"Liberal Christian" is an oxymoron!

[J Bryson]

I disagree. He didn't see them as useless. He saw them as being used for a position of power, rather than as a tool for mercy. The wrong impetus. That's why he said, "Do as I do -- not as they do."

I'm thinking mostly of his attitude towards the Sabbath.

 

[sojourner]

I'm thinking mostly of his attitude towards the Sabbath.

Again, not useless -- just the wrong impetus. The sabbath is useful, so long as it is merciful and not tyrranical.

 

[J Bryson]

Again, not useless -- just the wrong impetus. The sabbath is useful, so long as it is merciful and not tyrranical.

Yes, but the regulations regarding the Sabbath were useless, especially when they kept people hungry. The traditional mikvahs run by the establishment were harmful as they cost so much, so Jesus preferred John the Baptist. Useless rules and regulations, all coming from an overly literalist and unrealistic interpretation of their scriptures.

Come to think of it, that sounds awfully familiar.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but the regulations regarding the Sabbath were useless, especially when they kept people hungry. The traditional mikvahs run by the establishment were harmful as they cost so much, so Jesus preferred John the Baptist. Useless rules and regulations, all coming from an overly literalist and unrealistic interpretation of their scriptures.

Come to think of it, that sounds awfully familiar.

Yes. I believe you're correct in saying that.
In any case, I think most agree that Jesus was liberal with regard to his approach to religion. And I think that most agree that "liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree that liberal Christian is not an oxymoron. I do think that some "liberals" are aghast at the concept that not all Christians are 700 Clubbers also.

 

[Apex]

I agree that liberal Christian is not an oxymoron. I do think that some "liberals" are aghast at the concept that not all Christians are 700 Clubbers also.

They are not aghast, they are in denial. But I agree, liberal Christian is not an oxymoron but I cringe every time someone attempts to describe their self as (insert political leaning here) Christian. Why can you simply not be a Christian with no modifier?

 

[allanpopa]

Surely Xy is more than the religion that propagates it. I usually trade in cars on newer, more efficient and comfortable models. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a driver.
Funk and Spong are only oxymoronic in the sense that they want to shed old models that no longer work, or that they believe actually work against the spiritual paradigm in question. Sort of like Jesus did. One doesn't put new wine into old wineskins...

Funk and Spong attempt to do away with the rich tradition of Christianity and see truth as limited to the first century life of Jesus. Contemporary Christianity doesn't exist in a vacuum, it carries with it all 2000 years of Christian history, theology, ritual, life, etc.

Allan

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I do think that some "liberals" are aghast at the concept that not all Christians are 700 Clubbers also."

They're not? Really?

Wait a minute. Pat says he IS the voice of "real bible-believing god-fearing Christians" and all those other "Christians" are false satanists.

Whose right here?

 

[Smoke]

I agree that liberal Christian is not an oxymoron. I do think that some "liberals" are aghast at the concept that not all Christians are 700 Clubbers also.

I think everybody knows that not all Christians are 700 Clubbers. However, all but an insignificant minority of Christians are obviously comfortable with the marginalization of gay people; why else would almost every Christian church restrict gay people to -- at best -- second-class status?

 

[Sonic247]

They are not aghast, they are in denial. But I agree, liberal Christian is not an oxymoron but I cringe every time someone attempts to describe their self as (insert political leaning here) Christian. Why can you simply not be a Christian with no modifier?

Good point, there shouldn't even be denominations. Still there has to be divisions because of heresy. But it just seems wrong if someone asks your religion to say "baptist" when "Christian" is my spiritual identity.

 

[Sonic247]

I think everybody knows that not all Christians are 700 Clubbers. However, all but an insignificant minority of Christians are obviously comfortable with the marginalization of gay people; why else would almost every Christian church restrict gay people to -- at best -- second-class status?

The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, we can't change that to suit the day and age. But I don't think there would be any church that wouldn't let someone attend because of homosexuality. The doors are open for those ready to walk through.

 

[Smoke]

The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, we can't change that to suit the day and age. But I don't think there would be any church that wouldn't let someone attend because of homosexuality. The doors are open for those ready to walk through.

Jesus says that divorce and remarriage is adultery, but the churches have had no trouble accommodating themselves to the divorce and remarriage of heterosexuals. Jesus says to swear not at all, but the churches have no problem with their members taking an oath on the very book that contains that prohibition. Christians defy the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus specifically, on a daily and nearly universal basis. To pretend that they have no choice but to marginalize gay people is dishonest.

 

[blackout]

Jesus says that divorce and remarriage is adultery, but the churches have had no trouble accommodating themselves to the divorce and remarriage of heterosexuals. Jesus says to swear not at all, but the churches have no problem with their members taking an oath on the very book that contains that prohibition. Christians defy the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus specifically, on a daily and nearly universal basis. To pretend that they have no choice but to marginalize gay people is dishonest.

Welcome to the Bible Buffet honey.....

 

[Sonic247]

Jesus says that divorce and remarriage is adultery, but the churches have had no trouble accommodating themselves to the divorce and remarriage of heterosexuals. Jesus says to swear not at all, but the churches have no problem with their members taking an oath on the very book that contains that prohibition. Christians defy the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus specifically, on a daily and nearly universal basis. To pretend that they have no choice but to marginalize gay people is dishonest.

Not all churches do, and that is not an excuse to do one more wrong thing. It just means there is more than one thing to change. We Christians are not perfect yet after all.

 

[Smoke]

Not all churches do, and that is not an excuse to do one more wrong thing. It just means there is more than one thing to change. We Christians are not perfect yet after all.

No, not all churches bless the remarriages of divorced people, but all but a small minority do, and they're small churches, too. Almost all Christians belong to churches that bless the remarriage of divorced -- including Catholics, who are fooling nobody by resorting to the canonical fiction of annulment.

Christians are not expected to be perfect, but you don't have to be perfect to avoid such rank hypocrisy.

The reason Christian churches find it so easy to be flexible about straight relationships and so inflexible about gay relationships has nothing to do with obedience to the scriptures, and everything to do with the ingrained homophobia of Christianity and Christians.

 

[Sonic247]

I'm guessing there are some exceptions. But almost every Christian church would at least want to witness to homosexuals so they could have the gospel. Whether or not it has to do with obedience to scripture I'm sure it does to some and not to others. On the other hand if scriptures where obeyed it would still be a sin.

 

[Smoke]

I'm guessing there are some exceptions. But almost every Christian church would at least want to witness to homosexuals so they could have the gospel. Whether or not it has to do with obedience to scripture I'm sure it does to some and not to others. On the other hand if scriptures where obeyed it would still be a sin.

Of course they want to "witness" to us. They want to conquer the world with their gospel.

However, if they believed in treating us as they would be treated, they would find the compassion to bend their rules for us as they bend them for themselves. Christianity's treatment of gay people cannot be just an act of obedience, for they have shown that obedience is of little importance when it comes to straight people. They do not, for instance, tell divorced heterosexuals that they must be celibate for the rest of their lives because it would be a sin for them to marry, but that is exactly what they'd do if they treated straight people and gay people with the same understanding and compassion. Christianity's approach to gay people is nothing less than a complete failure of compassion, and a determined refusal to love their neighbors as themselves.

 

[Sonic247]

What about the Christians that you know more personally on a one to one level. Would you say the same thing about them?

 

[Smoke]

What about the Christians that you know more personally on a one to one level. Would you say the same thing about them?

Some of the Christians I know belong to churches that do, in fact, treat gay people and straight people the same. I wouldn't say it of them. I'd say it of the rest of them. Many of them claim not to be prejudiced against gay people, but in practice they have no problem supporting churches that institutionalize anti-gay bigotry, or enjoying, within those churches, privileges from which gay people are excluded. I wouldn't say all of them are virulently anti-gay; I would say that all of them are -- at best -- sufficiently indifferent to gay people to consider anti-gay policies something they can live with.

 

[linwood]

Some of the Christians I know belong to churches that do, in fact, treat gay people and straight people the same. I wouldn't say it of them. I'd say it of the rest of them. Many of them claim not to be prejudiced against gay people, but in practice they have no problem supporting churches that institutionalize anti-gay bigotry, or enjoying, within those churches, privileges from which gay people are excluded. I wouldn't say all of them are virulently anti-gay; I would say that all of them are -- at best -- sufficiently indifferent to gay people to consider anti-gay policies something they can live with.

Would you say that those moderate Christians who sympathize with gay people yet still financially and philosophically support churches that do actively seek to withhold the rights of gays and rank them something less than a full citizen in our society are a part of the problem?

Do those moderates get a off the hook when the blame for marginalizing people for their sexuality gets passed around?

If so...why?