Liberal nonliteral Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rightlydivide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rightlydivide

Guest
Hello
While I have the exact opposite beliefs as you, I get your view:

You believe the events of the Bible contain some historical truths. They are not your primary concern.
Most importantly you believe they provide guidelines and truths that are applicable today as they relate to issues of love, equality, treatment of others and care for the poor.

You believe the restrictions against women and gays were culturally biased and reflected the beliefs of the people writing them and not God.

You believe in God. You are theists.

You believe that Christ was divine although at your core you might have difficulty with saying He was God as well. But you do not get too worked up about the Trinity.

You believe in helping others and that a corporate body working together to make the world a better place is important.

You also understand that a Fundamentalist may not be the best person to describe your view.
While I understand your view, I do not hold it. But I understand why you do.
Please respond and add or take away as you see fit.
The only person who I know that fits this category is Publisher. Publisher however views it through the historical lens of the Society of Friends. In general, I do not like the way people jump on Publisher so please do not do that if they were to show up.
Perhaps there are other liberal Christians on the forum I have forgotten about.
 
Years ago (when I too was a fundamentalist) I heard someone say “you can get a lot wrong and still be right”. Being able to accept people as Christians to whom you disagree with shows spiritual maturity. Nobody ever said that is easy, but it required of us.
So I ask of you RD, how much does one have to ‘get right’ in ordered to be considered ‘right’? 😉
 
JustaServant said:
Years ago (when I too was a fundamentalist) I heard someone say “you can get a lot wrong and still be right”. Being able to accept people as Christians to whom you disagree with shows spiritual maturity. Nobody ever said that is easy, but it required of us.
So I ask of you RD, how much does one have to ‘get right’ in ordered to be considered ‘right’? 😉
Click to expand...
Depends on what means by right.
In church circles, any doctrinal disagreement will cause one group to consider the other group wrong. There are no Catholic, Protestant distinctions on this as I can tell.
But I am not sure what you mean by right. If you are talking about what it takes to be a Christian that seems to fundamentally be a dfferent topic for not this thread.
This thread has a different focus although naturally it could break off into one of a hundred others about authority, scripture, gates of hell etc
 
I’m late to the party here. Is this a split from another thread? It sounds like we have picked up someplace in mid-discussion.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Hello
While I have the exact opposite beliefs as you, I get your view:

You believe the events of the Bible contain some historical truths. They are not your primary concern.
Most importantly you believe they provide guidelines and truths that are applicable today as they relate to issues of love, equality, treatment of others and care for the poor.

You believe the restrictions against women and gays were culturally biased and reflected the beliefs of the people writing them and not God.

You believe in God. You are theists.

You believe that Christ was divine although at your core you might have difficulty with saying He was God as well. But you do not get too worked up about the Trinity.

You believe in helping others and that a corporate body working together to make the world a better place is important.

You also understand that a Fundamentalist may not be the best person to describe your view.
While I understand your view, I do not hold it. But I understand why you do.
Please respond and add or take away as you see fit.
The only person who I know that fits this category is Publisher. Publisher however views it through the historical lens of the Society of Friends. In general, I do not like the way people jump on Publisher so please do not do that if they were to show up.
Perhaps there are other liberal Christians on the forum I have forgotten about.
Click to expand...
Even then, you yourself as a fundamentalist must have some kind of “non literal” view in there. You obviously have some kind of strange dismissal of Matthew 16 where Peter is declared the rock the church is built on, John chapter 6, etc.
 
SnakeMauler said:
Even then, you yourself as a fundamentalist must have some kind of “non literal” view in there. You obviously have some kind of strange dismissal of Matthew 16 where Peter is declared the rock the church is built on, John chapter 6, etc.
Click to expand...
Bad examples. For many hundreds of years the Matt 16 verse was not interpreted as a personal appointment of Peter or the Roman popes as kings of the world, or as king of the Christian church, or anything close to that. It can easily be read not in that way.

The John 6 example is stronger. The Catholic and Orthodox readings are unquestionably sufficient support for the eucharist, but by itself that chapter is not conclusive proof. And therein is the rub. A non-Catholic or non-Orthodox fundamentalist has an out by starting in other passages and coming to this one late in his doctrinal development.

Interesting thread. I’m fascinated.
 
All in all, as a liberal Christian, I just don’t believe the same things about the Bible as conservative Christians. I think it is obvious that it contains not only historical errors but theological and moral contradiction. So, in a sense, I’m winging it. Without an infallible leader or an inerrant text, what’s guy supposed to do?
 
Rightlydivide said:
Hello
While I have the exact opposite beliefs as you, I get your view:

You believe the events of the Bible contain some historical truths. They are not your primary concern.
Most importantly you believe they provide guidelines and truths that are applicable today as they relate to issues of love, equality, treatment of others and care for the poor.

You believe the restrictions against women and gays were culturally biased and reflected the beliefs of the people writing them and not God.

You believe in God. You are theists.

You believe that Christ was divine although at your core you might have difficulty with saying He was God as well. But you do not get too worked up about the Trinity.

You believe in helping others and that a corporate body working together to make the world a better place is important.

You also understand that a Fundamentalist may not be the best person to describe your view.
While I understand your view, I do not hold it. But I understand why you do.
Please respond and add or take away as you see fit.
The only person who I know that fits this category is Publisher. Publisher however views it through the historical lens of the Society of Friends. In general, I do not like the way people jump on Publisher so please do not do that if they were to show up.
Perhaps there are other liberal Christians on the forum I have forgotten about.
Click to expand...
As a “liberal Christian”, I find that it is very important to see the writings of scripture in their historical and cultural context…a context in a world very different than when the scriptures were written…morally, psychologically, ethically and socially much of the scriptures are “dismissed” by conservative believers as well…other “reasons” than “liberal views” is used when certain books and passages are dismissed.

We no longer have a “mabical world view”…a view that the ancients accepted…their cosmology was quite simplistic…“God was “above”…the earth was below…hell was “under”.” The heavens above the earth was a blue canopy…the stars shone through this canopy and God dwelled just on the other side…Jesus ascended into the air back into this heaven which was 'above" the earth. The earth rested upon the waters…the earth was flat…hence the “four corners” of a flat plane…so a “world wide flood” was quite possible. Illness was caused by “sin” or “demonic possession” or “demonic causeality”.

When Jesus returns from the heaven to which he ascended to…“every eye will behold him coming in the clouds”…something not possible on a spherical earth…but possible upon a “flat earth”.

We know that Joshua did not command the sun to “stand still” as the sun does not move across the sky…but the earth rotates around the sun…“sunrise”…“sunset”…the sun does not “set”…the earth moves…not the sun.

I find great insight in reading the scriptures…but they are not infallible…inerrant nor “preserved from error”…the scriptures is a very human book…detailing in very prosaic language how humanity…well…humanity in a very small part of the world viewed and believed about God.

“Adam and Eve” were not literal persons…“Cain and Abel” weren’t either. Abraham may have been a compilation of characters which gave birth to “pseudo-montheism”…the Hebrew people were “henotheists” not “monothesists” until the Return from Exile.

For those who believe in a “literal Bible”…I say wonderful…unless those beliefs inspire one to love their neighbor, walk gently upon the earth and seek to make our world a better place in which to live and “establish” the “Rule of God” on the earth…aren’t worth much…IMO.

In the movie “Angel Heart”, Louis Cypher (Lucifer) said to “Harry Angel”…“Have you ever noticed there is just enough religion in the world to make men hate one another…but not enough to make them love one another?” Pretty much sums up for me the nominal “Christian” way of believing.
 
scottm said:
Bad examples. For many hundreds of years the Matt 16 verse was not interpreted as a personal appointment of Peter or the Roman popes as kings of the world, or as king of the Christian church, or anything close to that. It can easily be read not in that way.

The John 6 example is stronger. The Catholic and Orthodox readings are unquestionably sufficient support for the eucharist, but by itself that chapter is not conclusive proof. And therein is the rub. A non-Catholic or non-Orthodox fundamentalist has an out by starting in other passages and coming to this one late in his doctrinal development.

Interesting thread. I’m fascinated.
Click to expand...
So, what did that mean to Christians for those first “hundreds of years”?
 
40.png
SnakeMauler:
So, what did that mean to Christians for those first “hundreds of years”?
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7022490&postcount=15

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7015916&postcount=23

Future tense —> maps to chapter 18 where all of the disciples were given authority and power. ALL OF THEM. Say again: chapter 16 is written in the future tense. It was fulfilled in chapter 18.

The “rock” is Peter’s testimony. That interpretation existed in the beginning. It has always been around. It is consistent with chapter 18 and all the church-planting in the Book of Acts and all the church planting in the first 1000 years before Rome got a swelled head.

And to anticipate another question: the Orthodox Church has always taught that the Patriarch of Rome has “primacy.” Always. It’s even in the ecumenical council decisions that bind the Orthodox Church. So, back in the days when those council decisions were made, what did “primacy” mean? That plays into how Matt 16 was read, no?
 
CARV said:
All in all, as a liberal Christian, I just don’t believe the same things about the Bible as conservative Christians. I think it is obvious that it contains not only historical errors but theological and moral contradiction. So, in a sense, I’m winging it. Without an infallible leader or an inerrant text, what’s guy supposed to do?
Click to expand...
No disrespect meant - but if it has such tremendous errors, why do we use it at all? Just asking rhetorically.
 
Publisher said:
…We no longer have a “mabical world view”…a view that the ancients accepted…their cosmology was quite simplistic…“God was “above”…the earth was below…hell was “under”.” The heavens above the earth was a blue canopy…the stars shone through this canopy and God dwelled just on the other side…
Click to expand...
A couple points here: The ancient’s view of the world is accurate in that it described the motions of heavenly bodies correctly from an earthly point of view. Calling the ancients’ understanding “magical”, when they did such a great job of observation, is nitpicking, particularly since all motion depends on frame of reference. No one is confused to read that “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” That is an accurate description of what happens everyday, and we still talk like this today. I also don’t think Bible literalists are stumped over this kind of thing.

Some “non-literalists” (I put my self in this category), might also do well to reflect on how long some really wrong scientific ideas can persist. I have a 1940’s vacuum tube electronics textbook that even at that late date has a chapter on “waves in ether”, for example.

I think we should recognize that ancients writers were we just as intelligent as we, although we might have some information they didn’t have. I also think we have to be very careful in how we approach ancient writings, since their objectives in writing can be very different from our expectations, and I feel that when something doesn’t make since, from our modern perspective, we need to back up and think about what else might be going on with the text that isn’t immediately clear.

P.S. My challenge to moderns who feel superior to anicents is to take a piece of charcoal and paper and draw an antelope or bison from memory as good as the ones in the Lascaux caves.
 
Limiting oneself to one means of understanding Scripture is a sure way to miss the beauty and depth of the Bible. Some passages are best understood literally, the camel and the eye of a needle, for instance. Rabbinical practice at the time of the writing of the New Testament allowed for showing a story to be parabolic by using some aspect of it that was not true to life. In the Parable of the Vineyard, the owner goes out to hire workers when he had a manager. This is a tip-off that the story is a parable. Revelation is certainly largely symbolic. There are passages that come across as allegorical. It would be impossible to apply much of Biblical teaching without using analogy. Over time, as our situation in life changes, familiar passages will take on new meanings. I think of the advice to various family members in Paul’s epistles. As a child, you hear them to see what a child is supposed to do, and when you have children, the parts about the responsibility of a parent stand out.
 
Eutychus123 said:
I’m late to the party here. Is this a split from another thread? It sounds like we have picked up someplace in mid-discussion.
Click to expand...
Well…new material is hard to come by…
No, it was me attempting to try a different approach than the last thread that was similiar.
Despite my efforts, I may have to quit trying to develop and nurse productive threads and stick to my day job…
Thanks for responding Eutychus
 
The_Sentry said:
No disrespect meant - but if it has such tremendous errors, why do we use it at all? Just asking rhetorically.
Click to expand...
Just because it contains errors doesn’t mean its useless. It contains a lot of invaluble lessons about morality such as the Golden Rule. It also is the only record of the life of Jesus that we have even if that record has errors. What else are Christians supposed to use?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top