Liberal Christians

[Caroljo]

Hmm. The usual hostility. Oh well, that's you. If you go to Wikipedia, Bible Study or other sites, you can get some pretty basic knowledge on this. Most theologians agree that Mark wasn't written until around 70 years after the Crucifiction - certainly beyond the life expectancy of the time. I used 40 years because that is considered the minimum. Additionally, authors often signed the names of other people who were credited with originating something that had been passed verbally via the traditional Hebrew Tradition.
But you don't want to know this. It's not like you have an open mind or ever acknowledge the point of anyone else. As stated before, you have that compulsion thing about winning arguments with anonymous strangers on the net.

If you were not such a dweeb you would not think I was hostile.



Wikipedia dates Mark to no later than than early 70 CE.

New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this prominent skeptics site the entire New Testament was finished withing 60 years of Jesus.s crucifixion, and Mark was written within 30 years of it.

Chronological Order

Paul actually wrote the bulk of his epistles before Jerusalem was sacked by Rome. He wrote about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and preached in the very city it occurred in. He actually wrote down the entire Gospel story before any of the surviving Gospels were committed to parchment. I would think that someone would have pointed out it never happened if he was lying, but no one did.

Can you explain that?

You might be able to confuse someone who relies on idiots to make decisions, but I actually researched the issue, and love to use sites that actually disagree with me about the Bible being inspired and true to shoot down jerks like you who think they can scare me by appealing to authority.

By the way there was a strong oral tradition in existence. Even if nothing was committed to parchment for decades after the crucifixion, that does not prove the Gospel itself was not written by eyewitnesses.

So here you go:
Oh my! You're right! Mark was written by someone who was right there when Jesus walked! Wow! You're just, just so SO brilliant!

All better now?

Much better, thank you. I enjoy virtually stomping idiots who do not know enough to know when to shut the fuck up.

Lol more of the usual hostility. What ARE you so angry about there little man? Oh well, not my concern.
So you go from asserting definitively that Mark was written by an eyewitnesses to "well it MAY have been written as uh soon, as 30 years after the crucifction... Then you bring up the uh Strong Oral tradition (which WHO brought up? ;-)
And then you claim you have stomped anyone? LOL!
Let's satisfy that insecurity that is so apparent in your posts. As before:
Of course you are absolutely right that you were wrong but uh now you're definitely uh right!

I didn't sense any hostility in Quantums comment's. But i think i can feel the fear in your response! Not one thing you said proved anything he said was wrong.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmm. The usual hostility. Oh well, that's you. If you go to Wikipedia, Bible Study or other sites, you can get some pretty basic knowledge on this. Most theologians agree that Mark wasn't written until around 70 years after the Crucifiction - certainly beyond the life expectancy of the time. I used 40 years because that is considered the minimum. Additionally, authors often signed the names of other people who were credited with originating something that had been passed verbally via the traditional Hebrew Tradition.
But you don't want to know this. It's not like you have an open mind or ever acknowledge the point of anyone else. As stated before, you have that compulsion thing about winning arguments with anonymous strangers on the net.

If you were not such a dweeb you would not think I was hostile.



Wikipedia dates Mark to no later than than early 70 CE.

New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this prominent skeptics site the entire New Testament was finished withing 60 years of Jesus.s crucifixion, and Mark was written within 30 years of it.

Chronological Order

Paul actually wrote the bulk of his epistles before Jerusalem was sacked by Rome. He wrote about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and preached in the very city it occurred in. He actually wrote down the entire Gospel story before any of the surviving Gospels were committed to parchment. I would think that someone would have pointed out it never happened if he was lying, but no one did.

Can you explain that?

You might be able to confuse someone who relies on idiots to make decisions, but I actually researched the issue, and love to use sites that actually disagree with me about the Bible being inspired and true to shoot down jerks like you who think they can scare me by appealing to authority.

By the way there was a strong oral tradition in existence. Even if nothing was committed to parchment for decades after the crucifixion, that does not prove the Gospel itself was not written by eyewitnesses.

So here you go:
Oh my! You're right! Mark was written by someone who was right there when Jesus walked! Wow! You're just, just so SO brilliant!

All better now?

Much better, thank you. I enjoy virtually stomping idiots who do not know enough to know when to shut the fuck up.

Lol more of the usual hostility. What ARE you so angry about there little man? Oh well, not my concern.
So you go from asserting definitively that Mark was written by an eyewitnesses to "well it MAY have been written as uh soon, as 30 years after the crucifction... Then you bring up the uh Strong Oral tradition (which WHO brought up? ;-)
And then you claim you have stomped anyone? LOL!
Let's satisfy that insecurity that is so apparent in your posts. As before:
Of course you are absolutely right that you were wrong but uh now you're definitely uh right!

I am not angry Tweetybird, I am mocking you.

There was nothing in the least but inaccurate, insecure, or hesitant in any of my statements. Unlike you, I rarely take idiots personally. I know you deliberately chose the name IndependentLogic to mock both your partisan bias and your inability to think. I do not understand why you have to go out of your to demonstrate it every time you post, but if it makes you happy, go for it.

 

[rdean]

Liberal Christians probably don't cheer executions or yell, "Let him die". They should be easy to spot.

 

[Si modo]

I'm talking about affirmative action, civil rights, abolition of the death penalty, support for education, medicare and social security, anti-war, etc.

I can show you liberals who do not support all of those, does that make them right wing nutcases?

Show me what you mean by the term, "liberal". I'm not sure I understand what you think "liberal" means.

Here you go: Classical Liberal

 

[Sky Dancer]

Liberal Christians probably don't cheer executions or yell, "Let him die". They should be easy to spot.

Liberal Christians would be death penalty abolitionists, for sure. Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I can show you liberals who do not support all of those, does that make them right wing nutcases?

Show me what you mean by the term, "liberal". I'm not sure I understand what you think "liberal" means.

I defined it earlier in the thread.

I didn't see it.

 

[del]

Show me what you mean by the term, "liberal". I'm not sure I understand what you think "liberal" means.

I defined it earlier in the thread.

I didn't see it.

pull your head out of your ass and your vision will improve

 

[BDBoop]

Liberal Christians probably don't cheer executions or yell, "Let him die". They should be easy to spot.

Liberal Christians would be death penalty abolitionists, for sure. Thou shalt not kill.

Wrong again, Kemosabe.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Liberal Christians probably don't cheer executions or yell, "Let him die". They should be easy to spot.

Liberal Christians would be death penalty abolitionists, for sure. Thou shalt not kill.

Wrong again, Kemosabe.

Are you saying that you are a liberal Christian that is pro-death penalty?

 

[BDBoop]

Liberal Christians would be death penalty abolitionists, for sure. Thou shalt not kill.

Wrong again, Kemosabe.

Are you saying that you are a liberal Christian that is pro-death penalty?

Yes.

 

[Marie888]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

I would think all religious people would be liberal? You mean I got that wrong? Heck, we exist for a second in time and eternity waits with long arms, so why worry about money or property or things, worry about the hungry the sick the homeless the needy, help others and do not whine about material things, and if you are blessed as my religious friends sometimes say, help others on their way to that large time that makes this time so short and meaningless.

Jesus Is A Liberal - Home Page

Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace

Liberal Christian Dating Site, Liberal Christian Personals, Liberal Christian Singles | Free Online Dating


"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Thomas Paine

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Abraham Lincoln
.

First off, if Gandhi liked Christ so much, then he would've believed Him that He IS Christ, wouldn't he? That He is Lord of all. To love Him first and love others.

Second off, there are many false teachers (wolves in sheeps clothing) in the church who lie and purposely are doing wrong things and calling themselves a Christian and they deceive people, and who knows how many of them Gandhi had seen. These wolves do not adhere to God's Word, they twist it, or add or take away from it. There are also true believers struggling with a certain sin in the church; but the problem is, Gandhi was a sinner just the same.

Besides, part of loving others doesn't mean we say to someone when they sin, 'oh that's not a sin, go ahead a do it." That's just a plain lie and a vain form of acceptance to try to get others to love us. Yes, we all want acceptance and love, but when God tells us something is wrong, it's just plain wrong.

In other words, struggling with a sin, is an entirely different story than saying something is NOT a sin when God tells us plainly that it is.

Part of loving others means we say the truth, which includes that some things are a sin, but we don't look down our noses at others because we know we are subject to the same weakness/sin. We all fall short, we all need His help, and need edification and encouragement from one another. We need the One Who created us. He teaches us to love and forgive others.

The Bible says love covers a mulititude of sins. That is what Jesus Christ did for us. That doesn't mean we go continue on sinning. The thing is...we won't even WANT to sin once we know Who He is and how much He loves us. We get convicted hugely upon knowing Him, because of His Spirit, the revelation of His love, and also we know He knows better than us anyhow.

So.... why was Gandhi saying he didn't like "Christians?" (If he even said it at all ) Perhaps he's looking down his nose at them as if he had "done" better? Kinda like the Pharisee here in this parable that Jesus gave:

Luke 18
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

What I'm trying to say midcan, is that loving others also "protects" them. If we say something is NOT a sin when it IS a sin... it's like seeing a kid run onto a busy highway and saying, "thats okay," you know we love you - go ahead. Sin hurts us and hurts others. Love covers a multitude of them. And God IS love so we try to lovingly encourage them firstly to Jesus Christ. (Who helps us away from sin all because of His love and Grace)

We ALL struggle with sin. Plain and simple. Gandhi was no better than the lot of us, nor are any of us are better than one another. We're all in the same boat, and there is only One Way - through Jesus Christ our Lord. He said it Himself -

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Look carefully at the above verse- what Jesus said. There is nothing "liberal" about that.

Liberal | Define Liberal at Dictionary.com


.

 

[Marie888]

PS - If we want to know who is a true believer in Christ, and also who are the "false teaches or wolves", Gods Word has directed us how to do so.
We can "try" people and see where they are at spiritually. But don't believe me, read for yourself:

1 John 4
1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Also, no one can say that Jesus Christ is the Lord except by His Spirit. So until someone knows Him, they cannot confess that in truth yet. Either they are still lost, or they could be a wolf, or just working on behalf of the enemy, Satan.

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Which all goes together, and with the below verse also - which Jesus said whoever denies Him, He will also deny them before the Father.

Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Again, there is NOTHING liberal about that. It's Christ, or bust.


.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Show me what you mean by the term, "liberal". I'm not sure I understand what you think "liberal" means.

I defined it earlier in the thread.

I didn't see it.

Post 19.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong again, Kemosabe.

Are you saying that you are a liberal Christian that is pro-death penalty?

Yes.

Then you have me, a conservative Christian, and I oppose it.

 

[MarcATL]

Frankly, I hate to see Christ's teachings misused by the right wing. Coulter says liberalism is a godless religion, I think she's wrong.

There are liberal Christians. I just don't meet them on forums.

You first need to ground and reexamine your own findings Sky. Try finding a Neutral Plane that does not disturb what you are trying to study. Lose the Supposition.

I want to talk to Liberals who happen to be Christian.

That would be me....what's up?

 

[Sky Dancer]

You first need to ground and reexamine your own findings Sky. Try finding a Neutral Plane that does not disturb what you are trying to study. Lose the Supposition.

I want to talk to Liberals who happen to be Christian.

That would be me....what's up?

It's commonly thought of in the political landscape today that only Conservative Republicans can be true Christians.

Tell us about your experience having liberal political views and how they are in complete alighnment with your faith.

 

[Avatar4321]

I want to talk to Liberals who happen to be Christian.

That would be me....what's up?

It's commonly thought of in the political landscape today that only Conservative Republicans can be true Christians.

Tell us about your experience having liberal political views and how they are in complete alighnment with your faith.

Just because something is commonly thought of as true doesn't mean it is.

Though personally I dont see how big government policies are compatible with Christ's teachings, that doesnt mean others dont.