Which was to my post:
So actually we are in agreement, you did find something ‘wrong’ and your resolution to that was to discount the scriptures and Jesus as the Son of God.
Matthew 5
42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies** and pray for those who persecute you,
Is not Satan referred to by the name “Adversary or Enemy” in the bible?
Precisely.
:rolleyes: Yes, that is true. But many other people are faced with the same dilemma and they manage to reconcile the two. Hm! What an interesting phenomenon! What could we call them? Oh, I know! We’ll call them “liberal Christians”! Not perfect, but it’ll do! Maybe someone could start an OP on how these “liberal Christians” manage to achieve this?
Oh, wait, I already did. And it’s this thread. Oh well.
I think you nailed it.
Much clarity regarding the bible is lost to a lack of social context.
The Samaritans were a sub-group of the Jewish nation who had intermarried with the Jews. They had also developed a seperate interpretation of the Pentateuch which changed many prominent details regarding what God had said and done.
Becuase of these two things they were considered to be even worse than an “unclean” gentile.
That would be why so many people were up in arms when Jesus stopped to talk to a Samaritan *woman * (men didn’t generally speak to women).
Jesus demonstrated equality of sex/race, so he didn;t need to talk about it.
For Miss Elizabeth:
I believe in Plenary Inspiration i.e. the *original * manucripts were inspired, but the process of translation was and is not.
This does not cause me to discount any given scripture. It just causes me to do more research with regard to the meaning of the original language.
Assyrians…sorry.
Yes, actually Satan means Adversary. The scripture you cite is cross referenced with Proverbs 25
It’s a interesting concept praying to God for Satan, it’s sort of a spiritual catch 22, prayer (to God) itself it to further the glory of God. Praying for Satan seems to go against the reason for prayer.
When one truly accepts Christ as their king and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, that Spirit comes with certain spiritual gifts, some of which is that of prophecy, wisdom, ect. It is possible that those that go with ‘liberal Christianity’ are following the information given by God’s spirit which is leading them to fulfill His greater plan.
The issues you mentioned in the OP that are important to you are the ones that God placed inside you, and if you are to accept Him that would most likely be part of the vision He has for you. Jesus said (going from memory here) - all the things you have seen me do, you (my followers) will do far more.
I’m not saying that God will have you support all the things you mentioned in your OP, but what God places in your heart is usually related to your spiritual gift.
I didn’t say pray, I said love. The way I see it is that the deceiver provides free will. From the duality is born the panopoly of options that makes up the universe. There is no greater teacher than the deceiver, as understanding what is not true is just as important as understanding what is true.
It appears to me that throughout the course of the gospels Christ is constantly harried by Satan, as is Satan’s nature. Those seeking the highest holiness are given the greatest temptations. So the gospels are woven throughout with Satan’s influence. This is why you can have different interpretations of Mary Magdalene and Judas. It is why Saul of Tarsus can become St. Paul. It was why the customs of Octavian’s Rome can be canonized as being passed down from the holy of holies.
From this perspective, liberalism is diabolical, but not in the way that social conservatives believe, for social conservatism is equally diabolical. They are both ideologies of the world, and attempting to argue that one is more in line with Christianity than the other is missing the point IMO.
Christianity in any society, even in one that fancies itself a Christian society is a radical ideology, because all worldly ideologies are born of worldly necessity, they are about management of logistics, providing status, passing out wealth and dominating territory, whether that territory is land or some sort of abstract philosophy. To claim that Christ cares more about your ‘tribe’ than another is to elevate your tribe in esteem. In short, it is using spiritual tools to further your base ego mammalian dominance borne designs.
The liberal/conservative dichotomy is just a highly evolved form of apes flinging poo. Therefore neither can be said to be the totality of the will on high.
To one degree or another I agree with the rest of your post, but to the above. I took the OP using the term liberal Christianity as what I usually refer to as Christianity lite, or sometimes ‘Church-inanity’. A attempt to force God’s view of the world to our own thinking on how things should be - something that can’t work. I was giving it a benefit of a doubt when I mentioned the spiritual gifts, and sure that God was able to work some good out of it. I did not take liberal Christianity as Christians who happen to have a leftist point of view politically.
Hmm, I’ve never seen them as being really all that seperate.
I think you are right. People who try God to accept politically leftist views are just a subset of ‘Church–inanity’. Though I normally consider the term ‘Liberal Christianity’ as trying to force God to accept man’s worldly view no matter the political angle.
kanicbird Well, liberalism is highly influenced by Christianity, but it’s got parts missing.
Well, I am a Christian, and I am liberal.
But, liberal is the fuzzy end of this particular stick.
“All judgment is given unto the Son.”
“I condemn no one.”
“And they shall say, But Lord, we did not know you!”
“As you have done to these, the least of my children, so shall it be done unto you.”
I am too busy trying to be what He wants me to be, to lead you anywhere. I can only recommend that you love each and every soul you meet on this earth as if you had just met the Son of God, Himself. One day, I believe you shall. And He will explain to you what, if anything needs to be explained.
If I am wrong, we shall both have tried to live good lives for completely foolish reasons. I am content with that outcome, as well. If, in the end, God cannot love us, should we not even more passionately love each other?
Tris
A Christian volunteered to go to a homeless shelter tonight and take food to the families living there. Then she sat down and ate with them and played with the children.
Was that the act of a “liberal Christian” or a “conservative Christian”? Or is it possible to tell?
Can someone who is politically conservative be a liberal Christian?
United Methodists are generally fairly liberal. Isn’t George Bush a Methodist? And we all know what a conservative Bill Clinton was, right?
Sorry, but “liberal Christian” is not a reference to political preferences.
As a former liberal Christian, I now believe the point of liberal Christianity is to enable Fred Phelps.
Please explain.
I agree that liberal/conservative are troublesome due to the political connotations. While I don’t agree that the views adherents Christianity could be particularly characterised in a linear fashion, I think the OP intends to explore the Metaphoricalist end of the Literalist/Metaphoricalist scale of Christianity. Perhaps someone can enlighten use to the appropriate antonym to Literalist if one exists.
Perhaps “Symbolist”? Using the term loosely, “gnostic” wouldn’t be entirely inappropriate, but has too much historical & theological baggage.
Without knowing the motivation behind it, knowing his (her) heart, it is impossible to tell if it was done as a Christian at all.
Or, in other words, you’re saying, “I have the opinion that these other guys don’t take their beliefs seriously, and are trying to do a balancing act between God’s Will and The World, so I’ll jump in and hijack the thread to what real Christianity is all about and why they’re not serious!” It’s kind of like rjung volunteering to explain what motivates principled political conservatives, wouldn’tya say?