PDA

View Full Version : "What Separates Biblical Christiananity from Liberalism?"



megimoo
04-15-2009, 11:37 PM
Liberal-Bane – The Real Truth About Christian Fundamentalism

snip

"This notion that G-d has fixed ideas on political issues is what Islamic fundamentalists believe, not us. — Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic " ..Andrew Sullivan's 'Daily Dish' .
"

http://www.nanowrimo.org/es/node/3036208

The above quote displays the thinking that lies at the heart of the continuing slander and deconstruction of Christian Fundamentalism. Sullivan ´s quote lumps anyone who believes that G-d´s ideas are fixed and unchangeable with the Islamic terrorists who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Since Christian Fundamentalists do believe that G-d´s ideas are ‘fixed´ (‘I am the Lord; I change not. –Malachi 3:6; et al), Sullivan is making the not-so-subtle inference that Christian Fundamentalists are just as violent and apt to commit such heinous deeds as Osama Bin Laden and his murderous zealots. The fact that Sullivan is a nominal Conservative reveals just how pervasive liberal Christian theology has become. In fact, it was in response to that so-called theology that Christian Fundamentalism first arose, early in the 20th century.

Until the Civil War, Protestantism had been the predominant American expression of faith. After the war, though, science, technology, and business began replacing the traditional Protestant faith with industrialism, historicism and secularism. The flood of central and eastern European immigrants at the beginning of the 20th century, mostly Catholic and Jewish, furthered the trend toward religious pluralism. Religion was gradually becoming relegated to the private, family, and leisure spheres, leaving political, scientific, and economic affairs to the secular experts. Christians, already concerned that Biblical principles were being corrupted by these developments, saw the encroachment of liberal Christian theology as the last straw in what they perceived, quite rightly, as an assault on their beliefs.

What were the objectionable points of that liberal theology? Theologian and author J.I. Packer wrote (Fundamentalism and the Word of G-d, London, Inter-Varsity Press, 1958), ‘The characteristic tenets of liberal faith in America in the early years of [the 20th] century may be summarized as follows:

G-d's character is one of pure benevolence, that is, without standards . All men are His children, and sin separates no one from His love. (In other words, we´re all bound for heaven, no matter what.) Due to the divine spark in every man, all men are good at heart , and need nothing more than encouragement to allow their natural goodness to express itself.

Jesus Christ is man's Savior only in the sense that He is man's perfect Teacher and Example. He was not divine, not born of a virgin, did not work miracles and did not rise from the dead.

Just as Christ differs from other men only comparatively, not absolutely, so Christianity differs from other religions not generically, but merely as the best and highest type of religion that has appeared so far. All religions are forms of the same religion. The Bible is not a divine record of revelation, but a human testament of religion, thus Christian doctrine is not the G-d-given word. Doctrine is simply experience recalled, and will vary from age to age and place to place, according to the variation of cultural backgrounds.´

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/toogood.htm

noonwitch
04-16-2009, 08:56 AM
As a liberal christian, I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment, especially as pertains to questions of whether or not the Bible is the literal Word of God. Most liberal christians do believe that Jesus was divine and that he was resurrected, though, especially those denominations like the UCC, UMC or PBUSA, churches which are very liberal, but still have liturgical statements that state those beliefs.


Where I'm different from a lot of other liberal christians is that I grew up in a community strongly influenced by fundamentalists and evangelicals. I participated in a few different groups, Young Life in particular. I liked my neighbors and the people who I met through those groups, even if I don't share the same theological beliefs at this point in my life. I appreciate the insight of anyone who studies the Bible seriously, even if I don't agree with everything they say.

Gingersnap
04-16-2009, 10:02 AM
Far from being some late-coming, ‘new´ splinter group with radical or terrorist foundations, Christian Fundamentalists simply adhere to the long-held foundational truths of the Christian faith. Liberal theology sought to replace those traditional beliefs with those of 19th century secular science and humanist philosophy. The irony is that because Christians refused to, in effect, renounce their faith, ‘liberals´ try to characterize Christian Fundamentalists as usurpers, some new and dangerous cult, when it is, in fact, the ‘liberals´ who are the late-comers, the ones who are assaulting traditional, long-standing beliefs.

That's a good little essay on the subject. Since I actually know what the tenets of Christian Fundamentalism are, I've never understood why it became such a pejorative term. People don't seem to understand that the Fundamentalist Movement was largely a reaction to creeping Theosophy, universalism, and the type of biblical criticism that was wholly concerned with archeology and linguistics.

Much of what those prominent scholars "discovered" about historical biblical events, source languages, and Jewish sects has since been proven wrong by modern scholarship. Since they were unconcerned with spiritual truths, their entire life's work has simply been pitched out on the academic dust heap.

The efforts of the leaders of the Fundamentalist Movement, however, live on. The growing Confessional and Creedal Movements reflect those same "fundamentals". ;)

Rebel Yell
04-16-2009, 10:38 AM
What separates Biblical Christianity from Liberalism?




The Bible acknowleges God, liberalism doesn't.

The Bible holds Jesus up as messiah, with no mention of Obama.

hazlnut
04-16-2009, 10:50 AM
That's a good little essay on the subject. Since I actually know what the tenets of Christian Fundamentalism are, I've never understood why it became such a pejorative term. People don't seem to understand that the Fundamentalist Movement was largely a reaction to creeping Theosophy, universalism, and the type of biblical criticism that was wholly concerned with archeology and linguistics.

Much of what those prominent scholars "discovered" about historical biblical events, source languages, and Jewish sects has since been proven wrong by modern scholarship. Since they were unconcerned with spiritual truths, their entire life's work has simply been pitched out on the academic dust heap.

The efforts of the leaders of the Fundamentalist Movement, however, live on. The growing Confessional and Creedal Movements reflect those same "fundamentals". ;)

Ginger:

Do you see archeology/linguistics and spiritual truths as being mutually exclusive endeavors?

I read the bible first in church, then later in life, as English-Lit major, I studied the individual books in their historical context, looking at authorship, imagery, symbolism, etc. It was during that time that I began to see the bible not as a single book but as a collection of writings including gospel, histories, poetry and prose.

I can say, for me, that insight only deepened my feelings about the profound truths revealed in scripture.

Question: Today, what is the Fundamentalist take or feeling toward the Catholic Church? -- I ask because I have encountered some pretty negative beliefs in the past. (Jack Chick's anti-Catholic tracts, pagan influence etc.)

BadCat
04-16-2009, 11:00 AM
The Bible holds Jesus up as messiah, with no mention of Obama.

Except perhaps in the 1st and 2nd Epistles of John.

FlaGator
04-16-2009, 11:01 AM
What separates Biblical Christianity from Liberalism?




The Bible acknowleges God, liberalism doesn't.

The Bible holds Jesus up as messiah, with no mention of Obama.

Actually many liberals do acknowledge god, their version of him. They acknowledge Christ Jesus too, their version of him. Just look at what is going on in the Episcopal Church. Liberal leadership has taken over and they have redefined God and Christ recreating them in their image. They toss out Scripture that doesn't agree with their philosophy (and that is what Episcopalianism is becoming, a secular philosophy based on appealing to secular interests) and pervert much of what remains to co-exist with their world view. They have created a weak and impotent god that actually appeals to no one and then wonder why people, parishes and dioceses are leaving for more fundamental Biblical pastures.

megimoo
04-16-2009, 11:22 AM
Actually many liberals do acknowledge god, their version of him. They acknowledge Christ Jesus too, their version of him. Just look at what is going on in the Episcopal Church. Liberal leadership has taken over and they have redefined God and Christ recreating them in their image. The toss out Scripture that doesn't agree with their philosophy (and that is what Episcopalianism is becoming, a secular philosophy based on appealing to secular interests) and pervert much of what remains to co-exist with their world view. They have created a weak and impotent god that actually appeals to no one and then wonder why people, parishes and dioceses are leaving for more fundamental Biblical pastures.It Proves that liberalism isn't new.It's been around for many years under many different names.It's main objective is to undercut GOD'S Holy words and replace them with mans,The demon never rests !

FlaGator
04-16-2009, 11:31 AM
It Proves that liberalism isn't new.It's been around for many years under many different names.It's main objective is to undercut GOD'S Holy words and replace them with mans,The demon never rests !

The word in theological circles for Christian liberalism is apostasy. Eventually that leads to the theological word for far left Christian liberalism, heresy.

Gingersnap
04-16-2009, 11:37 AM
Ginger:

Do you see archeology/linguistics and spiritual truths as being mutually exclusive endeavors?

No, but neither do I think these investigations have any spiritual merit. I'm almost entirely uninterested in attempts to prove or disprove various points of biblical "truth" using science or linguistics. I'm completely uninterested in imposing a 21st century view of moral ambiguity on my own religion.


Question: Today, what is the Fundamentalist take or feeling toward the Catholic Church? -- I ask because I have encountered some pretty negative beliefs in the past. (Jack Chick's anti-Catholic tracts, pagan influence etc.)

That would be impossible to answer; there is no Fundamentalist Church. Some Protestants continue to view Catholicism as a depraved version of Christianity that is almost entirely unbiblical. I'm sure those people have some fairly negative things to say about it. By and large, traditional Protestants see themselves having more in common with traditional Catholics than they do with prosperity preachers or universalists. They aren't likely to have any special regard for the Pope and they would strongly disagree with the Catholic take on Apostolic Succession but they'd be a lot more relaxed about bingo nights than they used to be.

noonwitch
04-16-2009, 12:14 PM
Ginger:

Do you see archeology/linguistics and spiritual truths as being mutually exclusive endeavors?

I read the bible first in church, then later in life, as English-Lit major, I studied the individual books in their historical context, looking at authorship, imagery, symbolism, etc. It was during that time that I began to see the bible not as a single book but as a collection of writings including gospel, histories, poetry and prose.

I can say, for me, that insight only deepened my feelings about the profound truths revealed in scripture.

Question: Today, what is the Fundamentalist take or feeling toward the Catholic Church? -- I ask because I have encountered some pretty negative beliefs in the past. (Jack Chick's anti-Catholic tracts, pagan influence etc.)


I don't know much about archeology, except what I read in National Geographic and watch on The Naked Archeologist. I know who Flavius Jospehus was, but I haven't read his writings. NG had a great article about Herod and the numerous building projects he was responsible for in his lifetime, a few issues back.

I took a religion class in college called The Christian Tradition. It was taught by a liberal, retired PBUSA minister who had his PHD. Before I took that class, I made a lot of basic assumptions about the Bible, in particular the gospels. I assumed that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in their lifetimes-most christians do. According to the type of scholars you read in a religion class in a secular state university, they were written much later, but that most of Paul's epistles were written by Paul. I wish I had saved my term paper from the class, and the textbook-it was so long ago, I unfortunately can't even remember the title or author.

Dr. Bischoff did take particular pleasure in starting arguments between catholics and baptists. There are definite theological differences, but young people in college are far more argumentative about such things than neighbors who have some religious differences. I had a coworker who is a fundamentalist who once made the mistake of implying to a devout catholic that catholics weren't real christians. That was a fun event for me to witness, and Dr. Bischoff would have loved it, although it was far more civil than he would have preferred.

I don't take personally the fundamentalist criticism of "picking and choosing" scripture, because I plainly admit to doing so. I don't consider the law of Moses, for example, to contain as many spiritual truths and principles as the Psalms. I consider The Sermon On The Mountain to be some of the best spiritual teaching I've ever read, and the only thing that when I practice the principles of forgiveness of others as expressed by Jesus in Matthew 5-7, I have peace of mind and do not feel guilty about treating others poorly. I take seriously the part about loving your enemies and praying for those who mistreat you, and I love the wording in the KJV-"He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust".


My question for fundamentalists is: Do you really consider the letters of Paul to be the "Word of God"? If so, why?

I'm not asking this sarcastically, I'm genuinely curious, because I don't think Paul thought his letters were the Word of God. He readily admits to his human condition in the epistles.

Gingersnap
04-16-2009, 12:45 PM
My question for fundamentalists is: Do you really consider the letters of Paul to be the "Word of God"? If so, why?

I'm not asking this sarcastically, I'm genuinely curious, because I don't think Paul thought his letters were the Word of God. He readily admits to his human condition in the epistles.

I'm absolutely a fundamentalist in the technical sense but my church is a liturgical church within the Continuing Anglican tradition. This means that we have way too many smells and bells to look like the Landmark Baptists. But until a genuine self-described fundamentalist shows up, I'll fill in.

The entire bible is the Word of God. It's all one dynamic revelation. While Christians aren't bound by all the 613 laws of Moses, they are edified by studying those laws. Likewise, while not every word in the NT is equivalent in importance to the words of Christ, it's all part of the same foundational narrative. The Pauline letters are an important part of history of the developing Church. Paul's more personal writing is a profound story of redemption and salvation. Since those two concepts are the actual point of Christianity, that story too is part of the revelation.

That churches vary on female instruction, covering, and other matters touched upon by Paul is interesting but not important. The message of salvation is important.

Now a Landmark Baptist can come along and correct my errors and tell me to wipe that lipstick off. :p

FlaGator
04-16-2009, 01:01 PM
My question for fundamentalists is: Do you really consider the letters of Paul to be the "Word of God"? If so, why?

I'm not asking this sarcastically, I'm genuinely curious, because I don't think Paul thought his letters were the Word of God. He readily admits to his human condition in the epistles.

It is the Word of God just like the Torah is the Word of God and all the books of the Old Testament are the Word of God. Paul whether realizing it or not wrote the words God intended him to right. I sure that Paul never considered that his letters would become part of Christian canon and doctrine but that is what makes them as special as they are. He was writing in general to explain Christianity or to deal with groups (churches) diverting from the true Gospel as Christ and the Holy Spirit gave it to him. In doing so God used him to flesh out the teachings of Christ into something practical for those who did not have Jesus in the flesh to explain things. How to recognize apostasy and heresy and how to deal with those who had turned from the true faith were other important aspects of what God wanted to get across. Some of Paul's doctrine has an element of the social conduct that was present at the time of his writing, but he had to write in such a way that those living in his time could understand things. For example, woman covering their heads in church was practical and symbolic in that it made all women equal in the eyes of the members of a church.

This is my opinion based on my studying scripture and view and opinions historic theologians.

noonwitch
04-16-2009, 01:37 PM
Thanks SR and Ginger. Most of the fundamentalists I meet (like the aforementioned coworker who accused catholics of not being christians) give me an oversimplified answer that is the equivilant of responding with "just because". Or, they think I'm trying to start something and get all defensive.

hazlnut
04-16-2009, 01:59 PM
Actually many liberals do acknowledge god, their version of him. They acknowledge Christ Jesus too, their version of him. Just look at what is going on in the Episcopal Church. Liberal leadership has taken over and they have redefined God and Christ recreating them in their image. They toss out Scripture that doesn't agree with their philosophy (and that is what Episcopalianism is becoming, a secular philosophy based on appealing to secular interests) and pervert much of what remains to co-exist with their world view. They have created a weak and impotent god that actually appeals to no one and then wonder why people, parishes and dioceses are leaving for more fundamental Biblical pastures.

Although I grew up in the Episcopal Church, I have not stepped inside one since my father's funeral in 1997. So, I can't give an opinion about whether what you're saying is true or not-- "toss out" or "pervert" scripture, I think they are overly harsh criticisms to be giving from outside the building--unless your opinion is based on sitting in on mass for few weeks in a row.

Regarding, "their version of him": I would say that any person's concept of God is a deeply personal and complicated thing. To suppose to know and fully understand another person's spiritual beliefs is somewhat arrogant. That would mean seeing into their head and their heart. To say their practices differ from your's is one thing, but to actually imply their concept of God is wrong simply because it is not in line with your's, this is something I've always had a problem with.

PoliCon
04-16-2009, 02:15 PM
Thanks SR and Ginger. Most of the fundamentalists I meet (like the aforementioned coworker who accused catholics of not being christians) give me an oversimplified answer that is the equivilant of responding with "just because". Or, they think I'm trying to start something and get all defensive.

Your average Joe has no idea what their faith believes let alone how to articulate those beliefs to others.

Gingersnap
04-16-2009, 02:39 PM
Regarding, "their version of him": I would say that any person's concept of God is a deeply personal and complicated thing. To suppose to know and fully understand another person's spiritual beliefs is somewhat arrogant. That would mean seeing into their head and their heart. To say their practices differ from your's is one thing, but to actually imply their concept of God is wrong simply because it is not in line with your's, this is something I've always had a problem with.

This cuts exactly to the heart of the matter in the OP. Traditional Christians allow that only God can know the heart of man but that man's own false pride and fallen nature make his personal conclusions suspect at best and flat out wrong at worst. One of the purposes of a faith community is to correct false conclusions and educate the membership in accepted theology and doctrine. Implying or even stating that someone's personal conclusions about matters of theology or doctrine are wrong is perfectly okay although it can rude or unwanted. Speculating about an individual's salvation status is not okay.

Traditional Christians may differ on practices and authorities as well as on canonical sources but they are actually in close agreement on most aspects of theology and major points of doctrine.

Progressive Christians do not make absolute statements about theology or doctrine. Because they hold to no hard doctrine, no personal conclusions about God or the faith can be identified as wrong. Or right. Everybody's opinion is equally valid.

hazlnut
04-16-2009, 02:54 PM
This cuts exactly to the heart of the matter in the OP. Traditional Christians allow that only God can know the heart of man but that man's own false pride and fallen nature make his personal conclusions suspect at best and flat out wrong at worst. One of the purposes of a faith community is to correct false conclusions and educate the membership in accepted theology and doctrine. Implying or even stating that someone's personal conclusions about matters of theology or doctrine are wrong is perfectly okay although it can rude or unwanted. Speculating about an individual's salvation status is not okay.



Fair enough--that makes sense. Discussing, debating matters of theology/doctrine--okay.

Re: Speculating about an individual's salvation--I've seen some of that--not a lot openly, to be fair.

I'll never forget this one woman I know returning from an organized tour to the Holy Land-Israel, Masada, Jerusalem, etc. She commented on how wonderful the trip was and how beautiful the people were--but the last thing she said was: "To bad they're not going to be saved."

linda22003
04-16-2009, 02:56 PM
I'll never forget this one woman I know returning from an organized tour to the Holy Land-Israel, Masada, Jerusalem, etc. She commented on how wonderful the trip was and how beautiful the people were--but the last thing she said was: "To bad they're not going to be saved."

:rolleyes::eek::rolleyes:

PoliCon
04-16-2009, 03:08 PM
This cuts exactly to the heart of the matter in the OP. Traditional Christians allow that only God can know the heart of man but that man's own false pride and fallen nature make his personal conclusions suspect at best and flat out wrong at worst. One of the purposes of a faith community is to correct false conclusions and educate the membership in accepted theology and doctrine. Implying or even stating that someone's personal conclusions about matters of theology or doctrine are wrong is perfectly okay although it can rude or unwanted. Speculating about an individual's salvation status is not okay.


Traditional Christians may differ on practices and authorities as well as on canonical sources but they are actually in close agreement on most aspects of theology and major points of doctrine.

Progressive Christians do not make absolute statements about theology or doctrine. Because they hold to no hard doctrine, no personal conclusions about God or the faith can be identified as wrong. Or right. Everybody's opinion is equally valid.

Ginger - when you speak of theology and doctrine - how do you define those terms?

Also - I would maintain that there is a difference between a progressive Christian and a liberal one. Sadly the current FALSE political definition of liberal has been applied to the term when used in conjunction with theology and religion. The connection is tenuous at best - and on most levels nonexistent.

megimoo
04-16-2009, 03:49 PM
Ginger - when you speak of theology and doctrine - how do you define those terms?

Also - I would maintain that there is a difference between a progressive Christian and a liberal one. Sadly the current FALSE political definition of liberal has been applied to the term when used in conjunction with theology and religion. The connection is tenuous at best - and on most levels nonexistent.

All right I'll bite.What Is the Difference,in your opinion ,"difference between a progressive Christian and a liberal one ?"
And secondly just how do you define the "the current FALSE political definition of liberal ?"

PoliCon
04-16-2009, 06:23 PM
All right I'll bite.What Is the Difference,in your opinion ,"difference between a progressive Christian and a liberal one ?"
And secondly just how do you define the "the current FALSE political definition of liberal ?"
Noah Webster 1828

LIB'ERAL, a. [L. liberalis, from liber, free. See Libe.]

1. Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.

2. Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.

3. Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one's own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.

4. General; extensive; embracing literature and the sciences generally; as a liberal education. This phrase is often but not necessarily synonymous with collegiate; as a collegiate education.

5. Free; open; candid; as a liberal communication of thoughts.

6. Large; profuse; as a liberal discharge of matter by secretions or excretions.

7. Free; not literal or strict; as a liberal construction of law.

8. Not mean; not low in birth or mind.

9. Licentious; free to excess.

Liberal arts, as distinguished from mechanical arts, are such as depend more on the exertion of the mind than on the labor of the hands, and regard amusement, curiosity or intellectual improvement, rather than the necessity of subsistence, or manual skill. Such are grammar, rhetoric, painting, sculpture, architecture, music. &c.

Liberal has of before the thing bestowed, and to before the person or object on which any thing is bestowed; as, to be liberal of praise or censure; liberal to the poor.


CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) - (the definition of a political liberal at the time of the Founding Fathers) -
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism[citation needed]) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9].

with how it is defined today -


American Heritage

adj.

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.

1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

[Middle English, generous, from Old French, from Latin līberālis, from līber, free.]Notice the severe shift from a definition stressing freedom to one stressing revolution and deviation.

megimoo
04-16-2009, 07:47 PM
Noah Webster 1828



CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) - (the definition of a political liberal at the time of the Founding Fathers) -

with how it is defined today -


American Heritage
Notice the severe shift from a definition stressing freedom to one stressing revolution and deviation.
So from your own description we can conclude that liberalism has been a smoke screen to Communism.Keeping an open mind as in liberal thinking to progressive as in to a change in government .

Obama is always talking about a change but he doesn't define what's to change ?The concept of Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism comes from the Communists .

" In classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism."

" Both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism. "

FlaGator
04-16-2009, 08:20 PM
Although I grew up in the Episcopal Church, I have not stepped inside one since my father's funeral in 1997. So, I can't give an opinion about whether what you're saying is true or not-- "toss out" or "pervert" scripture, I think they are overly harsh criticisms to be giving from outside the building--unless your opinion is based on sitting in on mass for few weeks in a row.

Regarding, "their version of him": I would say that any person's concept of God is a deeply personal and complicated thing. To suppose to know and fully understand another person's spiritual beliefs is somewhat arrogant. That would mean seeing into their head and their heart. To say their practices differ from your's is one thing, but to actually imply their concept of God is wrong simply because it is not in line with your's, this is something I've always had a problem with.

I sit on the vestry of an Episcopal Church parish and I am a member of several Anglican organizations who are attempting (however futile that may seem) to redirect the church back to a more Biblically focused doctrine. I am am speaking from a position "inside the building" deep in side the building.

As for a their version of God and Jesus, there are personal relationships with the Lord and Creator, however, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have defined characters and natures that are not up for interpretation. They are who they are. God has a loving side and a wrathful side. The Episcopal Church stresses the loving side yet denies the wrathful side. They say God is about inclusion of all, which He is, but on His terms. God says that all are welcome who repent of their sins and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and believe that he died on the cross and was resurrected. To get around this the Episcopal Church redefines sin based on society's concept of right and wrong. What was a sin 2000 years ago is still a sin today regardless what the Episcopal Church says. Christ says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" yet the current leadership of the Episcopal Church refuses to acknowledge this for fear that they may upset people who feel that there are other avenues for salvation.

Nothing I have said here is "my" concept of God. It is how God and Christ defines Himself. That is the problem with people who hold broad views of God, if you(I don't mean you personally) don't like some things that God does or you don't like some of the requirements He gives us for living a life as He would have us live it so you pick and choose the characteristics you prefer and ignore or explain away those things you don't like or can't accept. This give you a satisfactory but incomplete picture of our Creator.

Gingersnap
04-16-2009, 08:20 PM
Ginger - when you speak of theology and doctrine - how do you define those terms?

Since this is a DB and not a religious court or debating society, my definitions are fairly prosaic. Theology is the study of God and how God interacts with Creation. Doctrine is the compilation of accepted beliefs, practices, and duties that characterize members of particular faith groups.

In Traditional Christianity there are doctrines and points of theology that separate Christians from non-Christians: the belief in the divinity of Christ, the sovereignty of God, and the salvific action of the sacrifice at Calvary.

Christians are amazingly willing to negotiate a lot of other points but these are usually at the heart of all Christian doctrine. If you think Christ was a fully human teacher, if you think God is limited or absent, if you think all doggy-style humans go to heaven - then you have departed from Traditional Christianity and historical Christianity.

hazlnut
04-16-2009, 10:03 PM
I sit on the vestry of an Episcopal Church parish and I am a member of several Anglican organizations who are attempting (however futile that may seem) to redirect the church back to a more Biblically focused doctrine. I am am speaking from a position "inside the building" deep in side the building.

As for a their version of God and Jesus, there are personal relationships with the Lord and Creator, however, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have defined characters and natures that are not up for interpretation. They are who they are. God has a loving side and a wrathful side. The Episcopal Church stresses the loving side yet denies the wrathful side. They say God is about inclusion of all, which He is, but on His terms. God says that all are welcome who repent of their sins and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and believe that he died on the cross and was resurrected. To get around this the Episcopal Church redefines sin based on society's concept of right and wrong. What was a sin 2000 years ago is still a sin today regardless what the Episcopal Church says. Christ says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" yet the current leadership of the Episcopal Church refuses to acknowledge this for fear that they may upset people who feel that there are other avenues for salvation.

Nothing I have said here is "my" concept of God. It is how God and Christ defines Himself. That is the problem with people who hold broad views of God, if you(I don't mean you personally) don't like some things that God does or you don't like some of the requirements He gives us for living a life as He would have us live it so you pick and choose the characteristics you prefer and ignore or explain away those things you don't like or can't accept. This give you a satisfactory but incomplete picture of our Creator.

My experience in the Epicopal church (1970's-1990's) and now in the Catholic is unlike anything you describe. Not that anything you say is wrong in any way--it's just different than experience I've had in my own personal spiritual endeavors. But I really do appreciate you relating it in such detail.

It sounds like you have a good handle on what's going on with the Episcopal Church in your community. I have never known anything like the conflicts you describe. But I have not ever been as involved as you are, so maybe I'm just not aware of it.

God as I know him is infinite and I believe no one can fully define Him in finite terms. A spiritual connection is something (for me) that goes beyond words on a page--therefore very personal. I have no experience with a wrathful or vengeful God, and therefore have no concept of that. Nor has any spiritual teacher in either church ever tried to communicate anything but a loving and forgiving Creator.

As I mentioned earlier, my education has given me a general understanding of the historical context involving the oral tradition and writing of the various books that make up the Bible. That knowledge has had a positive effect on my spiritual life--I felt I gained a greater insight into the profound truths found in the various books--and my faith or beliefs did not waiver one bit learning some of the ugliness of the time and the politics of the early church. To me it's all about man from one generation to the next trying to get closer to his Creator. Progress not perfection.

Gator, although my experience is different, I believe I continue to gain insight and understanding by listening to other peoples concepts and beliefs, and I appreciate your being so candid.

Thanks

FlaGator
04-16-2009, 10:14 PM
My experience in the Epicopal church (1970's-1990's) and now in the Catholic is unlike anything you describe. Not that anything you say is wrong in any way--it's just different than experience I've had in my own personal spiritual endeavors. But I really do appreciate you relating it in such detail.

It sounds like you have a good handle on what's going on with the Episcopal Church in your community. I have never known anything like the conflicts you describe. But I have not ever been as involved as you are, so maybe I'm just not aware of it.

God as I know him is infinite and I believe no one can fully define Him in finite terms. A spiritual connection is something (for me) that goes beyond words on a page--therefore very personal. I have no experience with a wrathful or vengeful God, and therefore have no concept of that. Nor has any spiritual teacher in either church ever tried to communicate anything but a loving and forgiving Creator.

As I mentioned earlier, my education has given me a general understanding of the historical context involving the oral tradition and writing of the various books that make up the Bible. That knowledge has had a positive effect on my spiritual life--I felt I gained a greater insight into the profound truths found in the various books--and my faith or beliefs did not waiver one bit learning some of the ugliness of the time and the politics of the early church. To me it's all about man from one generation to the next trying to get closer to his Creator. Progress not perfection.

Gator, although my experience is different, I believe I continue to gain insight and understanding by listening to other peoples concepts and beliefs, and I appreciate your being so candid.

Thanks

The Episcopal Church (TEC) at the national level has changed greatly. If you are interested there are sites devoted to the topic of Episcopal apostasy. A couple that you may find of interest are Stand Firm (www.standfirminfaith.com)and Titus One Nine (http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/). Also I'll shameless plug my blog Another Pilgrim's Journey (http://anotherpilgrim.com/blog) where I do some commentary on TEC.

PoliCon
04-17-2009, 12:16 AM
Since this is a DB and not a religious court or debating society, my definitions are fairly prosaic. Theology is the study of God and how God interacts with Creation. Doctrine is the compilation of accepted beliefs, practices, and duties that characterize members of particular faith groups.

In Traditional Christianity there are doctrines and points of theology that separate Christians from non-Christians: the belief in the divinity of Christ, the sovereignty of God, and the salvific action of the sacrifice at Calvary.

Christians are amazingly willing to negotiate a lot of other points but these are usually at the heart of all Christian doctrine. If you think Christ was a fully human teacher, if you think God is limited or absent, if you think all doggy-style humans go to heaven - then you have departed from Traditional Christianity and historical Christianity.

Okay so I can comprehend you correctly - where would the issue of say - transubstantiation fall in your understanding?

BTW - Christ was a fully human teacher. He was both fully human and fully divine. :) The dual nature of Christ is established doctrine which was settled in Chalcedon in A.D. 451.


I ask because I have a rather unique theological and doctrinal view - rather different from "main stream" Christianity in many respects.

Gingersnap
04-17-2009, 09:36 AM
Okay so I can comprehend you correctly - where would the issue of say - transubstantiation fall in your understanding?

It's a matter best left to those involved. ;)

PoliCon
04-17-2009, 01:41 PM
It's a matter best left to those involved. ;)

Transubstantiation is a doctrinal issue according to sectarian churches.

Gingersnap
04-17-2009, 03:05 PM
Transubstantiation is a doctrinal issue according to sectarian churches.

I know exactly what it is which is why I gave that answer.