Liberal Christians,are they here at Religious forums?

[omega2xx]

Strict literalist interpretation?

Not even close.

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

DUUH

 

[omega2xx]

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?

Opps, TRY 2 tIM 3:16.

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".

No it isn't.

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

That definition does not say what divinity reveals makes it divine.

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.

Quoting a verse is not adding to it. You ae the one adding to it. There is no mention of divine in the verse.
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.

You don't understand inerrant. The Bible is inerrant or it is not. What you and I believe is irrelenvant.


>>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"?<<

And your remark is stupid and many of your remarks are stupid, because you can't understand the Bible.

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". <<

Evidently you also don't understand "IF."

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.

It only seems like a lie, because of your ignorance.

 

[omega2xx]

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

The FACT that you lack understanding is why it seems like it doesn't make sense.

 

[Sanmario]

I am a liberal protestant, and I love to talk with atheists, but they end up with saying that I can't read, or that I can't write coherent sentences, or I am insulting them, or that I am irritating to them, or that I am spamming them, everything but talk on reason and observation into intelligent conclusion, on the issue God exists or not.

Here is my argument for God existing:

1. Enunciate the concept of God, namely: God in concept is the creator of everything with a beginning.

2. In the environment where we humans exist and live and have our being, everything has a beginning,

3. There, there is everywhere the evidence of God existing, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

4. Therefore God exists, corresponding to the concept of the creator of everything with a beginning.


And I add, atheists also say that I am moving the goalposts when I produce my argument for God existing - on evidence.

They say everything except attend to the issue God exists or not, with talking on reason and observation and with intelligent conclusion.

 

[omega2xx]

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

Peoples experiences can't validate the "Biblical description of God, becaue we all have different experiences.

• 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?

Not interested.

 

[David T]

They frame their questions in terms of fundamentalist Christianity and don't want to hear about anything else. Its basically a witch hunt sometimes, and I don't feel like reinterpreting Christianity for people who just don't want to hear it.

Amen amen amen!!!! Generally but not all Atheists are not interested in dialog only debate. Fundementalism is only interested in debate never dialog as well. so the two tend to find a mutual agreement it all is in their head and it's the truth. Heck I am like John Muir or saint Francis, all about nature. That makes me uber uber liberal in some circles, and reasoned to a tiniest minority.

 

[David T]

The same reason I flame atheists some times with, " you are so southern Baptist without the jesus baggage, a lightweight traveler. Your religious brethren may not understand the topic GOD they are a really bad reference"...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The FACT that you lack understanding is why it seems like it doesn't make sense.

Or you're just incoherent. Don't turn it around on me.

 

[RedDragon94]

Not even close.

Fine. How do you define fundamentalism?

 

[David T]

Actually those who insist on Biblical infallibility are the ones most likely to question any belief not supported by Scripture. That was one goal of the reformation. One of the battle cries was "sola scriptura."

Absolutely, as long as it agreed with Luther's take!!!! Btw you forgot solo fide!!! Ooops typo, soli fide my bad , although solo fide did give freedom from from the patent '"Catholicism" which in America mean 10,000 varieties of the same power tool because after the patent runs out everyone is free to create the power tool that sells!!!!! Capitalism at its finest!!!! God bless Luther and his anti Semitic heart,!!! A genius!!!

 

[David T]

Fine. How do you define fundamentalism?

I am right and you are wrong because my speculation is right and your speculation is wrong!!!! How is that? One is called theory based on inferred narrative to observation the other is called belief based on infered narrative to observation!!!! Which infered is correct?

 

[psychoslice]

That makes you a liberal.

Why labels ?.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally don't care for liberals or fundamentalist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They frame their questions in terms of fundamentalist Christianity and don't want to hear about anything else. Its basically a witch hunt sometimes, and I don't feel like reinterpreting Christianity for people who just don't want to hear it.

That's heathen talk!

Oh wait...I'm the heathen. Dammit, this gets confusing. Can't you just vilify atheists? Then I can get all pissy, and call you a fundy, or something. Treating you like a person is just exhaaaaaauuuuuussssssting.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm a moderate Christian, not a fundamentalist. I wouldn't call myself a ''liberal Christian,'' because that reminds me of politics. lol But, I'm not a fundamentalist, I don't believe the Bible in its entirety is literal.

Certainly makes it easier to find common ground when a Christian doesn't believe the Bible is literal and infallible, and an atheist doesn't think they have all the answers.
Which is boring, of course. So I'm gonna pretend I have all the answers, and that you think God has a long white beard. Then we can fill our time by arguing!

Let's see...topic one...
If God can do anything, can he make a rock he can't lift? Huh? Can he?
Check, and mate.

(j/k)

 

[Brickjectivity]

I would like to hear you to define "fundamentalist" and "Christian." I doubt if you can.

This was addressed to me. I'll define liberal Christian instead. It is a label that ought to mean someone has decided that their own life is the talent that must be invested and not buried; that they are to assist other people of all kinds. They are liberal in investing themselves, so strictly speaking you can be both liberal and fundamentalist though those terms together would confuse most people. Liberal is the default ideal left to all Christians and does not require a reductionist view of the Bible, nor does Jesus judge anyone on their doctrines. Instead its all about how we treat other people, especially the least, those that cannot repay. So liberal Christian is an ideal, but it is also a label that people embrace even if we aren't very liberal.

 

[omega2xx]

Amen amen amen!!!! Generally but not all Atheists are not interested in dialog only debate. Fundementalism is only interested in debate never dialog as well. so the two tend to find a mutual agreement it all is in their head and it's the truth. Heck I am like John Muir or saint Francis, all about nature. That makes me uber uber liberal in some circles, and reasoned to a tiniest minority.

You don't even know what a fundamentalist is. The ones in the forum are interested in dialog also. I don't know where you tot the idea we are not.

 

[omega2xx]

Fine. How do you define fundamentalism?

Google fundamentalism and get a better definition.

 

[omega2xx]

Absolutely, as long as it agreed with Luther's take!!!!

Agreement with Luther had nothing to do with it. Luther wanted to leave James out of the canon but the other did not agree with him.

Btw you forgot solo fide!!! Ooops typo, soli fide my bad , although solo fide did give freedom from from the patent '"Catholicism" which in America mean 10,000 varieties of the same power tool because after the patent runs out everyone is free to create the power tool that sells!!!!! Capitalism at its finest!!!! God bless Luther and his anti Semitic heart,!!! A genius!!!

I didn't forget it, it is not applicable in this subject. This is also not about Luther. When you become perfect then throw some stones at Luther.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's heathen talk!

Oh wait...I'm the heathen. Dammit, this gets confusing. Can't you just vilify atheists? Then I can get all pissy, and call you a fundy, or something. Treating you like a person is just exhaaaaaauuuuuussssssting.

The trouble with heathens is that vilifying them seems to encourage them. There is a saying that goes "If you sow wind you reap a whirlwind." Thus it is unprofitable to vilify heathens.

A compassionate heathen may feel morally compelled to point out the non-reductionist teachings in the Bible, or they may feel like that its better to let reductionist Christians flounder in reductionism and suffer. Often though what goes around comes back around. Its sort of like the heathen problem.