What is a liberal Christian theology?

[jasonc]

What does the term Christ mean? It means the true image of God sent by God. A Christian believes Jesus is the Christ. All Truth is revealed upon the subsequent implications of believing that Christ has come. It's that simple. That is precisely why antichrist must have people believe he did not come in the flesh.

people manipulate the words of Christ.when I refer to the uu do I need to list why they are false or simply say LIBERAL DOCTRINES? THE LATER will be enough to get the idea as most liberal Christians see the bible and their faith that same way!

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

people manipulate the words of Christ.when I refer to the uu do I need to list why they are false or simply say LIBERAL DOCTRINES? THE LATER will be enough to get the idea as most liberal Christians see the bible and their faith that same way!

You said it, so give us some statistics.
You said "most" liberal christians.
Statistics please to prove that.

 

[KevinK]

What does the term Christ mean? It means the true image of God sent by God.

We did this before, but doesn't the term "Christ" mean "annointed"? Why do you keep harping this "true image" thing? Yes, Jesus was the true image of God, but that's not what the word means.

I haven't dissected every post in this thread, but my impression is you've rejected the term "liberal Christian" based on the assumption that only conservative Christianity is correct (which it might be), therefore everything else is wrong and need only be called such. This is a staunchly provincial viewpoint, and akin to saying something like, "There's two ways to think about this, this way and the wrong way". Or like declaring the Democratic Party defunct, since only Republicans are right and everyone else belongs to the "wrong" party. Maybe liberal Christianity is wrong, but just calling it as such does nothing to explain why it's wrong.

 

[childeye]

You said it, so give us some statistics.
You said "most" liberal christians.
Statistics please to prove that.

There are no statistics. It's just a spirit of division based on the blind acceptance of unwitting blaspheme.

We did this before, but doesn't the term "Christ" mean "annointed"? Why do you keep harping this "true image" thing? Yes, Jesus was the true image of God, but that's not what the word means.

Yes, Christ means anointed or Messiah. These words all carry the same implication. "The true image of God sent by God", as opposed to a false image of god invented by someone other than God. Why do I harp on it? Probably because this is how The Holy Spirit revealed him to me. I see all Truth in reasoning based upon that premise.

I haven't dissected every post in this thread, but my impression is you've rejected the term "liberal Christian" based on the assumption that only conservative Christianity is correct (which it might be), therefore everything else is wrong and need only be called such.

I don't like either liberal or conservative placed in front of Christian. Why? Because, I believe Jesus knows his sheep and he calls them by name, and his sheep know him and will not follow another. I believe the church as a body is directed by the Holy Spirit. I therefore don't accept the premise that there are liberal or conservative theologies because those terms are purely subjective. In short, they are divisive when carrying negative inferences and connotations.

This is a staunchly provincial viewpoint, and akin to saying something like, "There's two ways to think about this, this way and the wrong way". Or like declaring the Democratic Party defunct, since only Republicans are right and everyone else belongs to the "wrong" party. Maybe liberal Christianity is wrong, but just calling it as such does nothing to explain why it's wrong.

That is true.

 

[childeye]

It is a valid premise.

I understand why you think so, but in reality there is no such thing as a liberal Christianity or a conservative Christianity. Why? Because Jesus is the True image of God sent by God. God reveals Himself through Christ. Christians have this image in their hearts. Therefore there can be no conservative nor liberal Christians.

Liberal Christianity does exist just as Carnal Christianity does
exist, just as Immature Christianity does exist, just as Unwise Christianity does exist,
just as Ignorant Christianity does exist. All of which is to say that true born again
Christians can be, and sometimes are, liberal, carnal, unwise, immature, and
ignorant. Paul taught that true Christians can be both "true Christians" and also
"carnal Christians" ~~ "Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who
live by the Spirit but as people who are still carnal" 1 Cor.3:1
And common sense teaches us that there are many true born again Christians in
the developing countries who know very little about the major doctrines of Biblical
Christianity, and who also dangerously mix in some of their old past heathen
religious superstitions with their Christian practice.

In my view you are conflating terms. Of course the walk in Christ is a renewing of the mind in leaving behind carnal pursuits in favor of spiritual ones. Of course it is a walk out of ignorance into the knowledge of God. That is what Christianity is.

So Liberal Christianity does exist, just as Carnal Christianity and Immature
Christianity does exist.

If we look at the term liberal in the inference of reform or progressive change for the better, and the term conservative in the inference of holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, then since the Christian begins in ignorance and is of a carnal mind at the outset, it would make more sense to equate conservative Christianity as carnal Christianity. And therefore liberal Christianity as spiritual Christianity. But you do not do this. This leaves me with the impression of a bias attitude against the label liberal. This is why I say it is unwise to use these words. They are divisive when carrying negative inferences. As I said earlier in another post, we all have both conservative and liberal tendencies which we must recognize or become hypocrites. For which one of us did not start out carnal in some degree? That is not divisive, but inclusive.

Respectfully disagree. Old Aunt Bertha who lives in Timbuctoo is a true born
again Christian who was born into a Democratic family and all her life was
taught by her parents and friends that the Democratic Party was the "party
of the poor" and they were trying to bring about "social justice" for the
"poor and the downtrodden" and so old Aunt Bertha is totally convinced
that she is doing God's work when she votes for the Democratic Party.
In her perception [based in ignorance] she is fully practicing her Christian
faith when she votes for the Democrats. She belongs to (say) the local
Methodist Church and she believes the Federal Government is doing
a good thing for the "poor people" when they tax and redistribute
wealth. Old Aunt Bertha is a left leaning Christian or in other words
a liberal Christian. 99% of America would say Bertha is a Liberal
Christian. Words are invented by humans to communicate ideas, and
we all know that Bertha is a liberal Christian.

The Democratic Party has tens of millions of true born again Christians
within their party. I don't think any of us actually believe that all the
Democrats are going to Hell.

Precisely why one should not get behind a label concerning how one votes. Any good liar says what he thinks people need to hear to accomplish a deception. Any good liar would claim God as their guide. We have to test the spirits to see whether there is hypocrisy in their words.

That's true for all of these "hot words" or "key labels" that represent a belief system.

Words, not only like "liberal" and "conservative", but words like:
• Fundamentalist
• Christian
• Democrat
• Republican
• Libertarian
• Orthodoxy


.. And true also for words like: carnal, unwise, immature, ignorant, right, wrong,
moral, and immoral. All these words are highly "subjective in their applications"
and do not have any more "precise meanings" than the meaning we humans
give to them, and we don't agree among ourselves on the applications of any
of these key "hot words" up there.

Then let us cut to the chase and not dither with uncertain terms. For in the end, all we need define is good and evil, the direction towards God and the direction away from God. It accomplishes nothing but ambiguity to try to define where Light ends and the darkness begins. We must simply ascertain from which direction the Light is shining.

PSS
I love your big font up there

My passion about this got the best of me.

 

[jasonc]

You said it, so give us some statistics.
You said "most" liberal christians.
Statistics please to prove that.

there are some that have logically call themselves Christians and don't use nor preach anything from the bible

 

[evenifigoalone]

So, while it's a fact that there are different sects and types of Christianity exist that are based on different Biblical interpretations and concepts, we should not make any effort to differentiate between them? These things exist for clarity's sake.

That said, the term "liberal Christianity" isn't always used correctly and can be confusing when one doesn't specify what they mean. I've seen it used as a trump card in debates on another forum...ie, "well, my sources are conservative and your's are liberal. Therefore you are by default wrong" And that's sad to see from Christians, because it's a logical fallacy at best, dishonest at worst. It addresses the supposed doctrinal stance of the sources given (or even the person posting), rather than analyzing the actual argument being made.

But that's also true of the term "fundamental Christianity". Most people (especially those unfamiliar with Christianity) seem to associate it with legalism, or the craziness we see from WBC.

All existing religions have different sects and types as well, and it can at times be helpful to know which one people are referring to.

 

[jasonc]

So, while it's a fact that there are different sects and types of Christianity exist that are based on different Biblical interpretations and concepts, we should not make any effort to differentiate between them? These things exist for clarity's sake.

That said, the term "liberal Christianity" isn't always used correctly and can be confusing when one doesn't specify what they mean. I've seen it used as a trump card in debates on another forum...ie, "well, my sources are conservative and your's are liberal. Therefore you are by default wrong" And that's sad to see from Christians, because it's a logical fallacy at best, dishonest at worst. It addresses the supposed doctrinal stance of the sources given (or even the person posting), rather than analyzing the actual argument being made.

because im a preterist, I know a man whom would call me a liberal for that position. when its that fact that preterism is older then futurism!

 

[childeye]

Well, because you weren't clear as what "this" was referring to, I assumed two things:

1. That you were disagreeing with the way "liberal" was being used, since that is what you were quoting.
2. That you were disagreeing with a point not being made--that some were arguing that liberal Christian theology is actually Christian--since that was also a part of your response.


No, it is correct. You simply are not following what is being said, as I will show.


There is no hypocrisy in my response but rather your failing to try and understand what I am saying. Please try and follow.

You clearly don't understand the way in which "liberal" is being used with respect to the OP. But it is a valid use, even used by those who refer to themselves as "liberal Christians". There are many meanings to it's use and I suggest you look them up. The OP shows the beliefs of those who are considered liberal Christians, which shows you what definition is being used.

Are such "liberal Christians" actually Christian? No, of course not. But that in no way means that they are not using a valid definition of "liberal".

I did not claim that you were "muddying the waters because [you're] saying it is antichrist which makes the distinction with no equivocations." You stated: "If the orthodoxy of Christianity is all about being filled with Love and serving Love, and people have strayed from that simple faith, then it is because someone has complicated the matter and changed Christianity into something else. We should not muddy the waters with equivocations."

That is what I was addressing as muddying the waters. It seems as though correct doctrine doesn't matter to you, which is precisely why I stated in response that I find it is your position which is muddying the waters. If correct doctrine matters, then it matters when we acknowledge that there are those who call themselves liberal Christians and then show what those beliefs are. Your statement above removes the need for correct doctrine and makes it all about love, as though that is all that matters.

Free, I believe I understand your post. I will reiterate what I draw from this.

1. You feel I am muddying the waters because I speak of love as all that matters. That doctrine doesn't matter.
2. You assert that the term liberal is valid in the context of this op because it is referring to a change or reform of a preceding long held doctrinal belief.

In response, to #1. I believe that God is Love and all good doctrine serves His will. Christian doctrine therefore identifies a Love that would sacrifice one's self for the unrighteous, that would suffer torture and death in the place of those lesser than Himself. In my view, that is Christ. And belief that this is Christ, is Christianity.1 Corinthians 1:17-18. I therefore differentiate from a love that would not love it's enemies and return good for evil.

In response, to #2. I assert the term liberal is invalid in the context of this op, because first and foremost, I don't accept the premise that one can improve the Christ. Just as I would not accept the premise of an improved Holiness. I am simply agreeing with scripture that no other foundation can be laid than that laid by the Christ. Moreover these people are not liberals, in any sense of the word, since liberals are favorable to progress not regress as I have shown in post #5. The word liberal here is being misapplied to mean in one inference, to regress and destroy, and in the other, to improve upon what is already an axiom which cannot therefore be improved upon. This is therefore clearly carnal political propaganda and invalid from both perspectives.

 

[childeye]

So, while it's a fact that there are different sects and types of Christianity exist that are based on different Biblical interpretations and concepts, we should not make any effort to differentiate between them? These things exist for clarity's sake.

That said, the term "liberal Christianity" isn't always used correctly and can be confusing when one doesn't specify what they mean. I've seen it used as a trump card in debates on another forum...ie, "well, my sources are conservative and your's are liberal. Therefore you are by default wrong" And that's sad to see from Christians, because it's a logical fallacy at best, dishonest at worst. It addresses the supposed doctrinal stance of the sources given (or even the person posting), rather than analyzing the actual argument being made.

But that's also true of the term "fundamental Christianity". Most people (especially those unfamiliar with Christianity) seem to associate it with legalism, or the craziness we see from WBC.

All existing religions have different sects and types as well, and it can at times be helpful to know which one people are referring to.

I understand your point, but Satan is clever and he plays both ends against the middle so as to move a person in their convictions through subterfuge. Wouldn't it make more sense to learn how to see through his lies, rather than just take deceived peoples" word for what something stands for?

 

[childeye]

people manipulate the words of Christ.when I refer to the uu do I need to list why they are false or simply say LIBERAL DOCTRINES? THE LATER will be enough to get the idea as most liberal Christians see the bible and their faith that same way!

The beginning of the cleansing or renewing of the mind is that Christ came and showed a Love that sacrificed himself for those lesser than himself. That is the axiom of the Christ. He himself is the cornerstone and no one can build upon anything other than the foundation he laid. The church is built upon this foundation that is Eternal and cannot change. The church are those who have received the revelation of the Christ. Therefore liberal or conservative have no business being placed in front of his Name. No one owns God.

 

[jasonc]

The beginning of the cleansing or renewing of the mind is that Christ came and showed a Love that sacrificed himself for those lesser than himself. That is the axiom of the Christ. He himself is the cornerstone and no one can build upon anything other than the foundation he laid. Therefore liberal or conservative have no meaning since it cannot be improved upon.

again delineate what is a false Christian? we call ourselves Christians, which is an insult originally. the early church called themselves the way and still did before that and that is what rome via felix had the inquiry named after. most followers of the "way" are now known as cultists.

 

[childeye]

again delineate what is a false Christian? we call ourselves Christians, which is an insult originally. the early church called themselves the way and still did before that and that is what rome via felix had the inquiry named after. most followers of the "way" are now known as cultists.

A false Christian is one in name only. There are ways to tell the tares from the wheat according to their fruits. True Christians love as Christ loved. As seen on the cross. They return good for evil, pray for their enemies, care for the poor, and defend the weak. They are more willing to give than receive or take. They would rather suffer than avoid that suffering by handing it to someone else. The same reasons to believe in the Christ as the Christ are the same reasons we know what is a true Christian.

 

[jasonc]

A false Christian is one in name only. There are ways to tell the tares from the wheat according to their fruits. True Christians love as Christ loved. As seen on the cross. They return good for evil, pray for their enemies, care for the poor. They are more willing to give than receive or take. They would rather suffer than avoid that suffering by handing it to someone else. The same reasons to believe in the Christ as the Christ are the same reasons we know what is a true Christian.

equivocation! why? because you added the word false. the idea of liberal, is just that in the proper usage. same thing. liberal in the meaning felt free to modify,distort.

the uu, and Unitarian do call themselves Christians often.

 

[jasonc]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
note: #5 that is what is being discussed. orthodoxy is the same. so how can it be a thing of the ac when its not. besides free is more closely in some positions to align with the democrat party on politics, doesn't mean he isn't saved or an orthodox Christian.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

`
childeye @ 105

Miscellaneous Points:

(1) Your post 87 was:
• scary
• unhinged

Your post 93 was "not all that reassuring"

Wasn't your post 87, here in Webby World, the equivalent
of throwing a hissy fit tantrum and jumping up and down!

.. lol ..

Maybe you take disagreements too serious and get to emotional
over disagreements. Here is reality: True born again Christians
strongly disagree over a significant number of doctrines and
this strong disagreement is going to continue onward into the
foreseeable future ...
* Catholics ..Protestants
* Armenians .. Calvinists
* Premillennialists .. Postmillennialists
* And those are just the tip of the huge iceberg of inter-Christianity
disagreements [we've all read threads and we know its true]



(2) I am convinced that 99.9% of all Christendom [and America
too] is going to continue to use the word "liberal" the way it was
used in the OP, and you will not be successful in your attempts
to stop that usage. But it does not bother me that you will most
likely continue to spend your time here in Digital World, arguing
in futility, against that usage. That's my way of saying I have no
pressing desire to try to change your mind, and that's a good thing
for me, because its pretty clear by now that you are as fully
locked-down on your view as I am fully locked-down on my view,
which brings me to my third point.


(3) In order to save me all the typing that'd be involved in me re-stating
my view, I will just say that I fully agree with what Free has said in his
posts 19, 26, 85, 89, and 99 .. every word of it.


(4) So I'm now back to let us simply "agree to disagree". I can assure you
that you will not change my mind, and I have lost interest in trying to change
yours


(5) Imo, for you and I continue to discuss this issue will be to play the little
Internet game I call Ignore & Restate. This is where we basically Ignore what
the other has posted, but still quote it, and then Restate our positions.
Of course, doing that can be a catharsis, so its not a complete waste of time .. lol ..


(6) Thank you for your response to me in your post 105, I appreciate you
taking the time.

I end on a happy musical note

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

PS
I find a significant number of your points in a significant number of your
posts to be spiritually comforting and very helpful to me, appreciate them.


`

 

[childeye]

equivocation! why? because you added the word false. the idea of liberal, is just that in the proper usage. same thing. liberal in the meaning felt free to modify,distort.

the uu, and Unitarian do call themselves Christians often.

You asked what is a false Christian. I simply answered. Liberal does not mean false. Please produce the dictionary definition that says liberal means false. Let me ask you a question . Can a dishonest person see the Truth that is God?

 

[childeye]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
note: #5 that is what is being discussed. orthodoxy is the same. so how can it be a thing of the ac when its not. besides free is more closely in some positions to align with the democrat party on politics, doesn't mean he isn't saved or an orthodox Christian.

Three things. What is #5 referring to? What does ac stand for? What does this have to do with politics since it is about Christianity?

 

[jasonc]

You asked what is a false Christian. I simply answered. Liberal does not mean false. Please produce the dictionary definition that says liberal means false. Let me ask you a question . Can a dishonest person see the Truth that is God?

show where I cant? Its implied by this

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
if you say that im a false Christian and declare that the church has historically believe that jesus is the son of god and I say he isn't but im still a Christian. therefore I am a liberal in that I have by definition

5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

you have claimed by orthodoxy what is the correct position. like it or not you are an orthodox Christian.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodoxy

therefore because of your bias , you don't like the usage.

 

[Free]

You asked what is a false Christian. I simply answered. Liberal does not mean false. Please produce the dictionary definition that says liberal means false. Let me ask you a question . Can a dishonest person see the Truth that is God?

4 : not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal?show=0&t=1407284247

Liberal Christianity ends up as false Christianity because they eschew orthodoxy.