The problem with liberal, progressive churches...

[Skeptic]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_44/22397/1_fullsize.png

I am an atheist, mind you; but--if you ARE going to be religious, be religious. If you merely think Jesus was just "a great moral teacher", for example, you are not really a Christian, but an atheist.

[The Fool]

should this theological musing go in the religion forum?

[UserGoogol]

Even though that comic is a slight strawman, it should probably be pointed out that there are many different ways to deal with that maddening stuff called "faith."

There are many ways to deal with the incongruities that appear to exist between religion and the more secular view of reality. One approach, the "fundy" approach, is to simply take religion as truth and any bit of reality which seems to contradict it must be wrong. There is another approach which might be called the "liberal" approach: to simply simultaneously hold both beliefs, regardless of any contradictions this might entail. It might be glossed over with some ******** about how truth is relative.

Of course, I don't doubt that some liberal churches are just glorified Unitarians. The line between "cognitive dissonance" and just being a secular person who says stuff about Jesus more often than usual is pretty blurry. But I do think that many liberal churches are simply... loose.

[Moon-Spinner]

I meet a lot of people that claim they are a Christian, but they don't believe in God or any of the other mythology. When I ask them why they consider themselves a Christian then, they say "Well, my parents were Christians, so I guess that makes me a Christian". Hmmmmm.....

[Upchurch]

I am an atheist, mind you; but--if you ARE going to be religious, be religious. If you merely think Jesus was just "a great moral teacher", for example, you are not really a Christian, but an atheist.
There are other forms of religion aside from Christianity, y'know. Going to a church and being atheistic are not mutually exclusive.

[hgc]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_44/22397/1_fullsize.png

I am an atheist, mind you; but--if you ARE going to be religious, be religious. If you merely think Jesus was just "a great moral teacher", for example, you are not really a Christian, but an atheist.This is where some atheists and some fundamentalists arrive by different paths at the same, questionable conclusion: true religious faith is fundamentalist or orthodox.

[Tricky]

It's pretty much impossible to follow all the teachings of Christ, what with the contradictions and multiple interpretations and such. So if a person decides to follow the parts that talk about morality and ignore the parts about the rules for getting into heaven, I would be lothe to call them unchristian.

[corplinx]

What does a liberal christian believe in anyway? The apostle Paul? There wouldn't be a christianity without him anyway (i always thought catholicism wouldnt be quite as retarded if they claimed Paul as the first pope instead of playing word games with petre/petra to claim Peter was). Paul has a paper trail as well unlike Jesus.

[Earthborn]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_44/22397/1_fullsize.pngWasn't there a rule against posting copyrighted material (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/cartoons/)?

There is something funny about that picture too: it uses a "qimg" tag instead of an "img" tag, and for some reason that makes it impossible to right-click the image and see its url in 'properties'. There isn't any indication that it is an image in the right-click menu, at least in IE. Quoting Skeptic's post enters the image instead of changing it to a url as is the new policy. I had to manually change it to a url.

ETA: Just noticed that Darat changed it.

if you ARE going to be religious, be religious.Ergo: Skeptic likes to tell people what they should believe.

If you merely think Jesus was just "a great moral teacher", for example, you are not really a Christian, but an atheist.Unless one also believes God exists.

[Upchurch]

Maybe we ought to start off by discussing what liberal, progressive churches are.

In the simplest of terms, liberal and progressive religion is pretty much synonymous with being "heresy", which means "to choose" and is the polar opposite of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is usually associated with the bigger religious systems, like Catholicism, but it is equally applicable to adherents of any dogma.

In liberal religion, knowledge is not imparted from an authoritative source. Well, it can be, but you don't have to believe it. The focus is more on developing a personal understanding of religion (and whatever that means to the individual) than it does simply agreeing with the spiritual leader of the congregation.

Unfortunately, orthodox conservative religions have become the archetype for most of our society's concept of what "religion" means, but that is neither a universally held concept nor, IMHO, an entirely true concept.


(Just as a point of clarification, it should be pointed out that the "liberal" and "conservative" terms when applied to religion do not mean exactly the same thing when they are applied to politics and especially not with modern US politics.)

[Darat]

Aren't all protestant churches "liberal and progressive"?

[corplinx]

I guess its one thing to believe in things unseen as faith implies. That implies a lack of skepticism. But when you pick and choose as you will from that faith, it seems like you know its phony but you do it anyway.

I'm with skeptic on this one sort of. If your a believer, then be a believer. Of course, I'd rather people not be believers.

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_44/22397/1_fullsize.png

I am an atheist, mind you; but--if you ARE going to be religious, be religious. If you merely think Jesus was just "a great moral teacher", for example, you are not really a Christian, but an atheist.


Rubbish. I am seeing more and more of this on this forum. Apparently, one must either take it hook, line and sinker or one must be an atheist. In my case, I am told I must either believe that God did everything, including designing mankind, or that I am not allowed to believe in God.

Let me tell you what is actually happening. You want a straw man to attack. It is easy to have a go at the literalists. So you are trying to say that the liberals "are really atheists."

B*llshit.

[Jimbo07]

(Just as a point of clarification, it should be pointed out that the "liberal" and "conservative" terms when applied to religion do not mean exactly the same thing when they are applied to politics and especially not with modern US politics.)

Moreover, in Canada the terms 'social liberal' and 'social conservative' should not be confused with the Liberal and Conservative parties. :mad:

[Earthborn]

You want a straw man to attack.I know you don't spend much time in the Politics forum, so I'll tell you: you are talking about "Skeptic".

There are many things we cannot know about God, but one thing is absolutely certain: Skeptic is not It.
If Skeptic was God, scarecrows would have been the Chosen People.

[Skeptic]

Rubbish. I am seeing more and more of this on this forum. Apparently, one must either take it hook, line and sinker or one must be an atheist. In my case, I am told I must either believe that God did everything, including designing mankind, or that I am not allowed to believe in God.

No, I am saying that if you do not believe in God you're an atheist, and that if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus you are not a Christian. I believe neither; I certainly am not implying one must be one or the other. My problem is that calling yourself a Christian in that case is pointless.

[Skeptic]

IIf Skeptic was God, scarecrows would have been the Chosen People.

??????

...oh, I get it.

Not bad, Earhtborn, not bad at all...

[Upchurch]

Aren't all protestant churches "liberal and progressive"?
No, but that answer also depends on your use of the term "liberal and progressive".

edited because you can not have a conditional "Definitely not".

[Beth]

No, I am saying that if you do not believe in God you're an atheist, and that if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus you are not a Christian. I believe neither; I certainly am not implying one must be one or the other. My problem is that calling yourself a Christian in that case is pointless.

Pointless or not, why does it bother you? Why do you care whether some followers of Christ do not believe in his divinity, just his teachings? What would you suggest such disciples of Christ be called instead?

[Upchurch]

if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus you are not a Christian.This would have come as a great surprise to a good number of people who considered themselves Christians prior to the Council of Nicea. One of the issues they had to settle was whether or not Jesus Christ was himself devine or just a holy prophet. As I understand it, it almost went the other way.

[aggle-rithm]

What does a liberal christian believe in anyway? The apostle Paul? There wouldn't be a christianity without him anyway (i always thought catholicism wouldnt be quite as retarded if they claimed Paul as the first pope instead of playing word games with petre/petra to claim Peter was). Paul has a paper trail as well unlike Jesus.

What word games?

Are you referring to that old anti-Catholic fundy argument that Jesus was talking about himself when he said "You are (masculine form) Peter and on this (feminine form) rock I will build my church"?

[wolfgirl]

Rubbish. I am seeing more and more of this on this forum. Apparently, one must either take it hook, line and sinker or one must be an atheist. In my case, I am told I must either believe that God did everything, including designing mankind, or that I am not allowed to believe in God.

Let me tell you what is actually happening. You want a straw man to attack. It is easy to have a go at the literalists. So you are trying to say that the liberals "are really atheists."

B*llshit.While I don't care what people call themselves, I think the problem that some people have with this (including myself, though I don't care that much...) is if you can just pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe, why do you believe any of it? The Bible says "this is what happened." If you only believe some of it but not the rest, why do you choose to believe any of it? Doesn't it make sense that if you're accepting that some of it is made up, that (perhaps, at least) the rest is made up, too?

[Nyarlathotep]

Going to a church and being atheistic are not mutually exclusive.


Maybe so, but I don't see a lot of point to the activity if you are an atheist.

[kittynh]

try a Unitarian church. Even I couldn't take it.

[Darat]

Maybe so, but I don't see a lot of point to the activity if you are an atheist.

Free drink of wine (as long as it isn't a Methodist church of course)?

[westphalia]

I recommend a book called "The End of Faith" (the author's name escapes me). I thought he did a very lucid and compelling job of dismissing liberal theology.

He's an atheist, by the way.

[Nova Land]

I am saying that if you do not believe in God you're an atheist, and that if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus you are not a Christian.
That's not strictly true. Beth has pointed out one way people can consider themselves Christians without believing in the divinity of Jesus; let me point out another.

Jesus is the name of the person described in the New Testament; Christ is a title which is often accorded to Jesus. While many people (including, surpisingly to me, many atheists!) use the terms Jesus and Christ interchangeably, they are not the same. They are only interchangeable to people who believe that Jesus was the Christ. For everyone else, the two should be understood as separate concepts. It is quite possible to believe in the concept of Christ without necessarily believing Jesus was the embodiment of that concept.

A very common meaning of Christian is the one Skeptic is espousing -- a person who believes that Jesus was The Christ. But just as there are different definitions of the word atheist, there are different definitions of the word christian.

It's bad enough when atheists get overly-heated about whether an atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a god or someone who believes there is not a god. Both are sensible definitions, and both are subscribed to by a large enough number of people that it makes little sense to try to proclaim one as the only valid definition. It makes more sense to realize that different people mean different things by the term, and to try to understand the definition which the person one is talking to at any given time is using so that one can understand what that person is saying and converse in their language, than to fight over which is the one true official everyone-has-to-use-dammit definition.

Same thing with the word christian. It's more important to understand what different people who use the word christian mean, and to talk with each on their own terms, than to try to impose the definition we prefer on everyone else. Argue concepts, not words!

Still, if someone has to insist there is only one correct meaing of the word christian and to set themself up as the authority on what that one correct meaning is, I suppose I should be relieved it is an atheist rather than a theist choosing to do so. If nothing else, it's a useful reminder that atheists are as diverse as theists, as capable of being wise on some occasion and as capable of being foolish on others.

[Darat]

...snip...

Same thing with the word christian. It's more important to understand what different people who use the word christian mean, and to talk with each on their own terms, than to try to impose the definition we prefer on everyone else. Argue concepts, not words!

...snip...

The problem extends beyond the use of the term "Christian" - I don't know of any major religion that can be so precisely defined that the definition will encompass all the people who would state that they are followers of a particular religion and exclude all those that say they aren't.

I also think we see cultural influences on what people will generally mean when they say "Christianity". For example in the USA I would hazard a guess that most people when they use the word "Christianity" are referring to a Christianity that is more or less based on the Protestant doctrines and reformation.

To get a bit more back to the point of the thread.

I don't think it is wrong to generalise depending on the contextt, so if I had to say give a general description of what is a Christian I would say "someone who believe that Jesus was the Son of God". I would argue with someone who claims that they are a Christian but don't hold that belief (for example a Bishop of the CoE ;) ) not from an arrogance that I know better then them but from a practical view point. A word that has no agreed common usage is not very useful!

Of course word usage can change and perhaps in 200 years time the word Christian will have become a word to describe a set of behaviours - (as happened with words like vandal or a barbarian) however today that isn't the case.

One thing I will say is if you want to enter into a debate with someone and they are using the word "Christian" or "Christianity" you should check what definition they are using - don't just assume it's the same one you use.

[a_unique_person]

Maybe so, but I don't see a lot of point to the activity if you are an atheist.

Churches still performed an important role in society, even if it was often dysfunctional. Community is vital to our survival.

[CP489]

Sam Harris wrote "The End of Faith" FWIW. I've been meaning to pick that up.

[Beth]

While I don't care what people call themselves, I think the problem that some people have with this (including myself, though I don't care that much...) is if you can just pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe, why do you believe any of it? The Bible says "this is what happened." If you only believe some of it but not the rest, why do you choose to believe any of it? Doesn't it make sense that if you're accepting that some of it is made up, that (perhaps, at least) the rest is made up, too?

The bible isn't just saying "this is what happened". My understanding is that most Biblical scholars accept that much of the Bible are allegorical stories, not meant to be accepted literally.

Why believe in just parts of it? For members of liberal churches the Bible is not taken to be a historically accurate record, but a guide on how to live one's life. One doesn't have to accept that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to accept the dictum to "love one's neighbor as oneself" and "turning the other cheek" as being a good philosophy to live by.

ALL churches pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe in and emphasize. The fundamentalists generally deny that they are doing so while the liberal churches are honest about it and willing to explain their reasoning to anyone who cares to inquire.

[kurious_kathy]

The bible isn't just saying "this is what happened". My understanding is that most Biblical scholars accept that much of the Bible are allegorical stories, not meant to be accepted literally.

Why believe in just parts of it? For members of liberal churches the Bible is not taken to be a historically accurate record, but a guide on how to live one's life. One doesn't have to accept that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to accept the dictum to "love one's neighbor as oneself" and "turning the other cheek" as being a good philosophy to live by.

ALL churches pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe in and emphasize. The fundamentalists generally deny that they are doing so while the liberal churches are honest about it and willing to explain their reasoning to anyone who cares to inquire.
All churches do not pick and choose. While there are many false teachings out there, there are many teachers who do a great job sticking to the truth of scripture.

I recently picked up Hank Henegraaff's book,"Christianity In Crisis'" and he identifies many of the problems with un-scriptural teaching going on in our world today. Have you heard of his ministry...CRI?
Here's a link to his website...http://www.equip.org/

I would suggest you get a copy of his book"Christianity In Crisis" and hear it for yourself. And while sometimes I think Hank is harsh on some things, he really does have a gift to identify heresy.

[Darat]

All churches do not pick and choose. While there are many false teachings out there, there are many teachers who do a great job sticking to the truth of scripture.
I recently picked up Hank Henegraaff's book,"Christianity In Crisis'" and he identifies many of the problems with un-scriptural teaching going on in our world today. Have you heard of his ministry...CRI?
I would suggest you get a copy of his book and hear it for yourself. And while sometimes I think Hank is harsh on some things he does have a gift to identify heresy.

Please name one denomination that does not pick and choose.

[kurious_kathy]

Please name one denomination that does not pick and choose.
I am not into focusing on denominations within the body of believers. I feel anyone who believes in Christ can be filled with the Holy Sprit of God and be led into all truth. The difference is whether people accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

It's up to each of us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. My biggest concern is that none of us be a counterfeit Christian. A follower of Christ embraces all His teachings.

[Darat]

I am not into focusing on denominations within the body of believers.

...snip..


With all due respect I am not interested in what you are into I am interested in you supplying evidence for your claims.

You said:

All churches do not pick and choose.

Please tell me which Churches do not pick and choose.

[juryjone]

Maybe we ought to start off by discussing what liberal, progressive churches are.

In the simplest of terms, liberal and progressive religion is pretty much synonymous with being "heresy", which means "to choose" and is the polar opposite of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is usually associated with the bigger religious systems, like Catholicism, but it is equally applicable to adherents of any dogma.

In liberal religion, knowledge is not imparted from an authoritative source. Well, it can be, but you don't have to believe it. The focus is more on developing a personal understanding of religion (and whatever that means to the individual) than it does simply agreeing with the spiritual leader of the congregation.

Unfortunately, orthodox conservative religions have become the archetype for most of our society's concept of what "religion" means, but that is neither a universally held concept nor, IMHO, an entirely true concept.

To me, the definition of a liberal church is "anything that's not fundamentalist". If you are not a literalist, then whatever you are looking at as scripture is open to interpretation; there is a continuum from "not so liberal" to "so liberal we don't see how this relates to the original". Seems to me the RCC falls on the liberal side, by this definition.

Beth sums it up thusly:

The bible isn't just saying "this is what happened". My understanding is that most Biblical scholars accept that much of the Bible are allegorical stories, not meant to be accepted literally.

Why believe in just parts of it? For members of liberal churches the Bible is not taken to be a historically accurate record, but a guide on how to live one's life. One doesn't have to accept that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to accept the dictum to "love one's neighbor as oneself" and "turning the other cheek" as being a good philosophy to live by.

ALL churches pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe in and emphasize. The fundamentalists generally deny that they are doing so while the liberal churches are honest about it and willing to explain their reasoning to anyone who cares to inquire.

But this draws me back to what wolfgirl was saying: How does one go about picking and choosing? Where does one draw the line between fact and metaphor? And how can I be condemned for drawing the line where I interpret it all to be metaphor?

JustGeoff is right when he says that it's easier to tee off on the literalists - because we know exactly where they stand. By the same token, religious people find it easy to tee off on atheists - all atheists stand on the side of "no belief", whether it's active or passive. With "liberal" religionists, there is very often nothing concrete to debate.

[Beth]

All churches do not pick and choose.

All right, perhaps I spoke too inclusively. I have never come across a church that didn't pick and choose. Personally, I find too many contradications in the bible if it is interpreted literally to find it reasonable that any church with a literal interpretation in the bible can avoid picking and choosing. A non-literal interpretation requires picking and choosing what parts to believe in.

My experience has been that fundamentalist church leaders deny that they do this picking and choosing and cut off discussion regarding it while liberal church leaders acknowledge it and are more than willing to discuss in detail what they believe in, what they don't, and why.

[Beth]

But this draws me back to what wolfgirl was saying: How does one go about picking and choosing? Where does one draw the line between fact and metaphor? And how can I be condemned for drawing the line where I interpret it all to be metaphor?

Well, biblical scholars have been debating such questions for centuries. While there are areas of consensus among the majority of such scholars, I don't think there are any crisp answers that everyone agrees on.

[juryjone]

Well, biblical scholars have been debating such questions for centuries. While there are areas of consensus among the majority of such scholars, I don't think there are any crisp answers that everyone agrees on.

And yet I'm still told that I'm going to be sentenced to eternal punishment if I don't believe in god. I'm not saying that you are condemning me; it's just that I have no problem if someone has a personal belief in god, as long as they don't use that personal belief to draw any conclusions about me.

[kurious_kathy]

With all due respect I am not interested in what you are into I am interested in you supplying evidence for your claims.

You said:

All churches do not pick and choose.

Please tell me which Churches do not pick and choose.
Well most non denominational churches like Calvary Chapel which were started under Pastor Chuck Smith in Costa Mesa, CA. I see how God has grown that church because it is based on solid teachings or sound doctrine.

Also Dr. David Jeremiah in San Diego...Shadow Mountain Community Church
http://www.turningpointonline.org/

There are many others I will get the links together and put them on this thread in a little while.

Here's 1. Alistairs Begg's website...http://www.truthforlife.org/
2. Ravi Zacharias website...http://rzim.org/radio/radio.php
3. Dr. Michael Youssef's website...http://www.leadingtheway.org/site/PageServer?pagename=default

[Meffy]

Kurious Kathy, these churches that do not pick and choose but which accept 100% of the Bible as literally accurate -- do their adherents believe that both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 are true? That the men travelling with Saul (Paul) both saw a light while not hearing a voice AND that they heard a voice while not seeing anything?

This is one of dozens of internal contradictions in the Bible. How can you claim not to pick and choose? If you don't pick and choose, you are simultaneously believing two things (per contradiction) of which just one can be true. And I think you can see that's an impossible position for anyone rational to be in.

[Freethinker]

Well most non denominational churches like Calvary Chapel which were started under Pastor Chcuk Smith in Costa Mesa, CA. I see how God has grown that church because it is based on solid teachings or sound doctrine. Also Dr. David Jeremiah in San Diego...Shadow Mountain Community Church
There are many others I will get the links together and put them on this thread in a little while.


I presume they stone disobedient children. Required!
Do they, or do you pray without covering your head? Not allowed!
Are women allowed to speak in church? Not allowed!
Women braid their hair? Not allowed!
Eat pork? Not allowed!
Force rape victims to marry their rapists? Required!

Oh wait, they aren't picking and choosing, they are reinterpreting the scripture in keeping with the times.:boggled:

[Genesius]

Kurious Kathy, these churches that do not pick and choose but which accept 100% of the Bible as literally accurate -- do their adherents believe that both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 are true? That the men travelling with Saul (Paul) both saw a light while not hearing a voice AND that they heard a voice while not seeing anything?

This is one of dozens of internal contradictions in the Bible. How can you claim not to pick and choose? If you don't pick and choose, you are simultaneously believing two things (per contradiction) of which just one can be true. And I think you can see that's an impossible position for anyone rational to be in.

Sheesh, Meffy, what part of "With God, all things are possible" don't you understand? If you're trying to please a jealous, ill-tempered God who wipes out entire peoples on a whim, a little thing like believing mutually contradictory statements is nothing.

God will give you the ability to believe anything, if only you turn off your mind, stop asking questions, and have faith.

I have faith.

I really do.

I. . . .

:hypnotize

[Meffy]

:hypnotize
Ooops! (*hides hypno-coin*) Sorryyyy.. =^_^=

[Genesius]

Ooops! (*hides hypno-coin*) Sorryyyy.. =^_^=

Must. . . worship. . . Meffy. . . .


Meffy. . . is. . . God. . .

[kurious_kathy]

Kurious Kathy, these churches that do not pick and choose but which accept 100% of the Bible as literally accurate -- do their adherents believe that both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 are true? That the men travelling with Saul (Paul) both saw a light while not hearing a voice AND that they heard a voice while not seeing anything?

This is one of dozens of internal contradictions in the Bible. How can you claim not to pick and choose? If you don't pick and choose, you are simultaneously believing two things (per contradiction) of which just one can be true. And I think you can see that's an impossible position for anyone rational to be in.
I can relate more than I want to with Paul's experience in coming to faith in Christ...including but not excluded to the thorn in the flesh issue. But one thing for sure about God's Word unless He can get it into our hearts, there is no way we will believe and start living what we know is truth. God is never done with us. And it is my belief that He meets each one of us daily as we learn to walk and live a life of faith.

I can take a scripture like Romans 8:28-30...And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Even though I don't like what I did in my former life away from walking with Christ, I believe He can use it all for His glory! I am not the same as I have learned to surrender my will and my life to His. I still have much to learn but I now know God is faithful to those who love and obey Him!

[HerNibs]

Kathy,

Just how does you statement answer Meffy's question?

Just answer her question directly.

Or say you don't know.

[kurious_kathy]

Kathy,

Just how does you statement answer Meffy's question?

Just answer her question directly.

Or say you don't know.
It's funny how the only ones that make an issue of what they see as contradictions in the Bible are for those who choose not to believe it.

There is a really good book for all you skeptics who continue to ask the same questions over and over. The name of the book is" When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe.

[Freethinker]

Kathy,

Just how does you statement answer Meffy's question?

Just answer her question directly.

Or say you don't know.

Good luck with that. Kathy doesn't answer questions where the answers make her religion look bad. She just pontificates randomly about herself, then recommends some obscure book by some fringe author that she's reading. Apparently she's reading hundred's of books but never finishes any of them.

I have more respect for someone who answers "I don't know" or "I don't understand" than somebody who blathers on with no point.

[Freethinker]

It's funny how the only ones that make an issue of what they see as contradictions in the Bible are for those who choose not to believe it.

There is a really good book for all you skeptics who continue to ask the same questions over and over. The name of the book is" When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe.

If you would answer one of them, we'd stop asking them. By the way, nobody chooses not to believe it. You choose to believe it. Can you say you choose not to believe in the invisible pink unicorn that is flying around you right now?

[HerNibs]

Freethinker,

Yep, you are correct. She will not answer. Another post and still no answer.

I would LOVE to hear
"Gee, you are correct, a contradiction, I don't have an answer. I do not know. Hmmm....maybe I shouldn't follow so blindly."

I don't want anyone to give up their faith, just be freaking honest about it.

*sigh*

[Upchurch]

To me, the definition of a liberal church is "anything that's not fundamentalist". If you are not a literalist, then whatever you are looking at as scripture is open to interpretation; there is a continuum from "not so liberal" to "so liberal we don't see how this relates to the original". Seems to me the RCC falls on the liberal side, by this definition.
Heh. I understand your position, but I believe "liberal religion" has a specific, technical meaning and is not meant as a relative term.

RCC, for example, is an extremely orthodox and dogmatic religion. That classifies it as a "conservative religion". It doesn't matter that its memebers can be politically or socially more liberal than the fundies (which would be an appropriate relativistic use of the term).

[Beth]

And yet I'm still told that I'm going to be sentenced to eternal punishment if I don't believe in god. I'm not saying that you are condemning me; it's just that I have no problem if someone has a personal belief in god, as long as they don't use that personal belief to draw any conclusions about me.

Yes, well, some people would condemn me to eternal punishment for my sense of fashion or lack thereof. :)

[juryjone]

Heh. I understand your position, but I believe "liberal religion" has a specific, technical meaning and is not meant as a relative term.

RCC, for example, is an extremely orthodox and dogmatic religion. That classifies it as a "conservative religion". It doesn't matter that its memebers can be politically or socially more liberal than the fundies (which would be an appropriate relativistic use of the term).

Oh, I get your point. RCC substitutes its catechism for the Bible concerning dogmatic adherence. Yet wouldn't a fundamentalist consider it a "liberal" church? In other words, not everyone may agree with the specific, technical meaning you outlined.

Not knowing Skeptic's definition, I couldn't remark further on the "problem" he finds with liberal churches.

Yes, well, some people would condemn me to eternal punishment for my sense of fashion or lack thereof. :)

Well, you do have a fashionable avatar. (Of course, I may have a poor fashion sense as well...)

[Nyarlathotep]

Churches still performed an important role in society, even if it was often dysfunctional. Community is vital to our survival.


Okay, but if one is an atheist, what does one get from a church that one can't get from a bar, an internet chat room, or anyplace else that one might socialize?

[Cleon]

Oh, I get your point. RCC substitutes its catechism for the Bible concerning dogmatic adherence. Yet wouldn't a fundamentalist consider it a "liberal" church? In other words, not everyone may agree with the specific, technical meaning you outlined.

Sure. But then, I could point to snake-handling churches that consider the Southern Baptists to be "liberal." I'm sure the Mormon polygamists consider the LDS church to be too "liberal."

It's all relative, really.

[Upchurch]

Oh, I get your point. RCC substitutes its catechism for the Bible concerning dogmatic adherence. Yet wouldn't a fundamentalist consider it a "liberal" church? In other words, not everyone may agree with the specific, technical meaning you outlined.
Oh, yes. Of course, all terms have contextual, agree-upon meanings. I'm sure most folks think of "liberal" and "conservative" purely in social/political sense. However, most liberal, progressive churces (that I'm familiar with) describe themselves as such using the more technical terminology.

Given the context, I assumed that it was these kinds of churches Skeptic was referring to. I could be wrong.

[Nyarlathotep]

Dang it, wrong thread.

[Darat]

Well most non denominational churches like Calvary Chapel which were started under Pastor Chuck Smith in Costa Mesa, CA. I see how God has grown that church because it is based on solid teachings or sound doctrine.

Also Dr. David Jeremiah in San Diego...Shadow Mountain Community Church
http://www.turningpointonline.org/

There are many others I will get the links together and put them on this thread in a little while.

Here's 1. Alistairs Begg's website...http://www.truthforlife.org/
2. Ravi Zacharias website...http://rzim.org/radio/radio.php
3. Dr. Michael Youssef's website...http://www.leadingtheway.org/site/PageServer?pagename=default

I have checked each of those sites and they are not following a literal interpretation of the Bible and especially not the New Testament and the words that are attributed to Christ.

[Beth]

Well, you do have a fashionable avatar. (Of course, I may have a poor fashion sense as well...)

Thanks. That's my husband's art work. You can see more of his art work (he's particularly fond of sci-fi type scenes) at his website markclarkson.com

[Katana]

It's funny how the only ones that make an issue of what they see as contradictions in the Bible are for those who choose not to believe it.


Are you saying that it's funny how the only ones pointing out the contradictions in the Bible are the ones who choose not to believe it?
If so, my answer is, perhaps there's a cause and effect here.

As an aside, what makes a Catholic who uses contraception, has premarital sex, is pro-choice, is comfortable with homosexuality, and feels that Catholic priests should marry still a Catholic? I've got a nice Episcopal church over here, but these folks never take me up on the offer to bring them to it.

[kurious_kathy]

If you would answer one of them, we'd stop asking them. By the way, nobody chooses not to believe it. You choose to believe it. Can you say you choose not to believe in the invisible pink unicorn that is flying around you right now?
Hmm, pink unicorn...definitely fantasy, but Jesus Christ is not fantasy, He is real! What's it gona take to make you see the truth about our creator?
Isaiah 66:1-3...Thus says the LORD, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool , Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? "For My hand made all these things,Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look,To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

[Wheezebucket]

Hmm, pink unicorn...definitely fantasy, but Jesus Christ is not fantasy, He is real! What's it gona take to make you see the truth about are creator?
Isaiah 66:1-3...Thus says the LORD, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool , Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? "For My hand made all these things,Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look,To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Wow...everytime I think I've seen the limit of stupidity, kathy comes along and shows me just how wrong I was. Turns out, there's alot more stupidity to churn out.

"What's it gona take to make you see the truth about are creator?"

Evidence, I'd imagine. All you do is quote garbage, over and over and over. You didn't even address the point of his/her post, you just sidestepped it and then quoted more crap.

[kurious_kathy]

I have checked each of those sites and they are not following a literal interpretation of the Bible and especially not the New Testament and the words that are attributed to Christ.
These guys all follow the gramatical historical interpretation of scripture as laid out in the principles of hermanutics. So if youv'e got an issue with their teachings that you state are not literal, proove it.

[Freethinker]

These guys all follow the gramatical historical interpretation of scripture as laid out in the principles of hermanutics. So if youv'e got an issue with their teachings that you state are not literal, proove it.


You are the one who says they are literal. The burden of proof is on you. Try this: answer each of the following with a yes or no. None of your bizarre ramblings. Do they:

I presume they stone disobedient children. Required!
Do they, or do you pray without covering your head? Not allowed!
Are women allowed to speak in church? Not allowed!
Women braid their hair? Not allowed!
Eat pork? Not allowed!
Force rape victims to marry their rapists? Required!

Oh wait, they aren't picking and choosing, they are reinterpreting the scripture in keeping with the times.:boggled:

That should be a six word answer, consisting only of the words yes or no in the order the points were made in my original post. After you answer those in a six word only post, then you can ask questions about where in the bible these prohibitions and requirements are. I doubt you know off the top of your head like an evil atheist does. Remember 6 words.

[Robin]

Hmm, pink unicorn...definitely fantasy, but Jesus Christ is not fantasy, He is real! What's it gona take to make you see the truth about our creator?
Think about this one. If it took quotes from the Bible to make us see this truth we would have all been Christians long ago. If those quotes did not work all the other times they were posted did not work then they will not work now.

Give us something besides this kind of thing:
Isaiah 66:1-3...Thus says the LORD, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool , Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? "For My hand made all these things,Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look,To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

[Darat]

These guys all follow the gramatical historical interpretation of scripture as laid out in the principles of hermanutics. So if youv'e got an issue with their teachings that you state are not literal, proove it.

Happy to do so:

https://www.turningpointonline.net/youcanhelp.html#form

http://www.truthforlife.org/support.php

http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/447ff60b03d392b7271d45579e7c06ee/Product/Specials

http://www.leadingtheway.org/site/PageServer?pagename=how_default

(ETA) In case you are wondering why those links show that " they are not following a literal interpretation of the Bible"

Matthew 6 (New International Version)

Matthew 6

1 Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[Freethinker]

Matthew 6

1 Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

I guess Kathy won't be getting any reward for her volunteer work that she bragged about in another thread:


Anyways I have to go for today. It's my afternoon to volunteer at the pregnancy center. I'll talk with you guys later, God willing.

Clearly there was no need for you to tell us where you were going, other than to make yourself look good. As Darat posted, the bible frowns on that.

[Meffy]

It's true! And I hope for her immortal soul's sake that KK doesn't wear any clothing made of two or more kinds of fiber. The Bible absolutely forbids that. It's an abomination or some such ickiness. Can't say with any authority, but I'd think that each day one commits such an abomination counts as a separate offense to God.

How many times have you violated this Biblical law so far in your life, Kathy? Are you violating it at this very moment? Or are you willing to repent of your wicked fiber-mixing ways and return to the rules laid down by your creator? Once you do, will you be strong enough to move on to buying two sets of kitchenware, one to be touched only by dairy products and one solely for meats? There's a whole lot more you're going to have to do if you truly mean what you say about honoring the Bible's literal word, but to lessen the shock (which will be considerable) we'll try to take it in easy little steps.

Of course, if you're aren't sincere in what you've been saying, and have just been using religion as a bludgeon to try to beat up on other people, then you may feel free to ignore the above; if that's the case, you're allowed to keep on violating Biblical prohibitions right and left as you have been doing.

[Katana]

using religion as a bludgeon to try to beat up on other people
(my bold)

Does this fall under "speak softly and carry a big stick"?

But then why are the fundamentalists so friggin' LOUD?

[Meffy]

I've known some quiet ones. Got along with them okay most of the time, even liked a few of 'em in the "friendly co-worker" role. And I've almost certainly known quite a few people who were fundamentalist Christians but who didn't mention it at all... though I can't tell whether or who, obviously. :-D

I suspect it's like so many other things -- we notice the few attention-grabbers while forgetting the less extreme (or at least less obnoxious) majority. Like remembering astrology hits and ignoring the misses. That's a hard habit to overcome, impossible maybe, so I try to catch myself making that error.

[Katana]

I suspect it's like so many other things -- we notice the few attention-grabbers while forgetting the less extreme (or at least less obnoxious) majority. Like remembering astrology hits and ignoring the misses. That's a hard habit to overcome, impossible maybe, so I try to catch myself making that error.

Good point.

You caught me. It is too easy to generalize, and that I did.

[Meffy]

No catching to it -- I know of nobody totally immune to this one. It's natural, given the way attention and memory play off each other. :-)

[Cleon]

No catching to it -- I know of nobody totally immune to this one. It's natural, given the way attention and memory play off each other. :-)

I never generalize.

[Meffy]

And I never privatize! What a conspiracy... or is it (shhh) coincidence?

[LostSoul]

Matthew 6 (New International Version)

Matthew 6

1 Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Great post..