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]

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 this cause, it was conscience not politics.

I suppose the merciless only see politics, and not mercy.

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.

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?

It's self explanatory: the sacrifices for sins and transgressions given within the law, shows the mercy given by law. Which law was also kept under the mercy seat.

You've chosen a law with mercy written within, and surrounding itself with mercy, to accuse of being merciless.

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.

Only a lawless liberal would say the law should be all mercy without any execution, in order to be 'merciful'. Which is why only liberals would falsely accuse the law of Moses as being merciless...

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.

You want to show no mercy with the law, then show where no mercy was ever given during the law. First you need to do away with sin and transgression sacrifices for mercy by the law.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #61]

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

In this cause, it was conscience not politics.

Whatever it is, it isn't being great in the kingdom of heaven by keeping every jot and tittle of the law.

I suppose the merciless only see politics, and not mercy.

Rather, it's merciless not to see the politics.

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?

It's self explanatory: the sacrifices for sins and transgressions given within the law, shows the mercy given by law. Which law was also kept under the mercy seat.

So, the law doesn't say it.

Only a lawless liberal would say the law should be all mercy without any execution, in order to be 'merciful'. Which is why only liberals would falsely accuse the law of Moses as being merciless...

Then you acknowledge that parts of the law of Moses are without mercy.


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.

You want to show no mercy with the law, then show where no mercy was ever given during the law.

I already have.

"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)

First you need to do away with sin and transgression sacrifices for mercy by the law.

Those sacrifices were only for unintentional sins.

"Our parsha, which deals with a variety of sacrifices, devotes an extended section to the chattat, the sin offering, as brought by different individuals: first the High Priest (Lev. 4:3-12), then the community as a whole (Lev. 4:13-21), then a leader (Lev. 4:22-26) and finally an ordinary individual (Lev. 4:27-35).....

"The puzzle is that the sins for which an offering had to be brought were those committed inadvertently, be-shogeg. Either the sinner had forgotten the law, or some relevant fact."https://share.google/muRUM7VhL6BJgcTH9

[RBD]

Where does the law say that?

It's self explanatory: the sacrifices for sins and transgressions given within the law, shows the mercy given by law. Which law was also kept under the mercy seat.

So, the law doesn't say it.

??? The law of Moses doesn't speak of required sacrifices for mercy?

Lev 4:26
And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

This is the law saying that by sacrifice and offering, sin and trespass is forgiven: That's called 'mercy' written into the law.

A merciless law does not say anything about forgiveness for transgression.

Only a lawless liberal would say the law should be all mercy without any execution, in order to be 'merciful'. Which is why only liberals would falsely accuse the law of Moses as being merciless...

Then you acknowledge that parts of the law of Moses are without mercy.

With the above and this, you are clearly flailing: The parts without mercy are not the parts with mercy, and vica versa...

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.

You want to show no mercy with the law, then show where no mercy was ever given during the law.

I already have.

You haven't. You've only shown the necessary execution of the law, not the examples of mercy with the law.

"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)

Correct. Both the execution and mercy of the law must be kept equally: neither must be added to nor diminished. The law of Moses was not without execution nor mercy.

First you need to do away with sin and transgression sacrifices for mercy by the law.

Those sacrifices were only for unintentional sins.

"Our parsha, which deals with a variety of sacrifices, devotes an extended section to the chattat, the sin offering, as brought by different individuals: first the High Priest (Lev. 4:3-12), then the community as a whole (Lev. 4:13-21), then a leader (Lev. 4:22-26) and finally an ordinary individual (Lev. 4:27-35).....

"The puzzle is that the sins for which an offering had to be brought were those committed inadvertently, be-shogeg. Either the sinner had forgotten the law, or some relevant fact."https://share.google/muRUM7VhL6BJgcTH9

Good job. With enough prompting from the law of sacrifice for forgiveness of sin and trespass of the law: Mercy under the law of Moses was limited. I.e. The law was not without mercy.

A merciless law has no exceptions for any deed transgressing the letter of the law. Ignorant and unintended violations are executed without mercy, which requires judgment.

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.


The law of Moses has codified execution and mercy written in.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #63]

So, the law doesn't say it.

??? The law of Moses doesn't speak of required sacrifices for mercy?

The law doesn't say that

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

A merciless law does not say anything about forgiveness for transgression.

You're confusing "law", which may include examples of mercy, with specific laws for which no mercy is prescribed.


Then you acknowledge that parts of the law of Moses are without mercy.

With the above and this, you are clearly flailing: The parts without mercy are not the parts with mercy, and vica versa...

I think you're the one flailing. Again, you acknowledge that there are parts of the law without mercy.

You want to show no mercy with the law, then show where no mercy was ever given during the law.

I already have.

You haven't. You've only shown the necessary execution of the law, not the examples of mercy with the law.

I showed examples of specific laws for which no mercy was prescribed, which is why their execution was considered necessary.

The law of Moses has codified execution and mercy written in.

Violations of Mosaic law came with consequences varying in degree depending on the nature of the offense, and mercy was not universal.

[RBD]

A merciless law does not say anything about forgiveness for transgression.

You're confusing "law", which may include examples of mercy, with specific laws for which no mercy is prescribed.

??? You're confusing a law of execution and mercy, with a law without mercy and execution only. Takes a forced effort to do that.

"Why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

Then you acknowledge that parts of the law of Moses are without mercy.

With the above and this, you are clearly flailing: The parts without mercy are not the parts with mercy, and vica versa...

I think you're the one flailing. Again, you acknowledge that there are parts of the law without mercy.

??? So, we agree the law of Moses is not without mercy in the law. Nor without execution.

You want to show no mercy with the law, then show where no mercy was ever given during the law.

I already have.

You haven't. You've only shown the necessary execution of the law, not the examples of mercy with the law.

I showed examples of specific laws for which no mercy was prescribed, which is why their execution was considered necessary.

??? And I've shown the examples of specific law for which mercy is prescribed, not execution for sin and trespass of the law.

The law of Moses has codified execution and mercy written in.

Violations of Mosaic law came with consequences varying in degree depending on the nature of the offense, and mercy was not universal.

??? And execution was not universal. Execution was limited by law for mercy.

So, unless you have something else, other than apparently disagreeing with what we agree, by further agreeing with it...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #65]

You're confusing "law", which may include examples of mercy, with specific laws for which no mercy is prescribed.

??? You're confusing a law of execution and mercy, with a law without mercy and execution only. Takes a forced effort to do that.

That's exactly what I'm not doing, as you would know if you were paying attention.


I showed examples of specific laws for which no mercy was prescribed, which is why their execution was considered necessary.

??? And I've shown the examples of specific law for which mercy is prescribed, not execution for sin and trespass of the law.

You mentioned sacrifices, which I pointed out were prescribed for unintentional transgressions.

Is the "???" thing supposed to be clever?

And execution was not universal. Execution was limited by law for mercy.

Yeah----limited to laws with death-sentence directives like, "Your eye shall not pity" and "So shall you put away evil from among you".

[Jester]

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

It seems fairly obvious that "Liberal Christianity", by this definition, occupies a middle ground that won't appeal to most.

If modern "knowledge" and "ethics" include contemporary cultural assumptions which contradict biblical claims, then it seems obvious why many people would reject this approach. One would be left wondering why (if one accepts those cultural assumptions) one should be christian at all. Alternatively, if one accepts the biblical claims in question, one would be left wondering why one shouldn't be a more traditional Christian.

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?

By the definition above, the Liberal Christian isn't simply interpreting christian scripture differently, but taking contemporary cultural beliefs to trump christian scripture. One needn't be a christian, or a theist at all, to support the challenge that this view isn't actually christian in a meaningful sense.

Of course, there are other definitions of the term "Liberal Christianity", which would be more resistant to this sort of challenge. I'm simply going with your definition here.

[Difflugia]

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

It seems fairly obvious that "Liberal Christianity", by this definition, occupies a middle ground that won't appeal to most.

I think you're seriously underestimating the number of people that reconcile theism with, for lack of a better word, reality. Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists are Protestant denominations that tend to skew theologically liberal and Catholicism casts a pretty wide net, having both official exorcists and official scientists. Whether they expressly acknowledge it or not, a lot of people operate within a worldview where science and religion are considered to be what Stephen Jay Gould called non-overlapping magisteria.

One would be left wondering why (if one accepts those cultural assumptions) one should be christian at all.

If you're not an Appalachian snake-handler that believes in a flat Earth, you already do this. The rest is just haggling.

[RBD]

Is the "???" thing supposed to be clever?

And execution was not universal. Execution was limited by law for mercy.

Yeah----limited to laws with death-sentence directives like, "Your eye shall not pity" and "So shall you put away evil from among you".

Correct already for the 3rd or 4th time. Unless there is lawful sacrifice to forgive the transgression, and have mercy rather than execution.

??? Means where's the argument here? It's over. You're accusation was that the law of Moses was without mercy. The law of Moses is not without mercy, since by law mercy is given with lawful sacrifices for sin and trespass against the law. A merciless law always commands execution for transgressing the letter of the law. No forgiveness and mercy is ever written into that law, as it is written into the law of Moses.

So, why do you keep repeating things as though there's still an argument. We agree already on something. You asked where the law says there is mercy. I gave the obvious law of sacrifices to forgive sin and trespass of the law, which is mercy. You agreed lawful sacrifice did allow mercy for sins and trespasses. If not, then execution is commanded.

Unless I'm missing another point here, or you disagree with the above. Is the law of Moses merciful or not? Is there written law in Moses for mercy rather than execution?

[Jester]

I think you're seriously underestimating the number of people that reconcile theism with, for lack of a better word, reality. Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists are Protestant denominations that tend to skew theologically liberal ...

I agree that many people will attempt to embrace both modern views and traditional religious views. This is perfectly reasonable, to some degree.
But, with respect to points where real contradictions lie, I think it is fairly obvious why the particular churches you mention are loosing membership.

Whether they expressly acknowledge it or not, a lot of people operate within a worldview where science and religion are considered to be what Stephen Jay Gould called non-overlapping magisteria.

That is not really to the point I was trying to get at. I tend to agree that science and religion are mostly difference subjects, and don't interact much. I was referring much more to modern cultural claims.

One would be left wondering why (if one accepts those cultural assumptions) one should be christian at all.

If you're not an Appalachian snake-handler that believes in a flat Earth, you already do this. The rest is just haggling.

Now I'm confused. I'd thought we were discussing liberal churches which promoted modern cultural attitudes over christian doctrine, but there is definitely a middle ground between that and the theology of Appalachian snake handlers.

The only way I can make sense of this is if by "haggling", you mean "the actual debate".