Liberal Christianity - how far can you push it?

[nnmartin]

I know there are forms of modern day Christianity that have quite relaxed rules but how far can you go before finding yourself shut out of all churches.

How about sleeping with prostitutes?
taking drugs, gambling and heavy drinking?
not believing God to be personal?
only listening to the parts of the Bible that appeal to you?

any churches allow this?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am afraid I was not paying enough attention at the time to remember all the details, But the BBC had a short programme the other day about the decline of Christianity in Europe.
One Christian priest was teaching that Jesus was probably not a real historical person.
He was not pushed out from his church because that is now a common belief.

all the things you list may not be approved but happen in many churches.

 

[Quiddity]

You can only misinterpret so much out of your Holy Book before others just find it pointless to call themselves Christians.

 

[A.Anderson]

only listening to the parts of the Bible that appeal to you?

I have yet to meet a Christian that doesn't do this on some level.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You can only misinterpret so much out of your Holy Book before others just find it pointless to call themselves Christians.

I don't follow that.
If you have a belief that you Identify as Christian, then that is what it is... to you if no one else.
I doubt any belief is unique or is not closely believed by at least some others.

Churches codify beliefs to "exclude" not to be "inclusive".
There has been a trend to "inclusiveness" over the last three hundred years that many have seen as harmful, but others as liberating.

Christianity has been profoundly changed in Europe, and this process will continue as change is inevitable.
The indicators are that Traditional Christianity will continue to diminish. But will leave a legacy of a new Christian belief and ethic to arise from its ashes like a phoenix.

This process is less noticeable in the USA as it is better hidden in the many new splinter churches that have grown out of existing churches. And the social fear of being thought "not to be Christian".

 

[nnmartin]

You can only misinterpret so much out of your Holy Book before others just find it pointless to call themselves Christians.

I agree with this.

In my period of 'seeking' Christianity I realised in the end , however hard I tried to justify it, that I was not a Christian. I believed that maybe Jesus existed on the metaphysical level, Simon (Saint Peter) was the true Lord and I followed the moral teachings of Buddhism.

Then I realised that I needed a new path!

 

[Me Myself]

I have yet to meet a Christian that doesn't do this on some level.

Hard to blame them when the book itself doesn´t appear to keep faithful to it´s own ideology througout.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Hard to blame them when the book itself doesn´t appear to keep faithful to it´s own ideology througout.

The Bible recalls a path followed by Jews and Christians over thousands of years.
During that time beliefs changed people were destroyed, nation rebuilt and beliefs re codified.

Such a book must be expected to reflect all these changes, and the Bible does so in spades. This is its strength not a weakness.

 

[Shermana]

What kind of beliefs changed?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The bible is full of the following:
1.Contradictory Justice
2.Contradictory history
3.Unfulfilled Prophecy
4.Biblical contradictions

Of course it is.... read my post #9

The Bible never was a rule book
It is part history
part fable
Part poetry of praise
part record of teachings
Part record of Prophets and prophecy
Part ancient laws and rules of justice.

It is many many things ... but it is not a working manual of anything.

 

[rusra02]

I know there are forms of modern day Christianity that have quite relaxed rules but how far can you go before finding yourself shut out of all churches.

How about sleeping with prostitutes?
taking drugs, gambling and heavy drinking?
not believing God to be personal?
only listening to the parts of the Bible that appeal to you?

any churches allow this?

Churches that have proven false to their professed faith allow all these things and more. True Christians shun all badness. One of the attitudes prevalent in the last days is that people would be "having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power." (2 Timothy 3:5) Jesus said he would disown many who professed to serve him. (Matthew 7:21-23) The true religion upholdsthe Bible's standards of conduct and morality in all things.

​

​

 

[Shermana]

I completely agree (though Timothy is not legit scripture), but Jesus was quite specific on who he would disown, "Doers of Lawlessness", which means "Those who reject/neglect the Mosaic Law". Which is pretty much all non-Messianics.

 

[not nom]

I completely agree (though Timothy is not legit scripture), but Jesus was quite specific on who he would disown, "Doers of Lawlessness", which means "Those who reject/neglect the Mosaic Law". Which is pretty much all non-Messianics.

it means pretty much everybody. nobody keeps the mosaic law.

as I asked in the other thread: who puts adulterers to death? *

oh, what did jesus do with that... he said "those of you who are without sin cast the first stone", right? so... if jesus was without sin, why didn't even he stone her? was he not without sin himself -- or did he flat out break the mosaic law? I don't see how you can have both. it says "surely", not "if all present are without sin".

how does "an eye for an eye" go together with "forgive your enemies"?


* of course, those people exist. in what they propose "here", and in actually doing it elsewhere. I can't speak for you, but they give me the creeps and are otherwise not exactly refined human beings. most of us would consider them wilderbeasts, or heartless skin bags. so what gives?

 

[Bob Dixon]

Push it as far as you like, as long as you keep the teachings of Jesus and monotheism.

 

[rusra02]

it means pretty much everybody. nobody keeps the mosaic law.

as I asked in the other thread: who puts adulterers to death? *

oh, what did jesus do with that... he said "those of you who are without sin cast the first stone", right? so... if jesus was without sin, why didn't even he stone her? was he not without sin himself -- or did he flat out break the mosaic law? I don't see how you can have both. it says "surely", not "if all present are without sin".

how does "an eye for an eye" go together with "forgive your enemies"?


* of course, those people exist. in what they propose "here", and in actually doing it elsewhere. I can't speak for you, but they give me the creeps and are otherwise not exactly refined human beings. most of us would consider them wilderbeasts, or heartless skin bags. so what gives?

Jesus was not speaking of keeping the Mosaic law at Matthew 7:21-23. Rather, professed Christians spoke of prophesying and doing powerful works in Jesus name (or by his authority). There is no proper basis for saying that Paul's letters to Timothy are not part of the sacred scriptures.

Your quote from John 7:53-8:11 concerning Jesus words about the adulterous woman are a spurious addition to this book. These verses are not found in early manuscripts and should not be considered as part of the Bible. There are a number of other verses in the Bible known to be uninspired additions and not part of the Bible. Prominent among these are the long and short conclusions to the book of Mark, and part of 1 John 5:7.

I didn't understand your final comment. Could you clarify?

 

[not nom]

Jesus was not speaking of keeping the Mosaic law at Matthew 7:21-23.

some people think he did. so my question remains.

Your quote from John 7:53-8:11 concerning Jesus words about the adulterous woman are a spurious addition to this book. These verses are not found in early manuscripts and should not be considered as part of the Bible.

but surely you are aware that not all people know/believe that? so my question remains.

I didn't understand your final comment. Could you clarify?

notice the asterisk.. I was referring to people who stone adulterers.

 

[SageTree]

Why Christianity Must Change Die by Bishop John Shelby Spong

Beyond Theism -- John Shelby Spong - YouTube




Good stuff.

 

[Shermana]

it means pretty much everybody. nobody keeps the mosaic law.

as I asked in the other thread: who puts adulterers to death? *

oh, what did jesus do with that... he said "those of you who are without sin cast the first stone", right? so... if jesus was without sin, why didn't even he stone her? was he not without sin himself -- or did he flat out break the mosaic law? I don't see how you can have both. it says "surely", not "if all present are without sin".

how does "an eye for an eye" go together with "forgive your enemies"?


* of course, those people exist. in what they propose "here", and in actually doing it elsewhere. I can't speak for you, but they give me the creeps and are otherwise not exactly refined human beings. most of us would consider them wilderbeasts, or heartless skin bags. so what gives?

The story of the adulteress is a fake addition called the "Pericope Adulterae" that only appears in later manuscripts. We cannot stone adulterers unless we have a fully autonomous Sanhedrin like in the Islamic countries that do it, meanwhile you can still avoid adultery. The traditional concept is that all the death penalties will be applied providentially when not living in the Holy Land under an independent autonomous Sanhedrin, which means adulterers will fall to disease, murders (many are killed by jealous husbands for example), falling during rock climbing, falling pianos/flower pots, etc.

What Jesus said about Eye for an eye was not to do away with it but to not apply it where it doesn't belong or to overdo it. You can still forgive someone after hurting them back equally, but this would also only apply under an autonomous Sanhedrin. There's a difference between "forgiving" and "abolishing the punishment". Forgiveness does not equate automatically to "relinquishing the punishment".

 

[Father Heathen]

You can only misinterpret so much out of your Holy Book before others just find it pointless to call themselves Christians.

I agree with Victor, for once. Why continue holding on to a label when you no longer adhere to the beliefs and practices associated with it? Seems like a dishonest waste of time.

 

[Shermana]

I agree with Victor, for once. Why continue holding on to a label when you no longer adhere to the beliefs and practices associated with it? Seems like a dishonest waste of time.

Perhaps I wouldn't necessarily call it a dishonest waste of time, as much as I'd call it a dishonest clinging to the social benefits of such association. But still a waste of time nonetheless. Still though, it's mostly about ego.