What's the point of "liberal" Christianity?

[mr.jp]

@FriarTed

Nor did He change the incest & bestiality & child-sacrifice & necromancy prohibitions in Leviticus. Actually, the ONLY things in Leviticus that He changed was the priestly, sacrificial & festival stuff, and also the death penalties for crimes against the Covenant- and He only changed all that by taking it all- the priestly, sacrificial, festival & capital punishment for Covenantial violations- upon Himself.

The Levitical sexual prohibitions were reinstated by Paul in Romans 1, with no indication that JC or the other Apostles would have disagreed.

Where does Jesus talk about changing stuff?

[kanicbird]

The Bible had to be written in a method that men of the time could understand. Perhaps the meaning behind the story is what God wants to tell us, more then the story itself.

[Nava]

@Canadjun

I’m actually atheist, so all of that is moot to me anyway, but that is, to my understanding, why many devout Christians do not believe that the Bible should be taken literally word-for-word.

That, and also the fact that if you take these multi-copied, multi-translated Bibles literally and assign to each word its most common modern meaning…

God spent three “24 hour periods” creating the world before He actually got around to creating “24 hour periods”! That’s right off the bat, by the way, not hidden in some obscure corner of Deuteronomy. So that’s a point where you get two logical choices:

a) this whole thing is wrong,
b) this whole thing cannot be taken too literally.

And a choice that I find illogical but which many people take daily:
c) the Earth is flat.

[Eutychus]

I think a lot of the problem here is that we get caught up in thinking about “THE BIBLE” as if it were one book, written all at one time. It was not. it was written over a period of thousands of years and represents a variety of viewpoints, whether or not the fundies want to admit it or not.

Discussing whether it is valid as a whole is a bit like wondering if “Huckleberry Finn” is valid because there were errors in “The DaVinci Code.”

[Beware_of_Doug]

@sunacres

Is the assumption here that a “Christian” is defined as someone who accepts some sort of doctrine on faith, and excludes those who simply admire and try to model themselves after the teachings of Christ?

There is a quiet tradition among fundies that the word Christian is used in a way that excludes Catholics, eg: “Christian singles” or “Christian bookstores.”

[Jonathan_Chance]

@the raindog

Cite?

Glad to oblige.

Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman.

It’s a great history of the writing of the Bible, the translations and mistranslations. The points at which certain parables and other items first appear in various texts.

I’m surprised no one in this thread has mentioned it so far.

[Nava]

@Triskadecamus

The bible is not The Word. The Lord is the Word.

And in Spanish versions, the Lord is el Verbo: means both “word” and “verb”; also, the ultimate verbo is ser, which in turn means both “to be permanently” and “being”. There’s many interpretations we did in Sunday School in Spanish that simply don’t work with an English Bible.

If we’re all going to have to learn arameic… thaaaaat would be a bit of a problem!

[cosmosdan]

@the raindog

Cite?

You mean you’re not aware of this? I might offer a slight correction. It’s not so much a matter of many different language interpretations but certainly the content of the NT was affected by copies of copies of copies. Most of my information comes from
“Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman, a professor and biblical scholar.

We have thousands of copies and parts of copies of the books of the NT. No two are alike. In that era scribes {folks who had at least some literacy} hand copied the books from whatever copy they had at there disposal. It is undeniable that in that copying changes were made. Some just unintentional eras and some likely intentional changes to “clarify” a certain passage. Even if someone believes the original authors were inspired by God to write these things down the fact is we don’t really know what the original authors said.

The value of the Bible IMHO is not in some imagined authority it was granted by God. That exists only in the hearts and minds of men. The value is how it resonates within us. If we are trying to understand our relationship with each other and our relationship to God, then the Bible is a good source. It is not the only source.
Here in the US and in other areas where Christianity was by far the most prevalent religion it’s understandable that people would gravitate toward it. It’s the most likely experience and the one most supported by the people we share a society with.

[cosmosdan]

@Cisco

If you truly believe in your heart that the Word of GOD was divinely revealed to you through the Holy Bible and live your life accordingly - especially if you’re one of the extremely precious few who do it without harming or discriminating against others - then I find a certain nobility in that. My grandfather was a conservative Christian and there is not a human being who has ever walked this Earth whom I respect more than I respected him or love more than I loved him. I try to model my life after his and I say that as a comfirmed atheist.

I like this part. I have friends and family who are conservative Christians. I also have an atheist sister who is one of the most considerate and compassionette people I know. With all our discussions here on the boards about beliefs it seems obviouis to me that the quality of the person does not hinge upon the details of their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof.

If, however, you want to make up your own religion, why base it on Christianity? With so much stigma attached to it, so many disagreeable stablemates, and so much unsavory history, wouldn’t you want to drop it if you didn’t need it? In other words, when so many conservative Christians believe that it’s their way or the highway, why shuffle around behind them? Why not take the highway?

I’ve gone through a long process from Christian priesthood member, to now. I no longer choose to call myself Christian because my beliefs are far outside mainstream Christianity, but I still have a great reverance for what Christ taught and it’s an important part of my own spiritual journey.
From my own experience I see how hard it can be to let go of certain beliefs you have held and are held by those around you. We see in history a cycle of changing beliefs. It seems normal to me for people to still feel a desire to be part of the love Jesus spoke of and to enjoy being a part of group that seeks to teach and act upon that love, without embracing every detail of doctrine.

[Sapo]

@Zoe

[Catholicism] may be the largest organized group of liberal Christians, but you might be surprised at the liberal viewpoints that come from even rural Southerners. My father was such a man. He did not believe that Christianity was the only path to enlightenment. Neither does Billy Graham, by the way. And he’s a Baptist from the South. He said on Larry King one night that he doesn’t believe that a person has to believe that Jesus is the son of God to “go to heaven.”

Oh, absolutely yes. I am well aware that Catholicism is far from being the only liberal christian group out there. Just pointing out a glaring counter-example to the OP which claims there is no Liberal Christianity out of ot SDMB (is CC the Pope?)

[cosmosdan]

@David Simmons

i don’t think inerrancy is necessary. However, if everyone practices according to a private interpretation it sort of eliminates any need for either the Bible or organized religtion.

Need? Perhaps. Desire? Evidently not.

Organized religion is as much a social event as it is a spiritual one. I had an experience and was drawn to the religion of the people I was closest to at the time. They were good people and I enjoyed being a part of the group. When some questions about the details of doctrine and belief came up they didn’t seem as important to me as the positive experience of the group so I didn’t pursue them. It was when I was away from the church and began thinking about the details of belief that I was willing and able to pursue my own answers.

I think thats the case for lots of folks. They have a positive experience within the group they are in and choose to stay feeling that the positive experience overshadows the need to question the details of belief. Most people within an denomination or even a single congregation realize that not everybody believes exactly the same. It’s okay.

[David_Simmons]

@cosmosdan

Need? Perhaps. Desire? Evidently not.

Organized religion is as much a social event as it is a spiritual one. I had an experience and was drawn to the religion of the people I was closest to at the time. They were good people and I enjoyed being a part of the group. When some questions about the details of doctrine and belief came up they didn’t seem as important to me as the positive experience of the group so I didn’t pursue them. It was when I was away from the church and began thinking about the details of belief that I was willing and able to pursue my own answers.

I think thats the case for lots of folks. They have a positive experience within the group they are in and choose to stay feeling that the positive experience overshadows the need to question the details of belief. Most people within an denomination or even a single congregation realize that not everybody believes exactly the same. It’s okay.

Well, I guess if you equate religion with a social club …

[raindog]

@tomndebb

Historically, what is being called on the SDMB “liberal” Christianity got its first nudges toward birth at the time of the Reformation. Martin Luther, ironically, (as he is either the author or primary proponent of sola scriptura), got it going when he investigated the scriptures held by the RCC and decided to eliminate several books on theological grounds. (Having removed several Old Testament books, he then found justification for doing so based on other criteria, but he had to be restrained from executing a similar purge on several New Testament books and his reasons were purely theological.)

It is surprising that you gloss over sola scriptura with such little traction. The question as to what is bible “canon” and what is not is not relevent to how one (in this case, Luther) responds to [accepted] canon.

Luther’s sola scriptura stands in stark contrast to “liberal theology” in as much as Luther believed in the primacy of scripture to formulate doctrine, and that
the scripture, not the church and it’s traditions, (no matter how sincere) is the final arbiter of what should guide a Christian.

Luther disputed some of the bible books as not being valid bible canon. That doesn’t mean the parts of the bible he left unmolested were somehow now subject to the flavor of liberal theology you’re espousing here. What is valid bible canon and what is not; and how one should be guided by what is ultimately agreed upon as canon, are two separate and unrelated discussions. (and debates)

While I am not sure that Luther would recognize the statement, (as either factual or valid), he actually demonstrated an important point regarding the trend in thought that eventually became “liberal” Christianity: Faith does not proceed from Scripture (despite Luther’s words); Scripture proceeds from the recognized faith of the group (as indicated by Luther’s actions).

You’re painting a dichotomy here that doesn’t exist. There in nothing that I’ve ever read on Luther that suggests that he would be receptive to the the notion that “Scripture proceeds from the recognized faith of the group.” As you note, certainly not from his words.

Is there a contrdiction then between Luther’s words and actions? Only if you believe that the bible of Luther’s day was so neatly constructed that he could afford to surgically remove the bible books that he found objectionable, in order to practice the rigidity and [mock] adherence to scripture [that remained after his ‘surgery’ and presumably palatable to his faith)that he his noted for.

Does that make sense? Nope.

If only modern liberal Christians had it so neat! If only it were as neat as lopping off the book of Levitcus, Romans etc and calling it a day. (similar to what Luther did, right?) No, the modern liberal Christian has to do his pruning ala carte. It’s a much harder task, to be sure.

So now we must suspend our own good sense and disbelief and proclaim (with a straight face) that clear unambiguous language on homosexuality (as one, preferably non-hijackable, example) was really about idolatry; or that the “God is Love” mantra absolves us of all kinds of behavior that the bible clearly condemns.

It also allows the ascendency of the very things that Luther abhored: A layclass that was ignorant of the bible and had the bible and it’s interpretation (and the doctrine and faith that flows from it ) spoon fed to it by a clergy that often deviated from what the bible actually says.

It’s obvious that Luther would still have profound differences with the modern RCC. Is there any reason to believe that Luther would find common ground with Ted Haggard, Joel Olsteen, Jimmy Swaggart, Gene Robinson, John Spong or any other of the rock star preachers?

Luther espoused:

1. The primacy of scripiture to guide faith, doctrine and behavior.

2. That the clergy derived it’s legitimatcy from the scriptures, not the other way around, as you’ve suggested.

3. The practice of one’s faith was a personal journey. Imcumbent upon the Christian was the need to read the bible for himself and to tailor his faith from the scripture—not from church leaders or personal sensibilities. In fact, Luther saw it as an obligation and right of the laymen to challenge church leaders if they deviated from scripture.

In Luther’s day, the bible was not widely available in the common langauges–in fact it was prohibited. Luther, and his near contemporaries were willing to die to bring the bible to the common man. Tyndale, Wycliffe and the other morning stars of the reformation didn’t see the bible as some ‘error riddled book of fables’, but as the inspired word of God. Yet you would have us believe that it carried no such significance to these men. I say you’re wrong.

I don’t believe Luther words and actions are in any conflict, and I don’t think you can press Luther into service to make a case for [modern] liberal theology.

Long before there was a New Testament, there were people who held certain beliefs. Members of the group wrote down those beliefs and later generations of that group collected the works that most nearly produced a (somewhat) coherent collection of those beliefs.

Please cite this biblically. The bible, best as I can tell, indicates that God communicated directly (and often semi-directly; and in any event certainly more directly he is said to communicate with followers today) with his servants.

In any event, the Laws that governed the Jewish Theocracy were said to have been delivered to Moses et al by God himself. The Mosaic Law, for example, (Law Code, Law of Moses) numbered 600 laws. The Jews of that time hardly condsidered the laws, traditions and customs of their day to be a “greatest hits” of the collective wisdom of their group. Rather they considered them to be dictated by God, and there was not just peer pressure to adhere to the laws, but certain penalties for non-compliance.

The belief preceded the writings. (The same is true regarding the Old Testament or Tanakh. Regardless whether one believes that Moses wrote the Torah just before he died and the Hebrews passed into Canaan or whether one believes that a number of old works were redacted to create a body of belief after the Babylonian exile, there had to have been some sort of shared experience or belief to which the written word gave voice–otherwise it would have been dismissed by the people who recognized its errors.)

You left out was most germaine to the point: What is the basis for understanding or belief? What is the source?

IOW, as an example, it is correct to say the “belief” preceded writing as it relates to the ten commandments; God spoke, Moses wrote.

It is an elementary that beliefs precede writing, right? But what you left unanswered was the foundation of those beliefs. (as manifested by the writings)

Did the OT Jews believe—as manifested by their writings—that their beliefs were derived from the collective wisdom of their elders, or did the writings indicate that they were following clear instruction from God?

Do the OT texts support your assertion? On the contrary.

As the collective faith of the group changes, the understanding of what is meant by various passages changes, as well. It is not even a new process. The Talmud is an ancient exploration of the meaning(s) of the Tanakh with any number of variant understandings (coalescing,eventually, into what we now see as Judaism). There were frequent theological opinions in the early days of the church, with different people reading the same passages in quite different ways. The books were retained on the basis that overall they provided a core document to which the group could look in conjunction with other commentaries, from scholars or councils as a way to gather inspiration and to prevent getting too far away from that core belief.

You’re right, this is not new. It’s called relativism. It’s called gradualism.

And you’re correct that church elders, councils and the like met from time to time to “prevent getting too far away from that core belief.”

To the extent that “the collective faith of the group changes”, it’s to the extent that they have deviated from what they once held as “truth.” As it relates to this discussion, given that there has been no new bible canon for centuries,(and the bible texts remain timeless and unchanged) the collective change in faith is overwhelming from sources outside the bible. And so it goes; much of what is taught in liberal Christian theology has no biblical basis, and has more in common with human secularism, pagan ritual and belief, human politics and reasoning (and other non-biblical belief systems) than the bible.

And I would submit that the bible is amazingly consistent in it’s condemnation of such outside interference in matters of faith and doctrine, and is characterized universally as a perversion of correct bible teachings.

[quote]
Does this open up such interpretations of scripture to charges of cherry picking?

[quote/]

Yes it does.

Probably. However, there is a fairly strong current of belief that must continue to run through the group for the texts to be accepted and held in regard and while that faith is open to some changes, it typically proceeds to change rather slowly as the group encounters different events.

I agree with this, but I see this slow progression as the most pernicious quality of gradualism within the Christian framework.

At least some of what is accepted in liberal Christian theology would be largely unheard of a simple generation ago—or at the very least considered to be on the heretic fringe. Is this the progress of an enlightened society, or the debasement of biblical teachings?

And so we get back to a central question: What is the proper role the bible should have in dictating doctrine, behavior and influencing faith, particularly in a modern society?

I am a veteren lurker, and participant on this subject. Time and again I’ve heard assertions that [strict] adherence to bible teaching is a recent advent in the evolution of the the bible in society. I remember seeing someone write that this was unknown until the nineteenth century. Again and again I’ve asked to reconcile those comments with the stunning descriptions of OT Jewish society, or the many writings of Paul. (as some examples) To date, I’ve never seen claims like this biblically cited at all, let alone in a scholarly way.

Put another way, should the church change to accomodate [sincere] changes in modern sensibilities? Abortion and homosexuality are two issues where a modern society sees the [tradional, or fundamentalist] church as out of step. Liberal theology has adapted it’s message that it is more palatable to many. The price that they have paid for this popularity, however, is that they have been forced to ignore, rationalize or rewrite clear bible texts. Even that isn’t enough though is it? The [necessary] coup de grâce must be to discount the bible as a book of well intentioned fables, authored by often conflicted and confused men, and not representative of God’s true direction or requirements of man.

So when someone points out that different groups do not all believe the same things, based on the same books, or someone notes that a changing view of Scripture prety well shoots down a belief that God actually authored the Bible (in one fashion or another), I simply agree.

Because there is some disagreement , and differences as to interpretation by it’s readers, that somehow that must mean that by necessity that God cannot be the author?

The bible is a repository of stories and lessons on which believers rely to keep from going too far astray, but those stories and lessons are not, themselves, seen as having been directly written by the hand of God.

Not “seen as having been directly written by the hand of God”? By whom?

Biblical cite to support that the various authors themselves (40 in all) over the span of the bible writings (1600 years give or take) or the **intended original recipients and adherents ** of those writings had this view?

On the contrary. The people of the OT believed that their writings, laws and customs were dictated either by God himself, (like Moses)or by his servants through visions, prayer. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the major and minor prophets and the many Kings all pay homage to the Jewish belief that the exhaustive and richly detailed laws and writings in Jewish society were seen to be from God himself. I don’t even know where I would begin to cite this. The evidence that the Jews saw the writings from God are overwhelming.

Are the NT authors any less believers? Is there any NT writings that you can show me (that would contradict the overwhelming evidence to th contrary) that indicate the bible writers intended their writings to be no more than “stories and lessons on which believers rely to keep from going too far astray”?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Cisco

If, however, you want to make up your own religion, why base it on Christianity? With so much stigma attached to it, so many disagreeable stablemates, and so much unsavory history, wouldn’t you want to drop it if you didn’t need it? In other words, when so many conservative Christians believe that it’s their way or the highway, why shuffle around behind them? Why not take the highway?

I can only speak for myself, and I’ll try to make this as brief as possible.

I was indoctrinated into a belief in the bible at an early age without any logical arguments neccessary.

Over the years I struggled with the idea of a loving God while his followers seemed to be adrift in heavily fractured and conflicting “Holy Spirit” inspired dogmas based on the bible.

In the mean time, I was facing very clear evidence of inconsistencies in the bible.

The first breakthrough I had out of fundamentalism was being introduced to the concept of “universal salvation”. There was, for me, enough scriptural evidence to support it and reasonable doubt as to the translation and interpretation of contradictory passages. It fit quite nicely with my independant concept of how a loving God “who so loved the world” would deal in the end with all the people. It gave hope for all people who for whatever reason failed or were unable to accept Jesus at some point in their life.

I was also exposed to the pre-Constantine writing of Origen which espoused this view. This was followed by the knowledge that there were many conflicting views within Christendom prior to the usurption of Christianity by the state and the selection of writings as the canon in order to unify a force for state purposes. Ergo, I felt free to take from the Bible what I wished. Thanks to input on this board by liberal Christians I was able to flesh out my own perceptions of the role of Christ with respect to mankind. Thanks to them and the atheist of this board pointing out all the inconstiencies in the bible, I concluded that the bible is not the word of God, but the word of various individuals, each with their own personal beliefs and limitations of knowledge in light of what we know today.

Something very special happened following Christ’s crucifiction. If it weren’t for a couple of women sticking with Him after He died, we just wouldn’t have heard about Him today. Apparently there were a lot of messiahs at the time who lapsed into obscurity. So what influenced Christ’s contemporaries to worship Him and keep his *** unwritten*** words alive? This all while subject to horrifying capital punishment. There just was no political agenda for Christians in those days. Could it have been Christ’s resurection ?

Atheism would truly be the most logical choice for an educated person. However when I see an animal thriving in their environment with its limited knowlege, unable to appreciate my superior intelligence, I can see mankind with all its logic and science completely unaware that a vastly higher intelligence is at work.

My beliefs allow me to entertain the notion that I may well be out there in la la land. I no longer have fear when I think that way.

My beliefs do not conflict with what I independantly believe is the sanctity of all humanity.

My beliefs give me hope for the future and the future of my children.

My beliefs influence me to be inherently overly forgiving of others and except each person’s limitations

I’m comfortable with my beliefs.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@David Simmons

Well, I guess if you equate religion with a social club …

It would be more accurate to say he’s equating religion with a community. That’s not all the organized religion is, but it is a very big part of it.

[Triskadecamus]

A lot of the discussion so far has been just another set of decisions on authority. Authoritarianism is a very ticklish issue, here on Earth. However, the Author has the only real authority. His judgment is the only one that does not rely upon others. You and I are not empowered to make it on His behalf. This is the reason I am a liberal Christian in the view of Hierarchical theologies, whether scriptural, or historical. I accept no authority but the authority of the Lord. I am willing to share my understanding of His love, but claim no authority on the basis of my experiences.

The Pope is a nice man. I believe the Lord loves him. The Dalai Llama is a nice man too. I believe that the Lord loves him too. Hitler was not such a nice man. But I believe that the Lord loved him, as well. Loving the Pope and the Dalai Llama is fairly easy, loving Hitler, not so much. I’m sometimes a fairly nice guy, myself. I am absolutely sure, more sure than any intellectual proof could provide that He loves me.

I think He loves you. But don’t take my word for it; I’m just some idiot on the Internet. Ask Him. Make of your heart a dwelling place for the Lord. Treat every soul you meet here on this earth as if you had just met the Lord of all. Some day, you will. Joy.

Tris

[Revenant_Threshold]

Triskadecamus, you seem to be doing a lot of witnessing lately. Was your revelation a recent one?

[Triskadecamus]

@Revenant Threshold

Triskadecamus, you seem to be doing a lot of witnessing lately. Was your revelation a recent one?

Depends on your definition of recent.

Christmas morning, 1981. Seems pretty recent to me, but to some of your average Dopers that’s ancient history.

I participated in faith threads a lot, a few years ago, but they got acrimonious, and pretentious, and then I manned the barricades against the fundy invasion when that happened. That was when I kinda lost it, and Rebuked someone. It was really over the top, but the guy was doing parlor magic cold reading and calling it the word of God. Pissed me off. Really pissed me off. After that, I kind of rebuked myself, and stayed out of arguments.

Once and a while, though, I feel somone needs to offer love and compassion in His name. So, then I do.

Tris

[Revenant_Threshold]

Ah, fair enough. Just wondered, really.

[David_Simmons]

@Thudlow Boink

It would be more accurate to say he’s equating religion with a community. That’s not all the organized religion is, but it is a very big part of it.

Does this community consist only of those withing a partcular church?