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]

You mean they don't have a watered down version of Christianity that can be bent and molded to fit whatever is politically correct. What you don't understand is this robs people of all the real value of the Bible it's takes it down to almost meaninglessness. Not to mention, it's obviously not the intent of the Bible to be handled in that way.

I would think the opposite would be true. If the bible is regarded as literal it is as close to meaningless as you can get. It has one meaning and one meaning only and that is only one more than none. Reading the biblical stories for what they are, allegory and metaphor, gives full meaning to the many fine concepts they contain.

Biblical literalists do not believe that every section of scripture is literal. They also don't believe that even the literal sections have only a literal application. The Bible often works on many levels which at times does include allegorical and metaphorical as well as literal.

[redstang281]

Not perfect as you would define it (omnipotent), he created originally a sinless world, so much so that he could pronounce it "very good". That title would not fit with a world of Adam and Eve that was arrived at through millions of years of animals killing and eating each other through "survival of the fittest". Notice God doesn't say the world is "very good" again after the flood waters recede.

"very good" does not equal "perfect". Something is either perfect or it is not, unique or is not. God did not make a perfect world only a 'very good' one - not even an extremely good one.

God made it very good' in that it pleased him when he was finished. It was the way he wanted it. In the way that you see perfect, I would agree God did not make it that way nor did he intend to nor would it have suited his purpose.

Re: the "flood" - given that it would appear the world (and mankind) - i.e. it didn't even rate as very good - is intrinsically the same pre- and post-flood - why did he bother? Why all the death and destruction. Not only genocide, but all living things - biocide.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. God destroyed the world because he had to. Sin has to be dealt with. Sin only breeds more sin and causes more damage. Eventually the world would have been destroyed. Just like today man is busy finding ways to destroy this world and before he can Christ will return to stop him.

[McCulloch]

Many historians, including secular, hold the Bible in high regard in terms of historic accuracy. But we've more or less went round and round on that already.

I must have missed that one. Please list a few secular historians who hold the Bible in high regard in terms of historic accuracy with regard to

1. The Creation
2. The Universal Flood
3. The Egyptian Plagues
4. The Exodus and Conquest of the land of the Canaanites with miracles (Red Sea, Walls of Jericho etc.)
5. Jesus' Resurrection

Not only that but we also have external evidence left to support them such as the imprint of the flood in our rock layers from hydrologic sorting.

This has been thouroughly discussed in other threads. My personal conclusion from reading both sides is that the the creationist version is flawed and unsupported.

Have you looked into Polystrate fossils?

Please post your evidence on one of the threads in the Science and Religion forum. Questions for Uniformitarianists or The firmament or Salinity of the sea rules out a young Earth or Age of the earth? or create a new Flood topic in Science and Religion.

Would you really believe in God if he would reveal himself to you? Would you trust in Jesus? Then I ask you to pray to him and tell him that. I believe he will respond. I have already prayed for you too.

This is off topic. Would you give up your belief in God if he fails to respond?

[redstang281]

How absurd! Why would satan call for the end of supernaturalism when satan is alledgedly a supernatural being? How ridiculous! That would eradicate satan from the whole equation, and we know anyone with an ego would not want that. I got a chuckle out of your christian-brand fatuity! ](*,)

Satan's primary focus is to stop people from accepting Christ as their savior. I don't think it matters to him if they don't believe in him (satan).

[bernee51]

I see no need for proof of abiogeniesis. What has that to do with whether I believe in your god or not?

It has to do with whether or not their is a need for God. If life can happen without the supernatural then there's no necessity for the supernatural. As it stands now there's no alternative to a supernatural creation of life.

Again with the logical fallacy.

I don't see how that's a logical fallacy. It's like trying to fit a square block through a circle hole. It just doesn't fit. But instead of realizing it and admitting the ball goes through the hole we want the square to go in so bad that we keep trying to fit the square and say "one day we'll make it fit".

At best it is classic 'god of the gaps'.

It is, however, a false dichotomy, it is ignoring other possibilities. It s also off topic so I have stared another:
The unexplaned vs the unexplainable

[bernee51]

Would you really believe in God if he would reveal himself to you?

Funny you should ask that: the same question popped into my head during this morning's meditation. The answer I came up with was no. How would I know it was really god and not some other supernatural being just pretending to be?

Would you trust in Jesus?

Many of the supposed words of the alledged Jesus offer a valuable guide to life. Nothing more.

Then I ask you to pray to him and tell him that.

That would be futile. He (Jesus as god) never existed.
Jesus as man is also debatable

I have already prayed for you too.

Why did you tell me...doesn't it work if you don't tell me?

[micatala]

Quote:
So the correct context can only be that within which it was written.


and you can understand the context is was written from the rest of the Bible and history.

Quote:
Interpretions now are more influenced by belief than by context.


Some, but not all. Honest scholars change their view instead of forcing the scripture to say something it doesn't.

I think I will start another thread on this idea. Something like "Is Biblical Inerrancy a Tenable Position?".

Today on National PUblic Radio's Fresh Air program here in the U.S., theologian Bart Ehrman discussed his views including his new book, Misquoting Jesus.

I won't say more for now, other than Erhrman tries to make the case that the original manuscripts of the Bible that we do have, even when they exist, often conflict with each other, and there is ample evidence that the Bible evolved over time through the process of 'harmonization,' by which scribes deliberately edited out conflicts between the various gospels, etc.

[redstang281]

I'm sure that's not true of all of them. But I won't deny that many people compromise the clear meaning of the scriptures because of our worldly brainwashing with molecules to man evolution. I don't believe that anything inside the scripture itself would give someone the impression that Genesis is an allegory.

It seems to me that this view is ignoring the history discussed above. Are we who accept the Copernican/Keplerian version of the solar system compromising the clear meaning of scriputure? Luther, Calvin, et. al. would absolutely have said so. What defense would you make regarding our modern thinking with regards to astronomy to Luther and Calvin?

Not a valid comparison. A literal creation is spelled out in chapters but there's only a few passing references in the Bible that would have led them to hold the geocentric view. Those passages can easily be seen as a point of reference without loosing the context of the chapter they are in. Genesis on the other hand incurs too many problems from a metaphoric view that renders it an unreasonable interpretation

It seems to me that creationists insist not only on a literal Bible, but on their particular understanding of this Bible, an understanding that itself includes many assumptions.

Not a particular understanding, a contextually solid understanding. One that is also consistent with what the early church fathers believed. In other words an honest interpretation, what the text is intended to convey. It's not just an understanding that makes atheists feel more comfortable around us. Christians need to stand up for God's word instead of going along with the stumbling blocks the devil uses to gather his own.

Why must Genesis not be interpreted allegorically? Most of the arguments I have seen are based on certain assumptions, such as 'Jesus did not take it allegorically, so we should not.' I frankly do not think this assumption necessarily follows from the words of Jesus in the gospel, and it also can be criticized on the grounds of circularity (the Bible testifying to its own validity).

What about Luke's geneology? He traces Christ back to metaphoric person? Maybe you believe everyone in the geneology are metaphoric people? Maybe you think the Jews and the nation of Israel are metaphors also.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) son of Joseph, son of of Heli,
Luke 3:24 son of of Matthat, son of of Levi, son of of Melchi, son of of Janna, son of of Joseph,
Luke 3:25 son of of Mattathias, son of of Amos, son of of Nahum, son of of Esli, son of of Naggai,
Luke 3:26 son of of Maath, son of of Mattathias, son of of Semei, son of of Joseph, son of of Juda,
Luke 3:27 son of of Joanna, son of of Rhesa, son of of Zerubbabel, son of of Shealtiel, son of of Neri,
Luke 3:28 son of of Melchi, son of of Addi, son of of Cosam, son of of Elmodam, son of of Er,
Luke 3:29 son of of Joses, son of of Eliezer, son of of Jorum, son of of Matthat, son of of Levi,
Luke 3:30 son of of Simeon, son of of Juda, son of of Joseph, son of of Jonan, son of of Eliakim,
Luke 3:31 son of of Melea, the son of Menan, son of of Mattatha, son of of Nathan, son of of David,
Luke 3:32 son of of Jesse, son of of Obed, son of of Boaz, son of of Salma, son of of Nahshon,
Luke 3:33 son of of Amminadab, son of of Ram, son of of Hezron, son of of Pharez, son of of Judah,
Luke 3:34 son of of Jacob, son of of Isaac, son of of Abraham, son of of Terah, son of of Nahor,
Luke 3:35 son of of Serug, son of of Reu, son of of Peleg, son of of Eber, son of of Shelah,
Luke 3:36 son of of Cainan, son of of Arphaxad, son of of Shem, son of of Noah, son of of Lamech,
Luke 3:37 son of of Methuselah, son of of Enoch, son of of Jared, son of of Mahalaleel, son of of Cainan,
Luke 3:38 son of of Enos, son of of Seth, son of of Adam, son of of God.

If one accepts that God is the ultimate creator of the universe, then it seems to me that it is appropriate to look at the evidence that this creation provides to be evidence provided 'by God.'

I look at the evidence and see creation, not evolution.

I don't believe in evolution because of 'brain-washing'

During Hitler's day his man Joseph Goebells said "Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It."

but because the evidence provided by God's creation testifies that the universe is very very old, and the earth as well.

No it doesn't. The variables that callaborate the dating techniques are assumed to be correct because they give long age dates that are consistent with evolution theories.

It testifies that the life that exists today was very different than then life that existed in the past.

Creationists believe that to, too a certain degree. They just do not accept that all creatures share one common ancestor, as evolutionists would apply plaster to some fossils to indicate.

It testifies that humans have only been on the earth for a tiny fraction of the earths existence.

That's only in accordance with their other assumptions involved in their theory.

Weighing all this evidence provided by the creator in the form of His Creation seems to me to outweigh the insistence of some on a particular interpretation of a document that, though divinely inspired, was authored by humans several thousands of years ago. This is especially the case given the very nature of the Bible as being written by numerous authors of varying backgrounds and of often consisting of highly ambiguous, allegorical, or metaphorical passages.

If God inspired it then it says what he wanted it to say regardless of the particular writers background.

This just shows that God has built in depth meaning into the scriptures so that it works on different levels.

Agreed. In my view, the deeper meaning of Genesis includes the possibility of great age and evolution. Perhaps no one would have come to this conclusion without scientific evidence, but again, neither would we have come to reconcile the Bible with Copernicanism without the scientific evidence.

The problem is you are using the opinions of men, specifically biased atheists, not "evidence".

Without Adam and Eve there's no reason why sin is here in the world.

I don't at all see the necessity for making this assumption. As in other parts of the Bible, Adam and Eve could serve as a metaphor for how sin came into the world without there being an actual literal Adam and Eve as described in the Bible.

If there was not a real man who opened the door to sin then man kind is not accountable to his fallen world like the Bible says repeatable. Then we need not feel any shame or need to repent for being the way we are. In other words, the rest of the Bible falls apart.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:

Sin exists under the assumption that God exists and that we can have a consciousness of his existence as well as a relationship with him. One definition of sin is that of an action or actions that negate this relationship or otherwise separate us from God.

It's not an assumption that sin exists. You can plainly look around the world and see the miserable state it's in and understand that.

It is certainly possible that as part of our evolutionary development, we reached a point where we could have this 'God-consciousness' and at this time sin could have entered the world. As God is a spiritual being, it could also have been that God performed a spiritual creative act at some point, giving man a spirit as well as free will, and at that point, sin becomes a possibility. 'Adam' in this sense would simply be a 'type of' the first person to be able to experience sin.

That won't work because death is a result of sin. You can't have animals living and dying before sin came into the world.

I would point to John Chapter 6 where, after the crowd becomes confused at the idea of Jesus 'literally' giving them his flesh to eat, Jesus says 'my words are spirit, and they are life. The flesh counts for nothing.'

Right here, I think you have Biblical justification, even in a 'literalist' sense, that God does not care one whit whether we believe in or dis-believe in biological evolution. It is man's spirit that is important. If a liberal accepts this truth as a 'fundamental', I don't see that this is any less biblical than the creationist or fundamentalist position.

You mean molecules to man evolution, since biological evolution usually means adaptation which creationists accept. No fundamentalist is saying there are no metaphors in scripture. The point is there are times when a metaphor fits the context and there are times when it doesn't. Genesis doesn't fit and there's not reason to interpret it that way except for atheistic theories that don't concern Christians anyway.

Quote:
Also, it's not the case that liberal Christians seek to go along with the crowd and seek 'the acceptance of men'.

I think it is. Evolution is promoted as the "intelligent" way to look at the world. The "intellectual" atheistic scientist believe it and if we don't then we are ignorant foolish people holding onto an archaic belief. People are afraid someone will think they are dumb for not accepting what is promoted by main stream scientist.

I think it's fair to say it can work both ways. I have been in groups and communities where if one suggests one accepts evolution, one is subject to pretty severe disapproval, called 'not a real Christian' or 'satanic' or 'brain-washed by secularists' etc.. I have also been in groups and communities where creationist views suffer the same type of disapproval. I think this is unfortunate.

I'm talking about out in the world, or colleges, or in the media where it is supposed to be a universal "playing field" for all beliefs. That's where the Christians are targeted. That's not the same as complaining about going to church and having people expect you to believe Christian principals. No one is forcing you to go to church, you're subjecting yourself to it on your own. Not that I'm trying to discourage anyone from church, I'm just saying that goes with the territory. They are just trying to show you what the Bible says which is what church is supposed to do.]

[redstang281]

Without Adam and Eve there's no reason why sin is here in the world.

Whether taken literally or allegorically, the Genesis myth relates rather well the theological reason why there is sin in the world. This is the fundamentalist straw-man. The liberals allegorize biblical passages that the fundamentalists take literally. But they do not ignore or remove the lessons found in the myth.

Of course they remove the message, according to them there's no reason why we should obey God's commandments to reframe from sinning. They encourage people to sin. According to them there is no consequences for sin which Genesis clearly teaches. You want to disobey God, look what happens.

Without a real Genesis people don't understand that they can not be acceptable to God on their own. They don't understand they can't be perfect and then they don't come to real repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ.

Mat 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.

I believe God means what he says and says what he means. He doesn't have to make up some complex jargon of a story to explain evolution. If evolution really happened then he would have explained it clearly to us.

The same way that he made the spherical earth

Yes.

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;

or the fact that germs cause disease?

The point of the Bible is to bring us to salvation and reveal God's truth to us. But where it comments on something it should be held as an authority. We consider salvation God inspired because it's in God's word so therefor anything else in his word is likewise inspired and an authority. Because the Bible does not comment on every aspect of life doesn't mean that the areas that it does comment on are not accurate, specifically the creation account.

[redstang281]

Would you really believe in God if he would reveal himself to you?

Funny you should ask that: the same question popped into my head during this morning's meditation. The answer I came up with was no. How would I know it was really god and not some other supernatural being just pretending to be?

You test the experience to see if it was consistent with the Bible.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but try the spirits to see if they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God;
1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the antichrist you heard is coming, and even now is already in the world.

Would you trust in Jesus?

Many of the supposed words of the alleged Jesus offer a valuable guide to life. Nothing more.

Jesus also claimed to be God, so if that's not true then he is a liar or a lunatic. Either of the later would offer no valuable guides to life.

I have already prayed for you too.

Why did you tell me...doesn't it work if you don't tell me?

To show that I care. From my point of view the nicest thing I can do for a person is pray for them.