liberal vs. literal Christian

[Bandit]

hey didymus

can you define your beliefs for me? are you a liberal or a literal & what does that mean to you.?
what parts of the bible do you keep & what parts of the bible do you discard?

i know from our last talks you already tossed Paul, but what but the others.

what parts are the fairy tale & what parts are real to you?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by didymus

Q, where is the Bible specific on the prerequisites of being saved? I would like to know when that was written also. What of those that didn't meet the prerequisites prior to their documentation? Were they to be held accountable for not having known prior to their death??

John is a good start. And no, those who did not know are not held accoutable for what they did not know. Their's is the law written upon their hearts. Did they follow that? Then they are judged accordingly. God does not handicap anyone, due to ignorance. I believe you would call that God's grace...

John's book is considered written within 70 years of Jesus' death, hence within a generation. There is also speculation that the Book of John was written by Lazarus (who witnessed all from his own perspective as opposed to third person accounts). Not only that, but if correct, he lived died and lived again, and knows with an innate knowledge what is to come next, concerning our transition from this life to the next part.

Am I arrogant in my way of thinking? No, I simply choose to believe...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Hats off to path of one for a great passage that bears repeating

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ... The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other." (Galatians 5:6-8, 14-15)

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think it is sad that we Christians, in many denominations and churches, spend much of our time expounding on why all the other types of Christians don't have it right and aren't "real" Christians.

When will we learn that this partisan strife appears, to those outside Christianity all together, as a direct evidence that we are NOT in Christ? For they expect to see Christ's love shining through us, and our bickering and condemning one another, the sense of superiority rather than humility many of us portray, is not in alignment with the scriptures (at least, I can't see how it could be).

Well said. And indeed, you are correct in your assessment, IMO.

Actually, I have a question, and I'm guessing that this is the correct forum in which to raise it.

Do the various Churches have differences on what is called by some "the Arian heresy"? Or Origen’s assertion that there are degrees of divinity?

Or should I start a new topic?

[I, Brian]

New topic may be good, as they are distinctly Early Church topics.

[Obvious Child]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I'm wondering ...

I think I am safe in saying that everyone here knows me as a pretty firm Catholic, and if you don't know me, then I think others here will vouch for me in that regard ... but what if I was to declare myself not a Catholic at all, but a liberal Buddhist?

The Buddha said:
"This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering."
(Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31)

I can agree to that. I can say that everything Buddha wrote was largely correct, with a few provisions, notably that he was wrong regarding the precise nature of reincarnation, and of God - but that the error is because Buddhism has misunderstood and distorted the meaning of his words to suit its own doctrinal ends. His words weren't written down for 400 years, so no amount of invention has found its way into the texts. What's left is a dead-letter populist understanding of what was an esoteric discourse.

They weren't written down but they were chanted by groups of monks, and memorised like poetic sagas in Europe.

The Buddha said:
"So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit"
(Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31)

I can agree to that, too. Not everyone is capable of 'direct knowledge' or gnosis, preferring to be told rather than think for themselves, but I have searched around, and gleaned knowledge of the 'more' than the average orthodox Buddhist, but when I tell them I understand their faith better than they do, it annoys them but, as Kurt Vonnegut is won't to say, "so it goes", I'm more of a Buddhist than they are, obviously.

The Buddha did not say 'few are able' but 'they bring no benefit'. This is the same point as made with the man pierced by an arrow and asking what wood it was made from etc: so is the monk who asks the nature of the self and the world. By pursuing 'gnosis' you do not understand their religion better than them, and are certainly not 'more of a Buddhist'. BTW, what do you mean by 'orthodox Buddhist': Theravada or Mahayana? Monk or lay?

Buddha, Dharma, Sangha? Well, I believe in what Buddha said, in broad outline, I mean, in an abstract sense, in principle he hasn't said anything different from anyone else, I mean, we all know life's a bitch, and then you die, right?

No, some don't realise and some disagree. And the Buddha went futher than the first noble truth: he saw the reason for the suffering, how it can be avoided and prescribed a cure.

[Thomas]

Hi Obvious Child -

No problems, as I am not a Buddhist of any persuasion - I made an ironical post to highlight a certain incongruity of such a position, that's all.

If I were a liberal Buddhist of course, I would suggest you are being overly literal and dogmatic, if not narrow-minded. I mean, being liberal means I can make what I like of what I like, doesn't it? Buddha was just a guy who realised it's better to chill out then get steamed up, that all. I mean, what did he do, but sit under a tree and smile? Way cool. I'll have some of that!

Thomas - still in ironic mode

[lunamoth]

To me it seems that if you are asking the question whether the events of the Bible are historically literal-factual you are barking up the wrong tree. I like the Jesus Seminar results and other Bible scholarsihp because I find it very interesting, but it does not determine my theology for me. I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ based upon faith, not upon fact.

So, I like Marcus Borg--does that make me a heretic?

lunamoth

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

To me it seems that if you are asking the question whether the events of the Bible are historically literal-factual you are barking up the wrong tree. I like the Jesus Seminar results and other Bible scholarsihp because I find it very interesting, but it does not determine my theology for me. I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ based upon faith, not upon fact.

So, I like Marcus Borg--does that make me a heretic?

lunamoth

LOL no, just open minded...

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Obvious Child

They weren't written down but they were chanted by groups of monks, and memorised like poetic sagas in Europe.

The Buddha did not say 'few are able' but 'they bring no benefit'. This is the same point as made with the man pierced by an arrow and asking what wood it was made from etc: so is the monk who asks the nature of the self and the world. By pursuing 'gnosis' you do not understand their religion better than them, and are certainly not 'more of a Buddhist'. BTW, what do you mean by 'orthodox Buddhist': Theravada or Mahayana? Monk or lay?

No, some don't realise and some disagree. And the Buddha went futher than the first noble truth: he saw the reason for the suffering, how it can be avoided and prescribed a cure.

is this a literal buddha or a liberal buddha?

is this a literal first noble truth or a liberal first noble truth?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Käthe

Actually, I have a question, and I'm guessing that this is the correct forum in which to raise it.

Do the various Churches have differences on what is called by some "the Arian heresy"? Or Origen’s assertion that there are degrees of divinity?

that depends on if it is a literal heresy of divinity or a liberal heresy.

[Thomas]

Oh Lord, Bandit ... what have we started?!

The Gospel reading for today in the Catholic calendar is the cleansing of the Temple, when Christ took the whip to the money-changers, etc.

Not very liberal there, then.

Now, of course, there are those who will say he didn't literally throw the traders and dealers out of the temple, but signifies the ascetic process of self mortification and refinement.

But I would counter the two are the same: "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" and that this order of liberalism does precisely that - its marketing the Doctrines of Tradition in such a way as to accept this, reject that. Let's face it, there was nothing 'liberal' about Christ - he was quite dogmatic and not open to negotiation nor argument ("get thee behind me, satan!")

"... many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men], And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."
John 2:223-25

This is a curious ending to the chapter ... I think these were the liberals of his day, they saw, and they believed what they wanted to believe ...

So who does Jesus commit himself to?

Thomas

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

So, I like Marcus Borg--does that make me a heretic?

lunamoth

that depends on your view of heretic & if it is liberal or literal. since i dont use that word in what others believe i cant say.

here is some of what Marcus teaches. i dont know if this is liberal or literal but i think most of it is accurate. it appears they have both 'literally & liberally' tossed about 80% of the NT scriptures.

• Their claims are based on the 18% of Jesus’ sayings they retain. Among them:
• “Jesus did not ask us to believe that his death was a blood sacrifice, that he was going to die for our sins.”
• “Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was the messiah. He certainly never suggested that he was the second person of the trinity. In fact, he rarely referred to himself at all.”
• “Jesus did not call upon people to repent, or fast, or observe the Sabbath.
• “Jesus did not ask us to believe that he would be raised from the dead.”
• “Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was born of a virgin.”
• “Jesus did not regard scripture as infallible or even inspired.”
• That the Lord’s Prayer was unsaid by our Lord.
• That Jesus never said that He would return.
• “[R]ather than being the exclusive revelation of God, [Jesus] is one of many mediators of the sacred.”
• The Seminar claims that they intended to counter the “religious establishment” and televangelists.
• But the Seminar has challenged the main line churches at their very boundaries of identity: the Creeds and the canonical Scriptures.
• Thus, to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus was not in his lifetime “of one Being with the Father;” nor, according to Borg, the “Messiah or …the Son of God in some special sense”.
• Rather, Jesus was a mere peasant sage, spirit person and movement founder.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Oh Lord, Bandit ... what have we started?!

The Gospel reading for today in the Catholic calendar is the cleansing of the Temple, when Christ took the whip to the money-changers, etc.

Not very liberal there, then.

Now, of course, there are those who will say he didn't literally throw the traders and dealers out of the temple, but signifies the ascetic process of self mortification and refinement.

But I would counter the two are the same: "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" and that this order of liberalism does precisely that - its marketing the Doctrines of Tradition in such a way as to accept this, reject that. Let's face it, there was nothing 'liberal' about Christ - he was quite dogmatic and not open to negotiation nor argument ("get thee behind me, satan!")

"... many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men], And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."
John 2:223-25

This is a curious ending to the chapter ... I think these were the liberals of his day, they saw, and they believed what they wanted to believe ...

So who does Jesus commit himself to?

Thomas

interesting Thomas, & i understand what you are saying & we are in total agreement .
it was blaspheming the Holy Ghost & the power to deliver & heal.

as i mentioned earlier, there are those who gather beliefs & there are those who set out to scatter what other people believe & to try & shake their faith.

this thread is only going to divide christians more. why it is being allowed shows me a very strange motive.

a house against itself cannot stand.

we shall see soon how well this type of thinking goes over in the other religions presented here. there is no reason for Christians to keep taking the blunt of all this.
this post is literal.

peace to you Thomas & hold on to that which was first delivered.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by Bandit

that depends on if it is a literal heresy of divinity or a liberal heresy.

This is becoming a bit tiring.

I'll move my questions to a new topic, and hope that the people who respond do so seriously.