands in opposition to Christ. He is also able to blind the minds of unbelievers. If you believe this is not the devil please explain why.

The church represents Christ body which all believers are called into. I will conform to Christ but not the world.

Which church is "The church."

The spiritual community of all believers known to God who come to salvation by faith alone and act out of spirit to perform his will.

So you advocate supporting the world but not Church? Doesn't sound like too good a plan for a Christian to me. Jesus fought against anti-biblical establishments the same way Bible believe Christians do today.

Well, Jesus fought against the Temple....

The temple is not exactly the same thing as the church. The temple used to be a good thing and was later corrupted by the pharisees into "a den of thieves". Jesus was upset because it had become perverted from it's original intention. The church nowadays is in an effort to keep society from becoming corrupt as well. What do we use as a guide? The Bible, God's revealed word which never changes and is our only truth to fall upon. Liberal use man's opinion that always changes and never gets anything right.

so yeah! Jesus fought against socio-political oppression stemming directly from the church. In our society today, the institutional church doesn't oppress the material body but the mind. Yes, I will fight against that; because the brainwashing of generations leads to horrible things in the future. i.e. hate crimes against the Jews, burning "witches," establishing slavery to build a nation; raping a land and it's people all because of some predestined birthright.... if only "the church" took a socratic method to understanding humanity we'd all be in a better place.

At my church we have no hatred of jews, burn no witches, keep no slaves, etc...

The things you describe are all non biblical values. If anyone throughout history advocated such things, being they are unbiblical, reflects not on the church but rather on the fallible human nature.

Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

This is a specific reference to a specific person. This cannot be construed as a general statement about all of humanity.

So you're saying God knew this man but not everyone else? Even if that were true, how would you know who is safe to abort and who is not? If even one person had a God appointed destiny then that opens up the possibility that at the very least others could as well.

Then you are the only person on earth who is doing so. Until you attend to the biases you bring to the text and confront them in your reading, you'll always be shaping the text to fit your own view and will never be open to the text itself.

That's where prayer comes in. When I read I ask God to reveal the truth to me as is common practice with Christians. Having a submissive spirit to the lord is how you see the meaning and avoid subjecting your own will to revealing the text.

This arrogance is what liberal christians fight against.

If, as your logic states, God = arrogance, then I will protest God every day of my life

Why resort to name calling and belittling? I know frustration is bound to occur during these discussions but why disrespect another human being? I realize that you may see my views in a bad light but I honestly mean no harm to anyone. I am only here to offer my views to anyone open to them.

[melikio]

The thing that you're not realizing is that the Bible can have more then one truth taught in one statement. I agree that this is a response to the pharisees attempt to trick Jesus but I still also believe this affirms Christ's position on marriage. Jesus uses the beginning as the point of reference as a correct model. Marriage is something that he requests remain modelled as it did in the beginning. In the beginning divorce was not tolerated and it was a man and a woman.

redstang, people DO realize that there is more there than meets the eye.

Still, one problem is that there have been MANY shades of meaning attributed to MANY different verses. And the WORST mistake of many who "think" they are right, is to be overly-zealous or too forceful about compelling others to "agree" with their biblical or religious views.

While I agree that some DO simply HATE religion, many of the problems or trouble staunch religious-fundamentalists face, are problems they themselves are "fueling". Many won't ZOOM-OUT from where they are, because they have been TAUGHT to avoid that. Even so, using logic and being somewhat reasonable, we can at least agree that people WILL surely disagree.

I think it is God's providence if we/they believe all things (in due time) in the same way/s. You see, God knows the heart; how EACH person got to where they happen to be...many fundamentalists basically assume that everyone is on the same road and hearing/seeing the same things; that isn't reality. And as inspirational and life-changing as Jesus was/is for myself, not everyone will understand or view that aspect of reality as you or I might.

Some people just need to let God do His thing inside of people, and STOP TRYING TO CONTROL them.

-Mel-

[McCulloch]

At my church we have no hatred of jews, burn no witches, keep no slaves, etc...
The things you describe are all non biblical values. If anyone throughout history advocated such things, being they are unbiblical, reflects not on the church but rather on the fallible human nature.

How can you say this? Anti-semitism has its roots in the very biblical myth of the Jews accepting the blame for Christ's death (read John). The bible itself is very clear on what to do with witches. Slavery is explicitly dealt with and not forbidden in the New Testament. These are all very biblical ideas.
Your church, and many other churches, look upon these things and other biblical evils (like genocide) as unbiblical. But read the book! They are all there.

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
I believe so. Jesus says that divorce is a sin because it changes the original design of marriage.

Jesus's response does not say this. His response is that divorce cleaves apart that which was joined together by God. Divorce is not a sin because it changes the original design of marriage; rather, it may be seen as a sin because it spits in the face of that which God has unified.

Quote:
'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

This goes so much deeper than mere definition of marriage. It's not even a response to: "what defines marriage?" but in response to a test used by some Pharisees to trick Jesus.

This comes just after a remark about divine union. The point here is not about defining marriage (though the model of marriage then was man/woman) as man/woman but rather a statement regarding what God joins together. The point is that "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." There was no need to define what marriage is regarding gender in the Bible because during that time historically and in that place, it was understood that man + woman = marriage. The Matthean community did not (at least no evidence suggests such) deal with homosexual marriage.

That being said, we're still taking this statement out of context. Within context, the Pharisees are testing Jesus regarding Mosianic law. They're testing him to see if he's heretical in his teachings; Jesus, as is characteristic of his portrayal in the NT Gospels, understands their attempted trick and responds accordingly. The whole talk about marriage was a vehicle for the Pharisees to catch Jesus blaspheming against Jewish law. To say then that 'it's clear Jesus defines marriage as man + woman' then becomes an act of irresponsible interpretation.

"That" being said "divine union" is a man and a woman.

Mangling scripture to fit a socio-political movement of unrepentant sexual deviance in the 21st century is not justifiable by New Testament texts, anywhere in them.

Sodom and Gomorrah and the people living around Noah comes to mind. Or, Holland, New York, Boston and San Francisco.

Quote:
The only time I would support an abortion is in the case where the mother will most likely not survive the pregnancy. In that situation there is really no a choice. However I do not support a "choice" in any way.

But 99.99% of abortions are for convenience. And everybody knows it. It is just that some people want it that way.

On a side note- there is still a choice. If you don't support choice in any way then you can't (by your own logic) support abortion simply because the mother may die. So where do you stand? Abortion in some instances but not others, making amendments to your position in times of crisis? Most people, I think, feel this way. It makes sense- that way, you're saving the most lives (probably.) But at what cost?

If the sex of the unborn human being can be determined to be female, what about her reproductive rights? By the way, the sex of the unborn human is determined at conception. I thought I would just interject some logic and scientific facts.

Quote:
disagree. Children are not alive apart from their parents. They can't take care of themselves or provide for themselves without an adult.

Shouldn't this same rationalism apply to the poor? Is it anyone else's fault that the poor cannot survive without the help of another? Why not D & C those on welfare?

Parents have a responsibility to them and they can not legally gain freedom from that responsibility by murder. Likewise they should not be able to gain freedom from pregnancy by murder either. If we're going to allow abortion we might as well allow all parents to consider their own feelings an emotions before their childrens and reserve the right to kill them up until 18 years of age.

It all depends on who gets to determine "when" life begins. I know a lot of people that think they are not "living" a happy life. It's hard for many people to "survive" without a degree. Does life begin at the Masters Stage? Many would say yes!

You logic here is a little skewed. I'm not going to harp on semantics again with you. But the idea of equating aborting a child before it's even in human form, and killing a living breathing, separate person is absurd. I understand the whole pro-life thing, but you can't possibly be serious in making an argument like this.

A fetus has a human form very early in the pregnnacy. Science has proven this.

Quote:
What you consider liberal in Jesus's day would have been a conservative today in our country. The common factor is adhering to Biblical principals.

You really think so? Conservatives by and large hold the most political sway in this nation, hold the most wealth, and basically run the country through their corporations. Jesus, on the other hand, was a poor Jew who fought the corruption of the systems in his day.... hmmmm, sounds like a liberal to me here. Conservative Christians spend more time trying to save souls than save lives in their missionary approach. Jesus actually fed and healed people, producing physical, material changes in their lives rather than preaching about their souls. Paul's aim was about souls and heaven, Jesus's aim was about physical wellbeing, and hope for a better future here on earth. Jesus, again, was a liberal, just as much today as back then.

"Go, and sin no more?" Never a word uttered like this in Liberal theology, let alone their churches. Unless they're telling it to conservatives that preach the Bible the way it is written.

Quote:
Actually Satan is the world ruler.

Wow.

Quote:
2 Corinthians 4:4 - In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

Is this supposed to support Satan as a world ruler? Do you not see that this is a direct reference to something Jesus said about the purpose of his gospels?

Quote:
There's good conforming and there's bad conforming. Conforming to God's will is good and the worlds is bad.

That's a cop-out.

Abortion and legalizing same-sex marriage are ultimate cop-outs. Both incessant mantras of the Liberal.

Quote:
Quote:
What are you doing as as part of institutionalized Christianity but conforming.

The church represents Christ body which all believers are called into. I will conform to Christ but not the world.

Which church is "The church."

By their fruits you will know them.

Quote:
So you advocate supporting the world but not Church? Doesn't sound like too good a plan for a Christian to me. Jesus fought against anti-biblical establishments the same way Bible believe Christians do today.

Well, Jesus fought against the Temple.... so yeah! Jesus fought against socio-political oppression stemming directly from the church. In our society today, the institutional church doesn't oppress the material body but the mind. Yes, I will fight against that; because the brainwashing of generations leads to horrible things in the future. i.e. hate crimes against the Jews, burning "witches," establishing slavery to build a nation; raping a land and it's people all because of some predestined birthright.... if only "the church" took a socratic method to understanding humanity we'd all be in a better place.

The Liberal Church condones and celebrates un-Godly things. The brain washing of the last generation has born children to it that think homosexuality, minors having sex, and killing your unborn children so you can keep having promiscuous sex are civil rights!

Quote:
God guides the development of infants in the womb with his special purpose and design. It's not our right to take their lives into our hands.

Quote:

Quote:
Where does scripture talk about God seeing the unborn and how God feels about unborn or aborted children?

Quote:
Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

This is a specific reference to a specific person. This cannot be construed as a general statement about all of humanity.

It definitely speaks to a humanity in some people that's for sure!

Quote:
Quote:
you're assuming that you've got it all right, that you've got a stranglehold on truth and the path to salvation.

I'm just reading the Bible for what it says and not imposing bias on it.

Then you are the only person on earth who is doing so. Until you attend to the biases you bring to the text and confront them in your reading, you'll always be shaping the text to fit your own view and will never be open to the text itself.

A kindergartner says "I know I am but so are you."

But the Bible is easy to read and easy to understand.

Quote:
Quote:
This arrogance is what liberal christians fight against.

They should realize they are fighting against God then.

They know what they are fighting against and they know His followers too.

[scorpia]

Still, one problem is that there have been MANY shades of meaning attributed to MANY different verses. And the WORST mistake of many who "think" they are right, is to be overly-zealous or too forceful about compelling others to "agree" with their biblical or religious views.

As far as I can tell, though, this thread is about what Al calls "liberal" people accepting things like divorce, abortion and homosexuality etc.

But yes, it is plain homosexuality is not encouraged in the Bible. It simply tells followers not to do that.

The thing is though perhaps some followers may feel that they can't. And they try to focus more on the Golden rule mostly. And that may be all fair and well, but that shouldn't mean ignoring the fact that all these rules in the Bible say so and so are wrong to do. Christians are supposed to try and follow them. The Golden rule is a means to this, not a replacement.

But at the same time, with all the rules in this book, is it not known that no-one can truely follow all of them? It may be easy to follow some like not murdering.. But inside, everyone eventually breaks these rules; Someone might be classified as a murderer not because he killed someone but because of his hate. Someone might be an adulterer because of his lust not because of his acts. And so, if no one can follow all these rules?

Yes, all these liberals aren't following God's command. But then, these fundamentalists aren't either. What's the point of lecturing anyone about how wrong they might be when you aren't perfect yourself? Jesus died so that everyone who loves him may be saved, because no-one can follow all of God's law.

Anyway I have to go. I am not sure where this thread has gone without proper time to read it but hopefully it will help.

[redstang281]

redstang, people DO realize that there is more there than meets the eye.

Still, one problem is that there have been MANY shades of meaning attributed to MANY different verses. And the WORST mistake of many who "think" they are right, is to be overly-zealous or too forceful about compelling others to "agree" with their biblical or religious views.

I've seen that too. I shared the passage I did because I felt that it can be inferred logically and reasonably. True, it's not the surface meaning of the passage but it seems logical to me that the foundational surface meaning would also apply in another similar context. I think that a lot of the Bible is written that way. For example "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife" Exd 20:17 can be easily seen to apply to your neighbors husband if you happen to be a woman. Sometimes God leaves us to infer certain things based on an overall understanding of his word. In the verse I show Jesus's suggested marriage was pure in the beginning which undoubtably was between a man and a women. Taking that into account and also that homosexuality is a sin I think my rational is fair. Jesus was not against the Bible in anyway. He desired for everyone to follow God's laws as they are recorded. In other words I can picture Jesus today being questioned in our society with "my some states allow homosexual marriage" and him responding the way he did about divorce to the pharisees. Just replace Moses with Political powers and "divorce your wives" with "marry a member of the same sex".

Matthew 19:8 - He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

While I agree that some DO simply HATE religion, many of the problems or trouble staunch religious-fundamentalists face, are problems they themselves are "fueling". Many won't ZOOM-OUT from where they are, because they have been TAUGHT to avoid that. Even so, using logic and being somewhat reasonable, we can at least agree that people WILL surely disagree.

Remember what Jesus said.

Matthew 10:34 - "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Unfortunately because the world hates Christ that is the response that you get for advocating his principles. So you are right we do fuel the trouble we have. Not that we want to start trouble but we want to serve the Lord faithfully and bring people to salvation.

Matthew 5:13-16 - "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men. "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Unfortunately people resist this and the Bible explains why.

John 3:20 - For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

I think it is God's providence if we/they believe all things (in due time) in the same way/s. You see, God knows the heart; how EACH person got to where they happen to be...many fundamentalists basically assume that everyone is on the same road and hearing/seeing the same things; that isn't reality. And as inspirational and life-changing as Jesus was/is for myself, not everyone will understand or view that aspect of reality as you or I might.

God has a different plan for each of us. That's why we are called the body of Christ. Each person represents different aspects. However, their is truth in Christ and that truth is not different between each person. If someone is a Christian and is unable to accept certain Biblical principals I believe during his walk the Lord will open his heart to see.

Some people just need to let God do His thing inside of people, and STOP TRYING TO CONTROL them.

Well I don't look at it as control myself. Everyone's sin is between them and God. However if I love my brother then I will not lie to him and tell him something he does is not a sin. If I sin and don't realize it I want someone to tell me so I can correct it.

Matthew 5:18-19 - For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[redstang281]

At my church we have no hatred of jews, burn no witches, keep no slaves, etc...

The things you describe are all non biblical values. If anyone throughout history advocated such things, being they are unbiblical, reflects not on the church but rather on the fallible human nature.


How can you say this? Anti-semitism has its roots in the very biblical myth of the Jews accepting the blame for Christ's death (read John).

There's no justification for anti-semitism in the Bible. You want to blame someone for Christ's death then blame me. It was my sin that put him on the cross. He choose to suffer for the sins of all of us, no one forced him. The jews and romans were just the instrument he used.

Besides Christ is a jew and God loves the Jews! They are the chosen people who he still has a plan for once the all the gentiles are gathered.

Romans 11:24-27 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree. Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

The bible itself is very clear on what to do with witches.

Not an open ended commandment. It was meant for the jews during a specific time in history for specific reasons.

Slavery is explicitly dealt with and not forbidden in the New Testament.

Not the same as slavery in this country. The slavery mentioned was more of a form of a willing servant. Jacob became a slave in order to earn his wife.

Your church, and many other churches, look upon these things and other biblical evils (like genocide) as unbiblical. But read the book! They are all there.

Context is the key. Think about it, if they were really biblical values wouldn't we be fighting the world on this issues? After all we don't conform to abortion and homosexuality.

[McCulloch]

There's no justification for anti-semitism in the Bible. You want to blame someone for Christ's death then blame me. It was my sin that put him on the cross. He choose to suffer for the sins of all of us, no one forced him. The jews and romans were just the instrument he used.
Besides Christ is a jew and God loves the Jews! They are the chosen people who he still has a plan for once the all the gentiles are gathered.

Would that all christians throughout the centuries have interpreted the bible as you do. Many Jews would not have gone to an early grave.

The bible itself is very clear on what to do with witches.

Not an open ended commandment. It was meant for the jews during a specific time in history for specific reasons.

That is one interpretation. Others differ. Why would an unchanging God condemn a practice with a death sentence in one era and tolerate it in another?

Slavery is explicitly dealt with and not forbidden in the New Testament.

Not the same as slavery in this country. The slavery mentioned was more of a form of a willing servant. Jacob became a slave in order to earn his wife.

Perhaps you are right. But in order to get to that interpretation, one must have completed a study of comparative history. A literalist reading the bible in the pre-Civil war South could and did read and interpret differently.

Your church, and many other churches, look upon these things and other biblical evils (like genocide) as unbiblical. But read the book! They are all there.

Context is the key. Think about it, if they were really biblical values wouldn't we be fighting the world on this issues? After all we don't conform to abortion and homosexuality.

So when Joshua and his tribe committed genocide in their God's name it was a good thing but when modern sectarians commit genocide in their God's name it is a bad thing. Your Bible has a strange way of making the distinction.

[AlAyeti]

redstang281 wrote:
There's no justification for anti-semitism in the Bible. You want to blame someone for Christ's death then blame me. It was my sin that put him on the cross. He choose to suffer for the sins of all of us, no one forced him. The jews and romans were just the instrument he used.
Besides Christ is a jew and God loves the Jews! They are the chosen people who he still has a plan for once the all the gentiles are gathered.
Would that all christians throughout the centuries have interpreted the bible as you do. Many Jews would not have gone to an early grave.

McCulloch wrote:
The bible itself is very clear on what to do with witches.
redstang281 wrote:
Not an open ended commandment. It was meant for the jews during a specific time in history for specific reasons.
That is one interpretation. Others differ. Why would an unchanging God condemn a practice with a death sentence in one era and tolerate it in another?

It is clear from the text of the Bible that God changed what was going to happen to the Israelites several times. What is neglected in all of the fighting over scripture is the consistent message of the Bible, a theme for sure. "Take care of the poor and needy" and "Salvation." Joshua = Jesus. "Yahweh saves." Many poor and needy are in good hands with many Christian outreach programs. Also, let us not forget that many of those enemies of Israel were spared and became part of the family.

Uriah the Hittite, was a mighty man of Israel! An incredibly prestigious group!!!

McCulloch wrote:
Slavery is explicitly dealt with and not forbidden in the New Testament.
redstang281 wrote:
Not the same as slavery in this country. The slavery mentioned was more of a form of a willing servant. Jacob became a slave in order to earn his wife.
Perhaps you are right. But in order to get to that interpretation, one must have completed a study of comparative history. A literalist reading the bible in the pre-Civil war South could and did read and interpret differently.

Every Christian is a slave to Christ. If a slave owner was like Christ than the whole issue of salvery would be very quiet. And there would be as much rejoicing in fields as there is in a good healthy church.

McCulloch wrote:
Your church, and many other churches, look upon these things and other biblical evils (like genocide) as unbiblical. But read the book! They are all there.
redstang281 wrote:
Context is the key. Think about it, if they were really biblical values wouldn't we be fighting the world on this issues? After all we don't conform to abortion and homosexuality.

No one is held responsible for shooting a burglar or a rapist. Like it or not, the Bible does not hide what happened and that speaks volumes. The peoples committing abominations were dealt with and they also had their victories over the Israelites while meting out the same cruelty.

So when Joshua and his tribe committed genocide in their God's name it was a good thing but when modern sectarians commit genocide in their God's name it is a bad thing. Your Bible has a strange way of making the distinction.

You either follow the Biblical brick road that leads to Christ Jesus and perfect peace or you don't. Now, mankind is once again back to Noah's world. Children are brutalized by people that will not change (pedophiles) Sodomites are now superstars and men (and women) are demanding that the world recognize their homosexual relationships, and Arabs are back to slaughtering anyone in their way for not following their practices.

The Biblical inerrancy is just about as perfect as it gets. Just watch tonights newscast. Or, read tomorrow's newspaper.

You don't see Krishna or Sidhartha's word being proven time and again!

No wonder Jesus was so obnoxious about saying "Those with eyes let the see and those with ears let them hear!" No truer words are spoken.

Just watch and listen.

[melikio]

Matthew 5:13-16 - "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men. "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

redstang,

I guess I'm just FINISHED being a "Christian". I could remain confused and bitter about the Bible, what it means and the various interpretations so many have thrown out over the years, but I can't go there anymore.

I don't think all of the rebellion and resistance Christians see, is a result of Christ, as much as it is a result of those who are "Christians".

I have nothing left to offer Jesus but who I REALLY am, what I really am and an open/loving heart toward others. If that's not enough, then I'm surely going to HELL. I don't believe that I am, but others have different views than I do; I gave you the best summary of the definition many "believe" in.

If I didn't believe in God's (or the Creator's) grace, I wouldn't want to TRY believing ANY of what many Christians say they believe. I know it's likely impossible to be "right" in God's eyes. I've tried and failed so many times, I'm tired of trying (really).

Funny thing, when I rolled all of who I am over into God's grace, my struggles were minimized. First, I stopped hating myself, and then accepted others more readily. To me, the "light" is not some standard religious thing many have defined it to be. But that's not worth debating too much (as far as I'm concerned), because the subjectivity surrounding religion and related beliefs (biblically-supported or otherwise), just keeps people arguing, fussing, biting, kicking and scratching at one another.

If that is what Jesus literally CALLS for (that "sword"), then I'll take that up with Him, not those who do not or refuse to believe in Him. If He can't change them, I certainly cannot. I KNOW He can change people through love...but all I've ever done with a weapon, is HURT people.

I'm finding more and more, that I'm not a "Christian"; and it's not bothering me anymore. I can't maintain that lack of belief in the things so many SAY I should be able to believe, yet never seem to be "right" enough nor "good" enough to be a part of the club. That duality is not something I can hold inside of my person any longer, and remain sane.

"Christians" don't even agree as some SAY they should. And maybe the "way" is so narrow, that it's as hopeless as I once imagined it was. If there is no miracle to align me to that "way", then count me out...completely. And I really doubt if another FLAWED human being can tell me how well I'm aligned with that "way".

Finally, if I REALLY DO have to beat up on others (socially, morally, religiously) who do not believe in MY "way" because the "Bible" says so, then I'm out of the "Christian" club for good (as far as some are concerned). It really is TOO HARD, to be the relgion some expect, and rather than focus upon failure after failure, I think doing one's best inside of the insurmountable grace represented in Jesus' sacrifice makes a lot more sense.

The restrictive and excessively-authoritatian "Christianity" many have promoted in this world, just doesn't make sense to me anymore. I can still make sense of a relationship with Jesus (as one who saved us; John 3:16), but the "standard" Christianity many PUSH at others seems somewhat mind-numbming to me now. Even so, I'm not here to tell other what to think, because I don't even know what to tell them. I used to THINK I did know what to tell them, but reality showed me how little I really knew about anything.

-Mel-