Liberal Christian

So all or nothing, huh?

And you're in the nothing camp?

I'm not sure you can be a real Christian and support any Republican. And I'm quite sure you cannot be a real Christian if you support many of the Republican party platforms.

As I said, I don't agree with everything Obama does and says, but he is certainly more in line with Christianity than any of the alternatives on the right, so far.

I'm from Ireland so I can't comment too much on your politics, but I'm quite aware of his policies on abortion, gay marriage and rights, his negative statements regarding Christian, his failure to keep various pre-election promises and his general liberal non-Christian views. If I lived there I would be voting for Ron Paul next election.

"Liberal Christian" is an oxymoron.

Not to make this an Obama thread, but he did promise a different way of doing business. I'm not sure what that different way is since it's all the same people doing all of the same things and ending up with the same results.

I voted for the guy, but if you're not disappointed, you aren't paying attention.

First of all, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your thoughtful words, and that you are not condescending or judgmental.

As for the Leviticus verses you quoted above, I can answer your question by saying there is exactly the same room for interpretation as there are in these verses:

"Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. 'You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
Lev 11:4-8

"Now when you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to the LORD, you shall offer it so that you may be accepted. It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and the next day; but what remains until the third day shall be burned with fire. So if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an offense; it will not be accepted."
Lev 19:5-7

"These are the statutes and the judgments which you shall carefully observe in the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess as long as you live on the earth. You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place."
Deut 12:1-3

I'm sure you're familiar with the first one. Homosexuality is as sinful as eating bacon.

In the second, according to Scripture, if you leave an offering in an offering plate, and it is not used within 3 days, you need to be put to death.

And as for the last, allowing your enemies whom you have defeated to have any building standing in their lands ... guess everything we're doing in Iraq, trying to rebuild there, is abomination.

This was exactly my point. Christians are all to happy to point to Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, while they enjoy their bacon cheeseburger. That is pick-and-choose.

Can you provide the quote in which he promised "a different way of doing business" and provide some of the context? I would have to ask, different from what? And what kind of business, specifically?

On "different," I would ask, did he mean different from his predecessor in the white house, or different from anything that had been done before? I admit, if I say, "I've got a different thing for you," that implies, "different from anything else you've ever seen." And I agree that DC does not seem to be running any differently from how it ever did before. However, depending on the context of the quote, he may have meant just different from Bush, which it absolutely is. Now, that is not to say it's better than, just different. (I personally believe it's better, but I accept not everyone agrees with me.)

As for "business," did he mean his own business of leading the country, or was he referring to companies in the US, and how they run things, or was he referring to something else entirely? See, without the context of this alleged promise, it's impossible to know what he meant, let alone try to measure how far he has come in meeting the promise. So I would have to put this back on you and say what did he mean, and prove that, according to its context, he has not completed this goal of his. I still see no evidence.

In “liberal Christian” teaching, which is not Christian at all, man’s reason is stressed and is treated as the final authority. Liberal theologians seek to reconcile Christianity with secular science and “modern thinking.” In doing so, they treat science as all-knowing and the Bible as fable-laden and false. Genesis’ early chapters are reduced to poetry or fantasy, having a message, but not to be taken literally (in spite of Jesus’ having spoken of those early chapters in literal terms). Mankind is not seen as totally depraved, and thus liberal theologians have an optimistic view of the future of mankind. The social gospel is also emphasized, while denying the inability of fallen man to fulfill it. Whether a person is saved from their sin and its penalty in hell is no longer the issue; the main thing is how man treats his fellow man. “Love” of our fellow man becomes the defining issue. As a result of this “reasoning” by liberal theologians, the following doctrines are taught by liberal quasi-Christian theologians:

1) The Bible is not “God-breathed” and has errors. Because of this belief, man (the liberal theologians) must determine which teachings are correct and which are not. To believe that the Bible is “inspired” (in that word’s original meaning) by God is only held by simpletons. This directly contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

2) The virgin birth of Christ is a mythological false teaching. This directly contradicts Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 2.

3) Jesus did not rise again from the grave in bodily form. This contradicts the Resurrection accounts in all four gospels and the entire New Testament.

4) Jesus was a good moral teacher, but His followers and their followers have taken liberties with the history of His life as recorded in Scripture (there were no “supernatural” miracles), with the gospels having been written many years later and merely ascribed to the early disciples in order to give greater weight to their teachings. This contradicts the 2 Timothy passage and the doctrine of the supernatural preservation of the Scriptures by God.

5) Hell is not real. Man is not lost in sin and is not doomed to some future judgment without a relationship with Christ through faith. Man can help himself; no sacrificial death by Christ is necessary since a loving God would not send people to such a place as hell and since man is not born in sin. This contradicts Jesus Himself, who declared Himself to be the Way to God, through His atoning death (John 14:6).

6) Most of the human authors of the Bible are not as traditionally believed. For instance, they believe that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. The Book of Daniel had two authors because there is no way that the detailed “prophecies” of the later chapters could have been known ahead of time; they must have been written after the fact. The same thinking was carried over to the New Testament books as well. These ideas contradict not only the Scriptures, but historical documents verifying the existence of all the people the liberals deny.

7) The most important thing for man to do is to “love” his neighbor. What is the loving thing to do in any situation is not what the Bible says is good but what the liberal theologians decide is good. This denies the doctrine of total depravity, which states that man is capable to doing nothing good and loving (Jeremiah 17:9) until He has been redeemed by Christ and given a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17).

What is liberal Christian theology? <--- click

Not happy with the old testament huh?

Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Marriage is for a man and a woman sanctified by God and sex is only for marriage anything else is sexual immorality.

Who are you, Bill Clinton? My goodness.

From my observation, Liberal politics in Christianity almost always goes hand in hand with liberal theology.

This, I believe, is a perfect example of the issue I have with liberal Christianity. Where is the room for interpretation in, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."? (Leviticus 18:22) Or, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."? (Leviticus 20:13)

Just using this example, I (personally) believe that too much "gray area" has crept into Christianity where it has interacted with Liberalism. God is not a "gray area" kind of God. In His view, something is wrong, or it is not. While he is loving and compassionate, and stands ready to forgive any sin, He remains altogether holy. He will not change His mind about sin just because "times have changed". When a person is saved, the assumption is that they are infused with a desire to please God; to become more Christlike in all aspects of their life. I cannot accept the fact that continuing to practice homosexual relations fits with this understanding.

This is not a personal attack on anyone who calls him or herself a Christian. I just wonder if they have really examined their commitment to all the principles set forth in Scripture.

God bless you all.

Ah, so you take the word of someone who has admitted he is NOT a liberal Christian, and decided that he knows better than someone who IS a liberal Christian on what a liberal Christian is.

And you don't see the stupidity in that?

I have already said that MOST of the things that article you quoted (which didn't copy through) are NOT accepted by liberal Christians.

In modern popular parlance, FAIL!

So I'm left with two choices: either you did not read what I wrote, or you read it and chose to ignore it. Either way, again, it is a reflection on YOU and YOUR lack, not on me.

The order of creation

We note first that mainstream science challenges not only the timescale of the Genesis creation account but also its order.

Genesis 1
Day 1- Water, earthly elements, then light
Day 2- Firmament, then oceans, atmosphere
Day 3- Dry land, then land vegetation, fruit trees, grass
Day 4- Sun, moon, stars
Day 5- Marine life, then birds
Day 6- Land animals, then humans

Mainstream science
14 billion years ago-light, light elements, then stars,galaxies, then heavy elements,water
4.58 bya- Sun
4.54 bya- earth
550 million years ago- first fish
440 mya- first primitive plants
360 mya- first land animals-reptiles
245 mya- first mammals
210 mya- first birds
140 mya- first flowering plants
70 mya - first grasses, fruit trees
2 mya- first tool-making humanoids

bylogos: The Cost of an Old Earth: Is it Worth it? <--- click

I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion on these matters with intelligent people. And in all fairness, there are some here who have offered good comments, even though we disagree, who have been, how can I say, "Christian" in their discussion.

But I fear there are too many here who are blinded by their own lack of faith or something. It is disappointing.

No, I am TheGrungeDiva, not Bill Clinton.

You made a claim, and then failed to support it. If you wish to withdraw that claim, you may.

Your failure to support the claim is not a reflection in any way on me. So I'm not sure how your failure makes me "Bill Clinton."

Because clearly all those things rest directly on obama...lets forget the people in the senate and the house of representatives that would normally half to vote on these issues...its not their fault they arent passing...