I would think the point of something is best defined by the people who find a point in it, and its hard to see what viable arguments anyone could make otherwise.
Well that’s ‘moral relativism’ which Christians tend to frown on. I think part of the point is that Christ had an actual solid gospel, not one that was open to be interpreted any way one pleases.
I think the point is not that you can’t be a liberal and a Christian, but that you can’t be a ‘liberal christian’ that the modifier of liberal is rather meaningless to Christianity. You either are following Christ’s Way or you are not. Attempting to modify the gospel to fit prevailing social norms is in direct opposition to his teachings. There is a lot of wiggle room as to operating within your chosen milieu, but the point is that Christianity will be around long after liberalism is an obsolete political ideology.
Christ had a pretty radical approach. If someone is in need you are supposed to give it to them whenever. What does the modifier of liberal really add to this?
Some, indeed, many, historians connect The Boss’ concern for the poor and downtrodden directly to a long standing Hebrew tradition of generosity and compassion for the least amongst us. It is helpful to remember that in its earliest years, Christianity was a subset of Judaism.
Yeah, I think that a lot of the problems with Christianity have been trying to get it to jive with Gentile politics. The Roman Church being the most egregious example. Christ was a Jew preaches to Jews. He didn’t come to oppose the law but to fulfill it!
I don’t know, but since I have the distinct impression that someone other than a member of the group known as “liberal Christians” actually coined the term, you might be stuck asking some non-member of the group what it means.
Unlike Fundamentalists (who, themselves, took the name from the series of tracts that outlined the “Fundamentals” of their beliefs) or Evangelicals, (who, again, were pretty much responsible for naming themselves based on their concept of the Great Commission and their need to “spread the Good News”, i.e., evangelize), the people who bear the name (or epithet) “liberal Christian” were first so called by people who opposed some aspect of the beliefs that the opponents perceived them to hold. I have never seen a tract issued by a “liberal Christian” that says “This is who we are.” So to demand that the “liberal Christians” defend a title (or epithet) that was bestowed upon them by someone else seems a bit unfair, on the one hand, and silly on the other.
You can see this even on the microcosm that is the SDMB: the phrase “liberal Christian” is used far more often (usually disparagingly) by posters of either atheist or Fundamentalist Christian persuasion than it is used by people whom others might identify as “liberal Christian.”
tomndebb Good point.
[ Straight Dope nitpick ]
The word you intended is jibe.
When not meant to identify the specific jargon of jazz musicians, jive means to talk nonsense.
When not refering to swinging the boom to change the angle of a sail to catch the wind better, jibe means to be in accord with.
(Sorry. I have seen this error multiple times in the last week and my tolerance has been exhausted.)
[ /Straight Dope nitpick ]
Assuming you’re speaking of Hell as a place of eternal torment, you might want to read the actual passage in Revelations:
As I read this, it pretty clearly states that the Devil will be tormented day and night forever, but for yer garden variety sinner, the lake of fire is the second death; IOW, you are burned up and gone, poof, non-existence, death, it’s over for you Bubba, that’s all she wrote, which makes sense. If eternal life is reserved for those written in the book of life, then something has to happen to those who won’t be going to heaven. As you point out, torturing them for eternity is a direct contradiction to the concept of a loving god, it is an act that I can’t even conceive of coming from any type of sane god (and an insane god is too scary to contemplate. With an insane god all bets are off). A second, permanent death for unbelievers is much more logical, and really not all that frightening (Although waking them up to judge them and throw them into the lake seems needlessly cruel, assuming we are assigning some degree of literalness to this passage, I would bet on those not in the book of life simply staying dead in the first place.)
The above is MHO only, of course.
Now, in Revelation 14:11-12. we’re told that the Beast-worshippers will be tormented day & night without rest by the Fire & Brimstone & that the smoke of their torment will rise for “aions of aions”, unfortunately translated “forever and ever”. The same phrase is used of the time Satan, the Beast & the False Prophet.
Now, “ages of ages” may well be a long and intense period of time but it doesn’t necessarily mean “forever and ever”. It may well refer to a time that will keep going until it accomplishes something - that something either being the final destruction of incorrigible rebels against God/JC, OR just perhaps, their eventual
surrender to & embracing of God/JC. Even the word “torment” has a deeper meaning- the Greek word “basanazo” means “to test by the touchstone”. And the Rev 14 passage tells us what the real “trial” is, symbolized by “fire and brimstone” (the latter being in Greek “theion”- literally “God’s sulfur”): the Presence of the Lamb (Christ) and the Holy Ones. Satan & its most devoted followers will experience as their greatest punishment dwelling in the Inescapable Light of God/JC & Their Blessed Followers.
One more thing- I would agree that permanent death may seem good & right, but do we really want Hitler & Stalin & child molesters to die escaping some form of
Divine reckoning? I’d say a good awakening to be shown what they missed out on before being snuffed out again wouldn’t be “needlessly cruel”.
And then there is the possibility I have to admit that God’s Grace might be so vast as to STILL allow them to reconcile with Him. That won’t necessarily mean escaping punishment- saints and sinners alike go into the Divine Fire, and it may well be intensely painful for all, even as it is also ultimately redemptive.
FriarTed How do you know Hitler and Stalin were not doing God’s work. Have you had a sneak peak of the day of judgment?
Just a sneaking suspicion.
“judge not, lest ye be judged” - there’s nothing ambiguous about that, is there?
Well, God does work in mysterious ways… 
Not at all, until one reads the whole passage…
Matthew 7
- Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
- And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
- Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
- Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
- Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
and further in the same chapter…
- Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
- Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
- Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
- A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
- Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
- Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
So after warning us that we will judged by the standard we use to judge, Christ
then tells us to beware of people who are “dogs”, “swine”, “false prophets”, “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, and “corrupt trees”. But in recognizing which people qualify as such, aren’t we “judging”?
Hey, maybe Jesus is telling us to be cautious & compassionate & consistent in judging!
You gotta love the Bible in that respect. It is so fair and balanced, it demands behavior in one verse, then lets you off the hook in the next. That’s how so many of the faithful talk themselves into believing they don’t really have to give away all they own, or love their enemies, or turn the other cheek; because just a few verses further along, they can seize on some words that justify the complete opposite. No wonder there are a thousand different churches, all based on the same book, but lacking any agreement on just which verses trump the others.
This is not true, there is a difference. For Satan, False Prophet and the Beast it says that they will be tormented forever. However for the people not in God’s book of life, it is written as the smoke of their torment will go up forever. It is possible that though the people will be gone, a everlasting tribute to them will persist forever as smoke rising from the lake of fire.
My personal view that if Hitler and his ilk can be saved (not that I know they were), it increases my chances.
Check a Greek NT, the words “forever and ever” are more literally “aions of aions”, which CAN mean “forever” but does not have to.