What exactly is wrong with Liberal Christianity?

[Athetotheist]

In discussing Christian scripture with others, I sometimes encounter the assertion that "interpretation" is a legitimate factor in assessing the nature of said scripture.

According to Google, Liberal Christianity "interprets Christian teachings by prioritizing modern knowledge, science, and ethics over traditional doctrinal authority".

If even the more conservative apologist defends Christian scripture by allowing for interpretation of it, how much criticism is it fair to level at more liberal interpretations of Christianity?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #46]

How do you get "the last generation of sinful men ruling on earth" from "this generation"?

Because that generation has passed away without those things coming to pass. And we know that generation has not come to pass, since Peter and John at the end of their lives and generation still prophesied of the Lord's coming.

This is just a circular argument built on the assumption that the prophecy has to be true.

It's argument is of the prophecy in context of the Book.

Your non answer defaults to disbelief rather than Book analysis.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #47]

Since Jesus is a law keeper, Christians cannot be law breakers. And so not liberals, since you rightly compare liberals with law breaking...

"anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:19)

"If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."
(Deuteronomy 22:22)

In John 8, when some men drag a woman caught in adultery in front of Jesus and remind him of what the law says, does he teach them to keep the law by putting her to death?

He reminds them of the spirit of the law, and not the letter only, as in the matter of David's adultery:

Rom 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Jas 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.


Jesus had no power to execute law of Moses, which was only by appointed judges, rulers, and priests. He did not denounce the law, nor forbid anyone executing her by law. Nor did he set aside or violate the commandment against adultery.

And the accusers by the law found no fault in His answer.

And of course, the question is whether Jesus and His followers are liberal violators of law, not executors of law. Jesus and His followers are not violators of God's law.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #52]

He reminds them of the spirit of the law, and not the letter only, as in the matter of David's adultery

According to Mosaic law, its spirit and its letter are one and the same.

"because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you today, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God."
(Deuteronomy 13:18)

Jesus had no power to execute law of Moses, which was only by appointed judges, rulers, and priests.

Not according to the law itself.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

What would Jesus have recommended in that scenario?

He did not denounce the law, nor forbid anyone executing her by law. Nor did he set aside or violate the commandment against adultery.

"anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"

Deut. 22:22 says:
"If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

It does not say:
".....and he who is without sin is to cast the first stone."

Jesus is adding to the law, in violation of the law itself (Deut. 4:2).

And that's liberal.

And the accusers by the law found no fault in His answer.

At least that's the way it's written.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #51]

This is just a circular argument built on the assumption that the prophecy has to be true.

It's argument is of the prophecy in context of the Book.

Same thing.

Your non answer defaults to disbelief rather than Book analysis.

My answer points out a logical fallacy.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #52]

He reminds them of the spirit of the law, and not the letter only, as in the matter of David's adultery

According to Mosaic law, its spirit and its letter are one and the same.

"because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you today, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God."
(Deuteronomy 13:18)

The spirit of the law allows for mercy, not only for adulterer kings, but also for adulterer women:

Eze 33:14
Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; He shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Jhn 8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

It's not surprising that people who find fault with letters alone, must deny the spirit: I.e. No context.

Jesus had no power to execute law of Moses, which was only by appointed judges, rulers, and priests.

Not according to the law itself.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

What would Jesus have recommended in that scenario?

Like the other, he would not have stopped anyone from that town to stone the guilty.

Jesus was another Jewish man on earth, that did keep the law blameless Himself. He had no authority as judge and executioner in that matter. Nor to forbid others with authority to do so.

You must think He was God Almighty on earth...

It does not say:
".....and he who is without sin is to cast the first stone."

Jesus is adding to the law, in violation of the law itself (Deut. 4:2).

Mercy added to the law by the lawgiver, does not violate the law. You seek a law without mercy added, don't look to Moses.

And according to Moses, where in the law does it say that any and every man of Israel, must cast a stone? The men of the town of the rebellious child and adulterer are authorized and responsible by law to cast stones.

Jesus was a man of Galilee, not Jerusalem. He counselled mercy to the repentant, and the men of the town agreed.

And so now we see fault-finders arguing a merciless law by the letter alone, that is not given in Scripture...

Tit 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Jas 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

And the accusers by the law found no fault in His answer.

At least that's the way it's written.

So, from caring only about what's written in letter, and not in spirit, to not caring about what's written at all.

Which is obvious from the manner of argument for the letter of the law, but not according to the letters written...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #55]

The spirit of the law allows for mercy, not only for adulterer kings, but also for adulterer women:

Eze 33:14
Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; He shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Jhn 8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Then you admit that the "spirit" of the law and the letter of the law are in conflict.


all the men of his town are to stone him to death.
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

What would Jesus have recommended in that scenario?

Like the other, he would not have stopped anyone from that town to stone the guilty.

Jesus was another Jewish man on earth, that did keep the law blameless Himself. He had no authority as judge and executioner in that matter. Nor to forbid others with authority to do so.

Then he would have no authority to condemn anyone who carried out the law---not even one who wasn't without sin.

Mercy added to the law by the lawgiver, does not violate the law.

"Mercy added to the law by the lawgiver" is a circular argument here, presuming that Jesus was the lawgiver.

In light of Deut. 4:2, it also undermines the assertion that Jesus was a man who kept the law blameless.

And according to Moses, where in the law does it say that any and every man of Israel, must cast a stone? The men of the town of the rebellious child and adulterer are authorized and responsible by law to cast stones.

Then who is Jesus to tell even them to do any different?

Jesus was a man of Galilee, not Jerusalem. He counselled mercy to the repentant, and the men of the town agreed.

Where does the law in 22:22 say anything about sparing the repentant? If the men had stoned the woman to follow the law, would they have been wrong to do so? If not, why doesn't Jesus repeat what he says in Matthew 5:19?

So, from caring only about what's written in letter

Jesus in Matthew 5:18-19 again.

Which is obvious from the manner of argument for the letter of the law, but not according to the letters written...

If the letter of the law and the letters written are in conflict...


If mercy has to be added to a law to which nothing is supposed to be added, do you concede that the law itself is lacking?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #55]

The spirit of the law allows for mercy, not only for adulterer kings, but also for adulterer women:

Eze 33:14
Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; He shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Jhn 8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Then you admit that the "spirit" of the law and the letter of the law are in conflict.

Exactly. Else there would be no mercy of the law.

Jas 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

If you want to argue contradiction of a law without mercy, then you'll need to go elsewhere.

Some try to argue for a law of rape-enforced marriage, which also is merciless, and not the law of Moses...

all the men of his town are to stone him to death.
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

What would Jesus have recommended in that scenario?

Like the other, he would not have stopped anyone from that town to stone the guilty.

Jesus was another Jewish man on earth, that did keep the law blameless Himself. He had no authority as judge and executioner in that matter. Nor to forbid others with authority to do so.

Then he would have no authority to condemn anyone who carried out the law---not even one who wasn't without sin.

True again, which He did not do.

Jesus allowed the conscience of others to execute the law, or show mercy. It is was only for them to condemn execution, by showing mercy.

And according to Moses, where in the law does it say that any and every man of Israel, must cast a stone? The men of the town of the rebellious child and adulterer are authorized and responsible by law to cast stones.

Then who is Jesus to tell even them to do any different?

Who is this Jesus that did? The Jesus in the Bible only allowed them to execute or show mercy by their own conscience. He did not tell any man what to do.

Until of course he told the uncondemned woman to go and sin no more...

Jhn 8:10
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Jesus only left her uncondemned, because the others with right to execute, left her uncondemned.

Your personal problem with the result, does not make the result illegal.

Jesus was a man of Galilee, not Jerusalem. He counselled mercy to the repentant, and the men of the town agreed.

Where does the law in 22:22 say anything about sparing the repentant? If the men had stoned the woman to follow the law, would they have been wrong to do so?

Of course not. There were no doubt many leading Jews with authority to execute law in Jerusalem, that agreed with you: Never show the mercy of the law, but only the letter.

Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

They no doubt also rebuked their fellow Jews for not executing the law without mercy.

If mercy has to be added to a law to which nothing is supposed to be added, do you concede that the law itself is lacking?

A weightier matter of the law is already the law. it's not adding anything into the law, such as law against rubbing corn together to eat on the Sabbath. Which indeed was added to the law by the very leaders, that executed the law without mercy, and taught all men ought do likewise.

In the end, the law was not executed for mercy sake with this adulterous woman, by the same example of the Israelite king not executed for adultery.

And the fault finders that seek a law without mercy, made their own law themselves, rather than the law of Moses...And some still do.

It's truly amazing how far some will go to find fault with the law of Moses, that the only fault they can find is Spirit of the law, not the letter. Which they say should be without any mercy at all.

Normally, those finding fault with the law of Moses, say it's to strict. But here we have those finding fault with Moses' law, because of the mercy not to execute death for transgression. As well as for not enforcing a marriage-by-rape law...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #57]

Then you admit that the "spirit" of the law and the letter of the law are in conflict.

Exactly. Else there would be no mercy of the law.

Then mercy violates the law.

Jesus allowed the conscience of others to execute the law, or show mercy. It is was only for them to condemn execution, by showing mercy.

If they chose not to show mercy but to execute the law in order to be called great in the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus himself says in Matthew 5, for what could Jesus condemn them?

Who is this Jesus that did? The Jesus in the Bible only allowed them to execute or show mercy by their own conscience. He did not tell any man what to do.

In not teaching them to keep the law, he again makes himself least in the kingdom of heaven by his own definition [Matthew 5 again].

Your personal problem with the result, does not make the result illegal.

No, Jesus' departure from the law makes it illegal.

There were no doubt many leading Jews with authority to execute law in Jerusalem, that agreed with you: Never show the mercy of the law, but only the letter.

Showing mercy where the law doesn't show it violates the law.

Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Matthew 5:18-19
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Where the law doesn't extend mercy, you can't extend mercy without undoing the law.

A weightier matter of the law is already the law. it's not adding anything into the law, such as law against rubbing corn together to eat on the Sabbath.

The law was against harvesting on the sabbath. Picking corn for eating is harvesting.

And a "weightier matter" of a law isn't already the law unless the law says it is.

In the end, the law was not executed for mercy sake with this adulterous woman, by the same example of the Israelite king not executed for adultery.

So the law is violated twice.

And the fault finders that seek a law without mercy, made their own law themselves, rather than the law of Moses...And some still do.

They were the ones following the law of Moses. Apologists who pretend that a law without mercy is merciful can't have it both ways.

It's truly amazing how far some will go to find fault with the law of Moses, that the only fault they can find is Spirit of the law, not the letter.

As I've mentioned before, the spirit of the law of Moses and the letter of it are supposed to be one and the same.

"because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you today, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God."
(Deuteronomy 13:18)

Which they say should be without any mercy at all.

Again, you can't have it both ways by pretending that a law without mercy is merciful.

Normally, those finding fault with the law of Moses, say it's to strict. But here we have those finding fault with Moses' law, because of the mercy not to execute death for transgression. As well as for not enforcing a marriage-by-rape law...

Fault is found because the mercy isn't in the law. Show me where the law of Moses extends mercy to an adulteress or a woman in marriage-by-rape.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #57]

Then you admit that the "spirit" of the law and the letter of the law are in conflict.

Exactly. Else there would be no mercy of the law.

Then mercy violates the law.

Mercy only violates merciless law. Since the law of Moses allows for mercy, then mercy does not violate Moses' law with mercy.

Jesus allowed the conscience of others to execute the law, or show mercy. It is was only for them to condemn execution, by showing mercy.

If they chose not to show mercy but to execute the law in order to be called great in the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus himself says in Matthew 5, for what could Jesus condemn them?

And so we see Jesus did not tell anyone to show mercy and not execute the law, of which he is falsely accused.

Nor did He condemn their choice of conscience by law, not to execute but show mercy instead. Since they did not execute, then His example of not condemning mercy in the law, would also have not condemned execution by law.

Who is this Jesus that did? The Jesus in the Bible only allowed them to execute or show mercy by their own conscience. He did not tell any man what to do.

In not teaching them to keep the law, he again makes himself least in the kingdom of heaven by his own definition [Matthew 5 again].

Useless continued circular argument. Accusing the law of Moses of being without mercy, and so declaring execution of the law must be without mercy.

The only kingdom law being violated by mercy, is your own merciless law, that you accuse Moses of giving for the kingdom of God.

Where the law doesn't extend mercy, you can't extend mercy without undoing the law.

Num 14:19
Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.


2Sa 12:13
And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Where the lawgiver extends mercy not to execute the law, mercy does not violate the law.

A weightier matter of the law is already the law. it's not adding anything into the law, such as law against rubbing corn together to eat on the Sabbath.

The law was against harvesting on the sabbath. Picking corn for eating is harvesting.

And a "weightier matter" of a law isn't already the law unless the law says it is.

Exo 40:20
And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves on the ark, and put the mercy seat above upon the ark:

When the law is kept with the mercy seat, the law is kept by showing mercy.

Your merciless law is no more that of Moses, than any marriage by rape law.

In the end, the law was not executed for mercy sake with this adulterous woman, by the same example of the Israelite king not executed for adultery.[/quote]So the law is violated twice.[/quote]

So, the law is separated from the lawgiver twice, in order to demand another law without mercy.

The letter of the law separated from the lawgiver, is not the law of the lawgiver, but of another.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #59]

Mercy only violates merciless law. Since the law of Moses allows for mercy

To an adulteress? To a woman in marriage-by-rape? What mercy does the law of Moses allow them?


If they chose not to show mercy but to execute the law in order to be called great in the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus himself says in Matthew 5, for what could Jesus condemn them?

And so we see Jesus did not tell anyone to show mercy and not execute the law, of which he is falsely accused.

We see Jesus not teaching the law, thereby not making himself great in the kingdom of heaven by his own definition.

Nor did He condemn their choice of conscience by law, not to execute but show mercy instead. Since they did not execute, then His example of not condemning mercy in the law

His "example" isn't condemning "mercy in the law" because there is no mercy in the law they are there to carry out.

would also have not condemned execution by law.

So he could have gone either way? That smacks more of politics than of mercy.


In not teaching them to keep the law, he again makes himself least in the kingdom of heaven by his own definition [Matthew 5 again].

Useless continued circular argument. Accusing the law of Moses of being without mercy, and so declaring execution of the law must be without mercy.

Nothing circular here. I'm quoting Jesus' own statements from Matthew 5:17-19.

If the law of Moses shows mercy to an adulteress, show me where.

The only kingdom law being violated by mercy, is your own merciless law, that you accuse Moses of giving for the kingdom of God.

None of this is my law. I'm reading the literal words of the Bible.

Where the lawgiver extends mercy not to execute the law, mercy does not violate the law.

It does where the law rules out mercy.

"And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
(Deuteronomy 19:21)

"And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
(Deuteronomy 21:21)

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."
(Deuteronomy 22:22)

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
(Deuteronomy 4:2)

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
(Matthew 5:18)

Exo 40:20
And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves on the ark, and put the mercy seat above upon the ark:

When the law is kept with the mercy seat, the law is kept by showing mercy.

Where does the law say that?

See the previously cited passages of the law, which are established after the exodus.

"When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy God."
(Deuteronomy 13:18)

Your merciless law is no more that of Moses, than any marriage by rape law.

Isn't the law of Moses where you find the marriage-by-rape law?

So, the law is separated from the lawgiver twice, in order to demand another law without mercy.

The letter of the law separated from the lawgiver, is not the law of the lawgiver, but of another.

The lawgiver gives the letter of the law as it's given. So if anyone separates the letter of the law from mercy which isn't in the letter, it's the lawgiver.


You want to show mercy? Great. But don't pretend that the law shows mercy when it doesn't.....and don't blame me for pointing out that it doesn't.