Is there such thing as a liberal Christian?

[Deborah13]

Who brought up the rcc? Other than large numbers , what does it matter how they vote ?
And during the holocaust,
some of the high ranking Jews participated in killing as many as hitler did, and almost as many (as it was reported by martyrs) the rcc did in africa the last 30 to 60 years .....
I don't think the 'lower'(?) Jews agree with the wickednesses of the higher(?) Jews though - haven't seen much about them.

The OP is about being Liberal.....
I brought up the RCC in regards to voting liberal but they don't agree with any of those things.
GEE read post #8, that's what the response was to.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Good questions.
In china, where believers are persecuted daily and put to death when caught, the ecclesia is growing faster than anywhere else in the world (UNofficially). (and they submit to the government regulations and penalties for their Faithfulness to Yeshua, even to death for the Gospel's sake, without resistance. they may flee if able to, but the only weapon they use is PRAYER to ALMIGHTY YHWH in YESHUA's NAME)
They in china and in africa and in russia are praying for believers and people in the untied states.

This seems to dance around my actual question. My question is about the initial freedom Christians have in the US, not about the freedoms, not in the US.

 

[Kathi]

This seems to dance around my actual question. My question is about the initial freedom Christians have in the US, not about the freedoms, not in the US.

I am confused 'the initial freedom Christians have in the US"."Not in the US"

 

[evenifigoalone]

There are different definitions of liberal. Political is just the most well known use. There's also theologically liberal, but that one is a lot harder to define.


Politically speaking I'm a libertarian. And the very basic definition of that is socially liberal while fiscally conservative.

 

[KevinK]

Would the RCC now be considered a liberal church since Pope JPII declared that there is no physical place of Hell?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Okay, Wikipedia isn't the best source, but here's their article on liberal Christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity This is the use of liberal in it's theological definition, not the political one.

According to the article, liberal Christianity isn't based on any church dogma or creed statements, trying to understand scripture by applying the same modern hermeneutics used to understand other ancient writings.
From the descriptions given, it does seem there really isn't an easy or helpful way to define liberal theology. That is why I say it's hard to define. Clearly I have little idea what sets it apart from what would be considered conservative theology.

 

[evenifigoalone]

What does scripture say about secular governments? Does a government that allows Christians to freely exercise there religion, but also supports those those that choose not to hold onto Biblical/Christian view points effect a Christian? Is a Christian not free to allow such a government exist, or do they have to stop and hinder those that wish to not follow Christian doctrine?

I see no such commands in scripture essentially commanding a believer to establish a theocracy.

 

[TOG]

What does scripture say about secular governments? Does a government that allows Christians to freely exercise there religion, but also supports those those that choose not to hold onto Biblical/Christian view points effect a Christian? Is a Christian not free to allow such a government exist, or do they have to stop and hinder those that wish to not follow Christian doctrine?

Like questdriven said, there's no command to establish a religious government, but whether a person is Christian or not, it is easier to live in a place where the laws line up with a person's personal beliefs. For example, I eat only kosher food, so when I'm invited over for dinner to a friend's or relative's house, I have to make sure they know what I do and do not eat. It would be much easier if pork and other non-kosher meat were not allowed to be sold for human consumption. Then I wouldn't have to worry about it, as I would know that the food I would get would be kosher.

Also, it's only natural that people want to outlaw the things that they believe are wrong. Most of the things we currently ban are banned because people believe them to be wrong. If a person believes that, say, abortion is wrong, then it's only natural for him to want to outlaw what he sees as murder. In other words, we don't have to establish a Christian government, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to influence our government to try to make it more in line with our beliefs.

The TOG​

 

[Milk-Drops]

I am confused 'the initial freedom Christians have in the US"."Not in the US"

Sorry, I was really tired when I wrote that. Xp I was talking about the freedoms the US allots to Christians and everyone else within the constitution. Not to Christians who are not in the US. I should have made it clear. I was just annoyed that Jeff was trying to derail into talking about Chinese, Russian, etc Christians instead of addressing the situation in the US.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I see no such commands in scripture essentially commanding a believer to establish a theocracy.

Agreed, My own personal understanding and experience of Christinaity is that its a devotion to Jesus to follow his commands in respect for the sacrifice Jesus made to humanity by being beaten and crucified for the sins of man kind. It is due to this that Christians are now able to enter heaven when they die to be with their savior for all eternity. Those who are direct enemies of Christians will be sent to Hell or annihilation. Christians will be tested in this life until the Rapture with various types of Sin to see if their faith is true and unshakable.

The point I was making earlier though with my question is that there are plenty of political groups that seem to think that if they don't ban or control the actions of Non Christians, that they are just as guilty of the sin as they are. Such as topics such as Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, Sex in general, etc. I was asking if you agreed in the concept that you are just as guilty if you aren't actively trying to stop non Christians from also sinning.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Like questdriven said, there's no command to establish a religious government, but whether a person is Christian or not, it is easier to live in a place where the laws line up with a person's personal beliefs. For example, I eat only kosher food, so when I'm invited over for dinner to a friend's or relative's house, I have to make sure they know what I do and do not eat. It would be much easier if pork and other non-kosher meat were not allowed to be sold for human consumption. Then I wouldn't have to worry about it, as I would know that the food I would get would be kosher.

Also, it's only natural that people want to outlaw the things that they believe are wrong. Most of the things we currently ban are banned because people believe them to be wrong. If a person believes that, say, abortion is wrong, then it's only natural for him to want to outlaw what he sees as murder. In other words, we don't have to establish a Christian government, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to influence our government to try to make it more in line with our beliefs.

The TOG​

I understand where you are coming from TOG, the point I was making though is that the US constitution protects the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of rights sets up guidelines that laws can't infringe upon. So, it may be natural for Christians to want to ban certain behaviors, but does it infringe upon the rights of others? Many debates boil down to whether the action wanting to be banned is infringing on the rights of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Many of the concrete laws we have are banning of Murder, Rape, Purgery, Slavery, and Theft. The reason is because all of these actions and derivatives of these actions actually break down society. These actions infringe on other people's rights. The position I hold is that its dangerous to ban activity that doesn't have outright bad implications on society because it only caters to one group who already usually have self governing rules against such activities in the first place. I see wanting to make laws that infringe on other people's basic rights, without a really good reason to, as just using the government as a tool of control.

That is why I don't agree with most Christian political activist groups such as Focus on the Family, The Creation Institute, and the American family Values organization. They tend to only want freedoms for Christians, and tend to want to bulldoze everyone else. That is my personal stance, and not a stance I have against all Christians. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Obadiah]

I understand where you are coming from TOG, the point I was making though is that the US constitution protects the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of rights sets up guidelines that laws can't infringe upon. So, it may be natural for Christians to want to ban certain behaviors, but does it infringe upon the rights of others? Many debates boil down to whether the action wanting to be banned is infringing on the rights of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Many of the concrete laws we have are banning of Murder, Rape, Purgery, Slavery, and Theft. The reason is because all of these actions and derivatives of these actions actually break down society. These actions infringe on other people's rights. The position I hold is that its dangerous to ban activity that doesn't have outright bad implications on society because it only caters to one group who already usually have self governing rules against such activities in the first place. I see wanting to make laws that infringe on other people's basic rights, without a really good reason to, as just using the government as a tool of control.

That is why I don't agree with most Christian political activist groups such as Focus on the Family, The Creation Institute, and the American family Values organization. They tend to only want freedoms for Christians, and tend to want to bulldoze everyone else. That is my personal stance, and not a stance I have against all Christians. Just my 2 cents.

I've always felt pretty much the same way. When I read scripture, I see nothing saying we are supposed to fight with government to change it to a Christian theocracy and force everyone else to outwardly profess Christian morals and ideals. In the overall context of scripture, to me it seems God comes across as wanting people to choose to follow Him because they want to and choose to on their own, not because they are forced to by some threat of legal punishment if they don't. I don't believe God will honor those who outwardly follow His ideals only out of fear of punishment if they don't.

Now if we are talking about a private group, such as a church or whatever, sure, they should have the right to ban or not admit people who are opposed to their Christian views. But I don't believe government should have this right.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I've always felt pretty much the same way. When I read scripture, I see nothing saying we are supposed to fight with government to change it to a Christian theocracy and force everyone else to outwardly profess Christian morals and ideals. In the overall context of scripture, to me it seems God comes across as wanting people to choose to follow Him because they want to and choose to on their own, not because they are forced to by some threat of legal punishment if they don't. I don't believe God will honor those who outwardly follow His ideals only out of fear of punishment if they don't.

Now if we are talking about a private group, such as a church or whatever, sure, they should have the right to ban or not admit people who are opposed to their Christian views. But I don't believe government should have this right.

We are both on the same page.

 

[Milk-Drops]

There are different definitions of liberal. Political is just the most well known use. There's also theologically liberal, but that one is a lot harder to define.


Politically speaking I'm a libertarian. And the very basic definition of that is socially liberal while fiscally conservative.

High five.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

Think of what the liberals support.

Liberals in the US, or everywhere ?

What does scripture say about secular governments? Does a government that allows Christians to freely exercise there religion, but also supports those those that choose not to hold onto Biblical/Christian view points effect a Christian? Is a Christian not free to allow such a government exist, or do they have to stop and hinder those that wish to not follow Christian doctrine?

I answered this post - nothing about US there . Also, the point still stands, believers in other countries see the hypocrisy and emptiness of 'church' in the US and are praying for the US earnestly, with or without hope.
The believers in china don't have the same problems we have in the US. There they know who is true and who is not (they literally get imprisoned for their faith if caught speaking about it, and many have been executed). In the US it is practically impossible to walk into a believers meeting and know who is true and who is not, apart from revelation from Yhwh.

This seems to dance around my actual question. My question is about the initial freedom Christians have in the US, not about the freedoms, not in the US.

Now you bring up the US.

Sorry, I was really tired when I wrote that. Xp I was talking about the freedoms the US allots to Christians and everyone else within the constitution. Not to Christians who are not in the US. I should have made it clear. I was just annoyed that Jeff was trying to derail into talking about Chinese, Russian, etc Christians instead of addressing the situation in the US.

Without the prayers of the believers in china, russia etc , the US would be far far worse off than it is already. They (the believers in openly anti-christian countries) are a good example and a hope for those who want to be true believers in the US. good examples in the US are hard to find, while misleading examples are very common. the constitution doesn't help differentiate them. (and the US may be leading the world in accepting(getting ready to accept) the way of the antichrist, however far off or near that may be).

Obama Is Paving The Way For The Antichrist, Claims Pastor ...
Though Pastor Robert Jeffress insists that he doesn't think that President Obama is the Antichrist, he does make the assertion that Obama's policies are ...

Is that liberal ??

 

[Milk-Drops]

I answered this post

Then I think you misunderstood what I meant.

nothing about US there

Its Implied, you could have asked for clarification.

. Also, the point still stands, believers in other countries see the hypocrisy and emptiness of 'church' in the US and are praying for the US earnestly, with or without hope.

I'd rather hear it from them instead of just being asserted as fact from a third party.

The believers in china don't have the same problems we have in the US.

Yeah, they live in a dictatorship, we don't. They have it relatively worse

Without the prayers of the believers in china, russia etc , the US would be far far worse off than it is already.

I don't believe this because its subject to bias.

the constitution doesn't help differentiate them.

Its not supposed to.

Obama Is Paving The Way For The Antichrist, Claims Pastor ...

Though Pastor Robert Jeffress insists that he doesn't think that President Obama is the Antichrist, he does make the assertion that Obama's policies are ...

I can probably find a quote that says any world leader, all they way back to Rome is paving the way for the Anti Christ.

Is that liberal ??

I don't care because I believe the terms liberal and conservative mean whatever people want them to mean and have become slurs and place holders to mean anything negative or anything positive that the person using the definition wants to pigeon hole.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

..........

I can probably find a quote that says any world leader, all they way back to Rome is paving the way for the Anti Christ.
.

...............

as far as the testimony of the believers, you'll have to search them out if Yhwh permits. one small resource is the VOM voice of the martyrs and the testimonies from believers around the world. also someone posted (a link i think) to foxes book of martyrs that straight away identifies the persecution of the believers over the whole earth.......

as far the rest, oh well.

 

[Kathi]

Would the RCC now be considered a liberal church since Pope JPII declared that there is no physical place of Hell?

Where and When did the Pope declare there was no physical hell?Can you find me the website?

 

[Kathi]

I've always felt pretty much the same way. When I read scripture, I see nothing saying we are supposed to fight with government to change it to a Christian theocracy and force everyone else to outwardly profess Christian morals and ideals. In the overall context of scripture, to me it seems God comes across as wanting people to choose to follow Him because they want to and choose to on their own, not because they are forced to by some threat of legal punishment if they don't. I don't believe God will honor those who outwardly follow His ideals only out of fear of punishment if they don't.

Now if we are talking about a private group, such as a church or whatever, sure, they should have the right to ban or not admit people who are opposed to their Christian views. But I don't believe government should have this right.

I agree.God is not going to drag unbelievers into heaven kicking and screaming.He loves us so much that He is giving everyone a choice.Would a person be happy living for an eternity with Jesus if they do not love Him?So if a person makes that choice to be an unbeliever and ends up in hell it is not God's fault.He gave them a choice.But for us who have chosen Jesus and asked Him into our lives

 

[KevinK]

Where and When did the Pope declare there was no physical hell?Can you find me the website?

It's all over. In his weekly address July 28, 1999, Pope John Paul II declared, "Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy." A full transcript of the address is here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm#Hell In the church's defense, Pope Benedict came out later and seemed to refer to Hell as a place once again.

I remember as a Catholic schoolboy being told by a priest that the current view of the church was that Hell was just a state of being of sin and separation, and not a physical place. I held that view for a long time, but simply do not believe it now. Hell is both a state of separation AND an actual physical place.