Liberal Christianity= Blasphemy?

[Matterhorn]

I would like to open this up by saying that I am a conservative Christian. I believe that what the bible says should be interpreted directly, for example, in Genesis, one day meant one day. So the world, in my view, is only 6000 years old. (I did the math and found it somewhere near 5900 but you get my point).

What is liberal Christianity, you may ask. It is when Christians believe that 1 day in Genesis was upwards of several billion years. How Noah's ark was just a story, etc. They think that they can merge modern scientific "evidence" to biblical teachings. They try and explain biblical stories with logical facts. A good example is the battle of Jericho. The bible says the Isrealites marched around the city for three days (I think) and then the walls of the city "came tumbling down". Like they just fell down. A liberal Christian would say it was a military operation to dig under the walls to collapse them, or they had a spy inside that dropped the gate. "The walls came tumbling down" was just a metaphor, in their point of view. Also when Moses crossed the red sea, he didn't part it with his hands, but he knew when the tide was low, went across it when it was low, and then the tide rose again when the Pharaoh showed up. I do not believe in this and I want to know from some liberal Christians, or conservative Christians who understand liberal Christians, or just atheists who understand my religion well enough to make an unbiased argument.
So my question is: Is liberal Christianity blasphemy? I think it is, but I am willing to change my view on this. I won't believe in it personally but I will stop thinking that liberal Christians will go to hell. (I know you shouldn't think anyone will go to hell, it is not a human's decision to make, but that's how my mind works.)

I would appreciate it if you would comment on this and give me your opinions.

[A Fistful Of Dollars]

Good luck trying to get a seriously reply thinking the worlds only 6000 years old

[Invictus XII]

Good luck trying to get a seriously reply thinking the worlds only 6000 years old

Why?

I don't take people seriously who believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old, how can you prove that? Scientist only calculated that by counting backwards by using todays physics. When how do you know todays physics applied 13 billion years ago. But that is another story. Sure you may have artifacts that 'date' back further than 6000 years, but how can you be sure your carbon dating methods work, there have been many many studies showing how unreliable these methods are.

Again, thats another topic, for another thread. But believing the earth is only 6000 years old is just as valid as the 13.7 billion year old universe theory.

[Manco]

Again, thats another topic, for another thread. But believing the earth is only 6000 years old is just as valid as the 13.7 billion year old universe theory.

no, it isn't.
One relies on the entirety of the science of physics, the other relies on some monk adding up ridiculously high ages in his spare time.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Why?

I don't take people seriously who believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old, how can you prove that? Scientist only calculated that by counting backwards by using todays physics. When how do you know todays physics applied 13 billion years ago. But that is another story. Sure you may have artifacts that 'date' back further than 6000 years, but how can you be sure your carbon dating methods work, there have been many many studies showing how unreliable these methods are.

Again, thats another topic, for another thread. But believing the earth is only 6000 years old is just as valid as the 13.7 billion year old universe theory.

If you don't think either of them can be 'proven', why not simply believe the more plausible one?

i.e. the one calculated by science, and not the one, as Manco put it, by some monk.

[Torment]

I don't take people seriously who believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old, how can you prove that? Scientist only calculated that by counting backwards by using todays physics. When how do you know todays physics applied 13 billion years ago. But that is another story. Sure you may have artifacts that 'date' back further than 6000 years, but how can you be sure your carbon dating methods work, there have been many many studies showing how unreliable these methods are.

Again, thats another topic, for another thread. But believing the earth is only 6000 years old is just as valid as the 13.7 billion year old universe theory.

Whoosh, 50+ years of amazing scientific progress in the fields of cosmology and geology all down the drain because Marshal Beale waved his magic wand. Personal remark removed. - Jom

Wow well said Squiggle, well said. I take some things in the Bible as non-literal, as THE BIBLE ITSELF does that to itself. But I am a conservative Christian on all aspects of Christina theology: justification, etc.

Well, that's the convenience of Christianity, isn't it? Cherrypicking what parts of your religion you would like to take seriously and which not real adds to the diversity of the religion. Whether you're a crazed fundamentalist or just a sweet 90-year old grandmother, Christianity is bound to have some aspects that will appeal to you. In stores now for $9,99.

[Grobar]

2 Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day".
Six days of creation shouldn't be taken literally.
I don't understand why are people always pitting Christianity against science. There is nothing in science that disapproves God. It is just a bunch of laws of Physics that God created to govern the material universe we are living in.

[basics]

" 2 Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day".
Six days of creation shouldn't be taken literally. "

Grobar,

When Peter made these remarks it had nothing to do with creation at all. He was emphasising the patience that God has with the impatience that certain believers had regarding the return of Jesus Christ. What God gave Moses to write was as exact in all aspects so that no-one could misinterpret how we were made and in what time it took Him.

For example a year is the highest measurement of time broken down into seasons, days, hours, minutes etc. Genesis does not explain things any differently than that. It makes no reference at all to time being exaggerated in any manner as you suggest, perhaps even suggesting what is above because you cannot get your own head round a six day creation.

If what Peter said was meant to cover an indiscrepancy for what Moses gave us that would throw the whole concept of the power of God and His Saviour at the feet of mockers which I am quite sure was not his intention at all. Whatever God's relation to time is, for sure it does not contradict what He personally dictated to Moses to put into writing.

[Phier]

Why?

I don't take people seriously who believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old, how can you prove that? Scientist only calculated that by counting backwards by using todays physics. When how do you know todays physics applied 13 billion years ago. But that is another story. Sure you may have artifacts that 'date' back further than 6000 years, but how can you be sure your carbon dating methods work, there have been many many studies showing how unreliable these methods are.

Again, thats another topic, for another thread. But believing the earth is only 6000 years old is just as valid as the 13.7 billion year old universe theory.

Either the earth is far far far older than 6000 years, or God really likes messing with smart people.

[basics]

" Good luck trying to get a seriously reply thinking the worlds only 6000 years old "

A Fistful Of Dollars,

The first fundamental of the regenerate soul is to believe every word that comes from out of the mouth of God. It cannot do anything but believe if the Comforter or Holy Ghost dwells within it. Having Him means that He is leading you into all truth everything pointing to glorifying Jesus Christ our Lord.

So I repeat what I have said before, when a regenerate soul speaks he does so as if it were God who was speaking, that itself checked by what is written in the word of God. Therefore the first books of the Bible given to us by Moses are God's very words on not just one count but two for our benefit.

The first is that God dictated what Moses had to write and two, Moses being regenerate couldn't but write what he had been given. So here we have a double witness for how we came to be. Any person denying that is not of God. He or she cannot be regenerate and for proof of that one only has to read about Simon Peter before and after he was made regenerate. I mention him because of the appeal he has for certain religious systems.

So as it is written, God, Jesus Christ, made all things that are made in six days these days were given as being of a twentyfour hour cycle. And, they were all made as up and running, meaning that each had its own age given so that it was up and running. As far as the stars, sun and moon are concerned, to be as we see them they must be seen as a lot older than they actually are.

Man's inability to accept that is not only to put the word of God as inconsequential but it is to be as the two originals who were persuaded that God did not really mean what He said. There is no difference between them at the beginning and them now. They were persuaded not to believe God and just so all those who are around today. Where is that Spirit of truth in them?

Moses was given six days for creation, repeating it so that the people were aware and have no doubts. Throughout the whole Bible the same is often referred to as other reminders of who made all things and not one of them contradicts that it was done in six days. Theologians have come to accept this number as being the number of man as well as creation, why?

Because God talks of being at rest in heaven on the seventh day. This is the day or place that them to be saved seek. It is not seven million or billion days but the seventh day as being the day He rested from His wonderful work of creation. All through Scripture the number seven constitutes perfection, that state that is made by regeneration.

Another factor brought out in the book to the Hebrews is of another day called today as being the day of salvation, a day when the seeker may find the Lord. It is not a one million or one billion day period, rather a one twentyfour hour period of time in which a man seeking God may find Him, why? Because man doesn't know when he will be called out of this world so tomorrow may well be too late.

These are things that the chosen people never quite got a grasp of and so it seems the religions of today don't either. It is the very fundamental handed down to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. One believes God or one doesn't. There is no sitting on the fence. By faith we are saved and by faith we believe God and so by faith we believe Moses who was given by God what to tell us concerning Him and creation.

Jesus once said that it is not what a man takes in that shows his true nature, rather what he puts out. How can any man or woman on clutching a Bible to their chests, declaring themselves to be Christian, yet in a matter of seconds declare that book not to be taken seriously? It is either the very words of God or it is not. The atheist can say there is no God so he wouldn't be a hypocrite. But for someone to say that there is a God and say His word doesn't mean what it says, where then does that leave him?

[Squiggle]

What your describing as Conservative is what I would call anti rational, fundamentalist Christianity. I consider myself a Conservative Christian, in that I take the orthodox theological positions on most things. Gods saving grace only applies to those that have faith in jesus christ, etc. Liberal Christianity is that perverted wishwashy postmodern relativistic crap you see in many modern churches. Significantly in Canada, places like the United and Anglican Churches which outright support doctrine that contradicts the bible in any conceivable way. It's impossible to interpret the bible literally in every instance, its a ridiculous principle. First, because it cant actually be applied [for example, dont spill your seed is obviously a reference to :wub:, not some random seeds you own, or the psalms] and have rational dogma, and secondly it cant be applied and still remain coherent with science.

Nor is it even a Conservative position to take the stances you did. Genesis being non literal was first proposed by St. Augustine, young earth creationism is- as far as I know- a new theological development. Relatively anyhow.

I do think there is a point where someone stretches the bible to such degrees where they can no justifiably be considered a Christian, but the line you draw is ridiculous.

The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the Biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of Scriptural hermeneutics (interpretation of the Bible) within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements, but instead an anthology that documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within a historical or cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding.[2] ref> Thus, liberal Christians do not regard the Bible as divinely inspired (God's Word), but subject Scripture to human reason.

Thats liberal christianity. I know my post is bad, but im going to sleep.

[LSJ]

Liberal Christianity is that perverted wishwashy postmodern relativistic crap you see in many modern churches. Significantly in Canada, places like the United and Anglican Churches which outright support doctrine that contradicts the bible in any conceivable way

Canadian Christians, especially in southern Ontario, can be quite funny. They say they are Christians but
1. Don't go to church, or barely ever do
2. Don't repent
3. Don't pray
4. Celebrate holidays in the way Mr Capitalism wants them to, ignoring the religious base of them
5. They promote tolerance of things that are against the word of God

The churches themselves are guilty of number 5. How can someone believe in God and follow the Bible yet remain accepting of heathenism and sins like homosexuality? It's a big contradiction.

[SigniferOne]

Wow well said Squiggle, well said. I take some things in the Bible as non-literal, as THE BIBLE ITSELF does that to itself. But I am a conservative Christian on all aspects of Christina theology: justification, etc.

It is very important to distinguish conservative Christian theology, from conservative views ON Christian theology. What you're giving me in the OP is the conservative interpretation of some Biblical things, which has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity. This obscures the malice of real liberal Christianity when you do see it: one which waters down Christian theology, eschewing the Biblical habit of condemnations, Hell, and all those other aspects of the doctrine that make some modern people uncomfortable.

Here is a simple test to your understanding of Christianity, and the Bible springs it on you from the first page. It says that on the seventh day God rested. Now do you believe that God can get tired?

[hellheaven1987]

Here is a simple test to your understanding of Christianity, and the Bible springs it on you from the first page. It says that on the seventh day God rested. Now do you believe that God can get tired?

No one say God cannot rest for other reasons besides tiredness.

[Carpathian Wolf]

An object can rest. Is it tired?

[The spartan]

Aren't people allowed to interpret as they will? I mean, the bible has tons of metaphors in it and therefor difficult to take literally or from one point of view. How many different ways does it refer to Jesus without using is name? Is it really Jesus the book is referring to?

[Carpathian Wolf]

That's why God left a Church...

[Angrychris]

Thats why man left a church. to tell you what and how to believe.

[The Dude]

I would like to open this up by saying that I am a conservative Christian. I believe that what the bible says should be interpreted directly, for example, in Genesis, one day meant one day. So the world, in my view, is only 6000 years old. (I did the math and found it somewhere near 5900 but you get my point).

Your view is incorrect, as is everything else you believe. Little use discussing anything when you think like this, tbh.

[PointOfViewGun]

I would like to open this up by saying that I am a conservative Christian. I believe that what the bible says should be interpreted directly, for example, in Genesis, one day meant one day. So the world, in my view, is only 6000 years old. (I did the math and found it somewhere near 5900 but you get my point).

What is liberal Christianity, you may ask. It is when Christians believe that 1 day in Genesis was upwards of several billion years. How Noah's ark was just a story, etc. They think that they can merge modern scientific "evidence" to biblical teachings. They try and explain biblical stories with logical facts. A good example is the battle of Jericho. The bible says the Isrealites marched around the city for three days (I think) and then the walls of the city "came tumbling down". Like they just fell down. A liberal Christian would say it was a military operation to dig under the walls to collapse them, or they had a spy inside that dropped the gate. "The walls came tumbling down" was just a metaphor, in their point of view. Also when Moses crossed the red sea, he didn't part it with his hands, but he knew when the tide was low, went across it when it was low, and then the tide rose again when the Pharaoh showed up. I do not believe in this and I want to know from some liberal Christians, or conservative Christians who understand liberal Christians, or just atheists who understand my religion well enough to make an unbiased argument.
So my question is: Is liberal Christianity blasphemy? I think it is, but I am willing to change my view on this. I won't believe in it personally but I will stop thinking that liberal Christians will go to hell. (I know you shouldn't think anyone will go to hell, it is not a human's decision to make, but that's how my mind works.)

I would appreciate it if you would comment on this and give me your opinions.

I have to ask you this: which Christian faction is the right one? Doesn't it make for each of them an other one is a liberal one? Which one are we to take as the base?