Liberal Christians,are they here at Religious forums?

[Saint Frankenstein]

The subject is not about who is a Christian. The subject is not about the size of the font. Are you going to answer the question of just beat around the bush?

Do you know what a fundamentalist Christians is?

You said I'm not a Christian, when I am. That's very rude. The huge font was also annoying and hard to read. At least you fixed that. Maybe you'll fix your attitude next.

I find truth in the Bible, the lives and writings of the Saints and so on. Fundie Christianity is a sort of Protestant restorationism that sprung up in the 19th century that relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[metis]

IMO, anyone who claims to be a Christian and denies the inerrancy of the Bible is a religious wacko.

Frankly, I think the above is a self-inflicted wound because it makes a mockery out of the Bible itself, which never explicitly states that it is entirely inerrant. It's pretty much tantamount to idolatry, namely elevating an object to divine proportions.

 

[omega2xx]

You said I'm not a Christian, when I am. That is very rude.

I NEVER tell anyone they are not a Christian. I do not have the ability to look into the heart and that is the only way one can know. Saying I did is very rude.

The huge font was also annoying and hard to read. At least you fixed that. Maybe you'll fix your attitude next.

Small print is hard for me to read, and your post indicated you are the one with the attitude.

I find truth in the Bible, the lives and writings of the Saints and so on.

Good for you. That is one purpose of the Bible

Fundie Christianity is a sort of Protestant restorationism that sprung up in the 19th century that relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Just as I knew, You do not know what a fundamentalist Christians is.

 

[omega2xx]

Frankly, I think the above is a self-inflicted wound because it makes a mockery out of the Bible itself, which never explicitly states that it is entirely inerrant. It's pretty much tantamount to idolatry, namely elevating an object to divine proportions.

The Bible says it is ALL inspired by God. That makes is not only inerrant, it is also infallible.

Saying Christians make the Bible divine and worship it, is one of the silliest statements one can make.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I NEVER tell anyone they are not a Christian. I do not have the ability to look into the heart and that is the only way one can know. Saying I did is very rude.

You said "liberals and non-Christians". That can be an implication that you don't really believe that liberal or moderate Christians are Christians.

Small print is hard for me to read, and your post indicated you are the one with the attitude.

I'm not a fan of fundamentalism and I do think it does harm to Christianity.

Just as I knew, You do not know what a fundamentalist Christians is.

Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

The Bible says it is ALL inspired by God. That makes is not only inerrant, it is also infallible.

And where does it say that, and make certain that it says or implies "ALL"? "Inspired", yes; "ALL", not there.

Saying Christians make the Bible divine and worship it, is one of the silliest statements one can make.

I never said nor implied "worship it", nor did I say that "Christians make the Bible divine" as some actually don't, as we've already seen.

What you have done is actually against the Bible, namely having it saying things that it doesn't. And for you to call, or even imply, that someone is not a true Christian unless they adopt your concept of inerrancy is judgmental and unethical, imo.

On top of this, you virtually ignore, probably because you never studied it, the actually selection process for the canon that you use, which was highly contentious, thus taking over a half a century to complete. And then there were some books they couldn't even decide upon one way or the other.

The early church well knew that there were issues involved because of variations with the narratives, and it wasn't until the 19th century that we saw people taking your "blind to the facts" stand on this. I say this not to in any way denigrate the Bible, especially since I've been heavily involved in Bible studies for decades now, but one should take it for what it is without adding things to it that aren't actually within it.

 

[omega2xx]

You said "liberals and non-Christians". That can be an implication that you don't really believe that liberal or moderate Christians are Christians.

How sidlly. You dtry tdo make a general statement into an accusation.

I'm not a fan of fundamentalism and I do think it does harm to Christianity.

You have already shown you do not know what a fundamentalist Christian is, so your opinion is invalid.

[/QUOTE]Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia[/QUOTE]

Here is a statement fom your link: Fundamentalists are almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible.

That does not say they insist on a literal interpretation, which they do not. It actually descries YOUR misunderstanding of its definition.

 

[omega2xx]

And where does it say that, and make certain that it says or implies "ALL"? "Inspired", yes; "ALL", not there.

I will give you the verse so you can't accuse me of any hank panky---I Tim 3:16.

never said nor implied "worship it", nor did I say that "Christians make the Bible divine" as some actually don't, as we've already seen.

You at least implied we make it divine.

What you have done is actually against the Bible, namely having it saying things that it doesn't. And for you to call, or even imply, that someone is not a true Christian unless they adopt your concept of inerrancy is judgmental and unethical, imo.

Be specific, what have i said it says , that it does not say. If you understood "inspired" you would understand it is inerrant. If you want to quibble of semantics, be my guest. Be even more specific and post where I have ever said or implied someone is not Christian for adopting my concept of inerrancy. Your accusation that I have is what is judgmental and unethical and that is not an opinion.

On top of this, you virtually ignore, probably because you never studied it, the actually selection process for the canon that you use, which was highly contentious, thus taking over a half a century to complete. And then there were some books they couldn't even decide upon one way or the other.

Now you are speaking from ignorance. What evidence do you have that I have ignored and never studied the canon? Do you have enough intelligence to say the canon is wrong and that the books omitted should have been included. No, you just like to complain about anything Christian.

The early church well knew that there were issues involved because of variations with the narratives, and it wasn't until the 19th century that we saw people taking your "blind to the facts" stand on this. I say this not to in any way denigrate the Bible, especially since I've been heavily involved in Bible studies for decades now, but one should take it for what it is without adding things to it that aren't actually within it.

Your problem is that you do not take it for what it is---the inspired word of God, which abides forever. You have made yourself omniscient and can tell which passages are from God and which ones are not. Tell me how you can do that?

 

[RedDragon94]

You like most liberals and non-Christians do not know what a fundamentalist Christian is.

Strict literalist interpretation?

Where do you find your truth if not in the Bible?

Reason and conscience. You do realize that books can be destroyed?

 

[RedDragon94]

Christian Fundamentalism - Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology - Faith Bible Church Online (#2)

This might help clear some things up.

 

[metis]

I will give you the verse so you can't accuse me of any hank panky---I Tim 3:16.

Which reads: [16] "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory."

Now, how does the above somehow prove the issue of inerrancy?

You at least implied we make it divine.

You gotta be kidding? If you claim, as you do, that it is completely divinely inspired, as you have stated, and that it is absolutely inerrant, as you have also stated, that is saying that it is "divine".

If you understood "inspired" you would understand it is

From Dictionary.com: " a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation".

I understand "inspiration", but it's obvious you really don't as you have added additional conditions to a basic definition that are not intrinsic to it.

Now you are speaking from ignorance. What evidence do you have that I have ignored and never studied the canon?

It's quite obvious by what you write. If you did do the studying and understood what you studied, then you would have known that the selection process was difficult, contentious, and very time consuming.

Also, your approach doesn't even stand to common sense, as it would logically take one to be inerrant to judge that the Bible itself is inerrant. IOW, it would take perfection to actually know what is perfect and what is not.

Do you have enough intelligence to say the canon is wrong and that the books omitted should have been included. No, you just like to complain about anything Christian.

That last part of yours is nothing but a bold-faced lie, and you have lied like this before by making this charge against me. Have you no shame? Is this the mark of your "faith"?

Your problem is that you do not take it for what it is---the inspired word of God, which abides forever. You have made yourself omniscient and can tell which passages are from God and which ones are not. Tell me how you can do that?

Me being "omniscient"? No, I think we see "projection" at work with such an absurd accusation. And no where do I ever claim nor imply that I "can tell which passages are from God and which ones are not".

All you have shown here is that you are all too willing to lie and distort, which only demeans yourself. My wife's church, which I go weekly to with her, teaches that this is morally wrong, so maybe you should seek out a church that actually teaches that as well. Just a suggestion.

 

[RedDragon94]

Now, how does the above somehow prove the issue of inerrancy?

He meant 2 Timothy.

 

[David1967]

I'm not a fan of fundamentalism and I do think it does harm to Christianity.

I agree wholeheartedly. IMHO, Fundamentalism is often hateful and sometimes even dangerous whether in Christianity or other religions as well. I seldom hear kind words from the self described fundamentalists in my area. And having a serious discussion with them about faith? Forget about it.

 

[metis]

He meant 2 Timothy.

Ya, I was wondering if he was thinking one thing but wrote another.

Let's take a look at that verse: IITim 3[16]: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...".

Two points, with the first being that this is not a reference to what was to be eventually called the "New Testament" since that not only was that just in the process of being written, but also the Christian canon had not yet been decided upon. Instead, it's likely to be a reference to Torah and possibly some books in the other books within the Tanakh, at least some of which indeed were looked upon as being divinely inspired.

My second point is that there is no claim of inerrancy here, only divine inspiration. For example, just to my left I have my Oxford Desk Dictionary, which I do use "for reproof, for correction", but I don't consider it "inerrant", nor even divinely inspired for that matter.

The issue of "divine inspiration" is rather complex as there are numerous theories as to what that may actually entail. Some feel that it means some were inspired to write but not told what to write, while at the other extreme there's those who feel that God inspired every single word found within. Most Christian theologians I have read tend to take a more middle ground, feeling that the general narratives were from God but that it was very much written by human hands using their own understanding of what happened. IOW, that it's the general teachings that are divinely inspired, but not every little detail.

Anyhow, thanks for the heads-up.

 

[metis]

I agree wholeheartedly. IMHO, Fundamentalism is often hateful and sometimes even dangerous whether in Christianity or other religions as well. I seldom hear kind words from the self described fundamentalists in my area. And having a serious discussion with them about faith? Forget about it.

Yep, sounds like your describing my father's side of the family, which I long have preferred to have only limited conversations with over my 72 years.

 

[David1967]

Yep, sounds like your describing my father's side of the family, which I long have preferred to have only limited conversations with over my 72 years.

Frustrating isn't it? I even had a fellow threaten me once because I didn't go along with his loudly stated belief that everyone who isn't a Christian (and to him Catholics don't count as Christians either) were going to burn forever whether they had heard of Jesus or not. I sorta felt like I was in an episode of the Twilight Zone.

 

[pearl]

I have a question and critique for the Forum/ How is it that every debate is between Atheists and Fundamentalist Christianity. I see posts that are always from a Fundamentalist Christian point of view Pagans, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and few others. But every Christian response I read is from a Fundamentalist conservative Christian view point. SO where are all our wonderful Liberal Christians?

That's the problem with labels, one size doesn't fit all. Not all Christians who identify as Sola Scriptura adherents are literalist fundamentalists, as they accept the biblical use of metaphors, allegory, etc. A literalist attributes every word of Scripture with the same weight; not only did God create, but did so in 6 days. This is a form of intellectual suicide.
For one who believes that God dictated to 'penmen' not just the thought comes from God, but every word with every inflection, every verse and line, and every tense of the verb, every number of the noun and every particle are regarded as coming from God and God does not deceive.
For Catholics inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration, it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy.
If I were to be labeled I would prefer progressive as liberal tends too much to throw out rather than develop.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How sidlly. You dtry tdo make a general statement into an accusation.



You have already shown you do not know what a fundamentalist Christian is, so your opinion is invalid.

Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

Here is a statement fom your link: Fundamentalists are almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible.

That does not say they insist on a literal interpretation, which they do not. It actually descries YOUR misunderstanding of its definition.

Maybe you should put your glasses on or go lay down, because you're not making much sense.

 

[sealchan]

I have a question and critique for the Forum/ How is it that every debate is between Atheists and Fundamentalist Christianity. I see posts that are always from a Fundamentalist Christian point of view Pagans, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and few others. But every Christian response I read is from a Fundamentalist conservative Christian view point. SO where are all our wonderful Liberal Christians?

You can follow my posts if you like. I'm new here but if anyone qualifies as a Liberal Christian it would probably be me. Heck I wouldn't mind being called a Progressive Christian. The term would probably fit even better.

 

[sealchan]

You like most liberals and non-Christians do not know what a fundamentalist Christian is. IMO, anyone who claims to be a Christian and denies the inerrancy of the Bible is a religious wacko. Where do you find your truth if not in the Bible?

In my personal experience and in the types of spiritual experiences that can be demonstrated to be shared by people the world over.

I recently did a brief forum study on the God dream. Numerous forum participants (on a different forum) contributed examples of dreams they had about God or Jesus. It turns out that these dreams all share certain motifs in common.

Now if you turn to Genesis and examine Abram/Abraham's experiences of God you will see the same motifs as are found in the direct experience of God in dream or vision today. From this we can say that...

• Modern experience of God by people validates the Biblical description of the experience of God
• The Biblical description of the experience of God validates the modern experience of God by people (believers AND atheists)

if you want to say one is more important that the other go ahead. But which came first? God, the experience of God by people or a written account of God and the experience of God?