Photo by babsteve
Not all Christians are literalistic fundamentalists or even orthodox in their theologies. There do exist “liberal” Christians who focus on a loving, generous message of Jesus rather than the more traditional views of God’s fitful nature. Many liberal Christians consider parts of the Bible mythology, metaphor, and primitive, bronze-age expression of the unknown. With those points, skeptics may agree and also appreciate the holistic approach to the scriptures.
This view is much more friendly and acceptable than the hellfire and brimstone extremist views held by a few overly-vocal groups. However, I still have problems understanding how someone can be a liberal Christian without cherry-picking, contradiction, and unsure/unsteady beliefs.
My first question is: Do liberal Christians trust Jesus?
If Jesus was God in the flesh, as many liberal Christians still believe, then he would know which stories in the bible were true, fabrications, fact, myth, or scientifically inaccurate. If Jesus was God, one would also suppose Jesus would be totally honest and not spread untrue information as if it was real.
Yet in a few passages, we see Jesus shows no more wisdom about science, history, or mythology than his followers. Either he did not know, or he did not tell the whole truth. If he did not tell the whole truth, why should we trust what he says? If he did not know better, why should we think he was a sinless god?
- In Luke 17 and Matt 24, Jesus teaches the myths about Noah and Lot as if they were real people whose stories were all true.
- Matthew 12:40–Jesus believed Jonah was inside a whale for 3 days as the myth teaches.
- In Mark 10:6, Jesus teaches about divorce saying that “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female”. Jesus either did not believe in evolution, or he lied.
- In many verses, Jesus heals the viably sick and disabled (blind, epileptics, paralyzed) not through medicine, but through exorcism. Do we “cure” the physically and mentally ill through exorcism today?
- Mark 4:31- The mustard seed is not the smallest seed.
- Jesus teaches you can move mountains and wither fig trees (Matthew 21:21-22), and raise the dead (Matthew 10:8)– all scientifically unproven or impossible.
So, dear liberal Christian, do you trust Jesus? Do you ever find yourself realizing that you know more about the world than he did? Do you ever wonder why he kept important information or fact correcting out of his teachings? Why wasn’t he clear? If some of the bible is myth, metaphorical, or untrue, why would God himself perpetuate the belief that it was true?
Feel free to explain how this works to me.
New! Check out this fun-loving cartoon about the things Jesus could have done but chose not to. Lots of fun and challenges for the more fundamental believer.
Chris on 
Bill the Heathen on 
jabran on 
Loading ...
I've often wondered these same things. I've always had a sort of dislike for liberal Christianity. As a fundamentalist I thought there weren't devout enough and didn't show enough devotion to God. As an atheist I don't understand why liberal Christians still hold on to Christianity. It seems that the main reason most hold on to Christianity is because they feel that there would be no morality without religion. They seem to believe this despite the fact that most liberal Christian ideals are based on humanism, not Christianity. Morality can be found without religion. I'm quite curious about your question myself. I look forward to seeing the responses.
oh, i only wish liberal Christians read my blog.
I've often wondered these same things. I've always had a sort of dislike for liberal Christianity. As a fundamentalist I thought there weren't devout enough and didn't show enough devotion to God. As an atheist I don't understand why liberal Christians still hold on to Christianity. It seems that the main reason most hold on to Christianity is because they feel that there would be no morality without religion. They seem to believe this despite the fact that most liberal Christian ideals are based on humanism, not Christianity. Morality can be found without religion. I'm quite curious about your question myself. I look forward to seeing the responses.
oh, i only wish liberal Christians read my blog.
Cool domain name!
(Just for you)
wow it's not spam! lol thanks
Cool domain name!
(Just for you)
wow it's not spam! lol thanks
He may have gotten some of the facts wrong, but he was still a Great Moral Teacher who gave us valuable lessons like "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" (<a href = "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:28-30;&version=31;">Matthew 5:28-30) and "Hate both your family and yourself" (<a href = "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014:26;&version=31;">Luke 14:26).
This reminds me of my then six-year-old daughter who was listening to a song on the TV, turned to me and declared in no uncertain terms: "You can't really touch the sky!"
You are (I hope) older than six.
He may have gotten some of the facts wrong, but he was still a Great Moral Teacher who gave us valuable lessons like "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" (<a href = "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:28-30;&version=31;">Matthew 5:28-30) and "Hate both your family and yourself" (<a href = "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014:26;&version=31;">Luke 14:26).
This reminds me of my then six-year-old daughter who was listening to a song on the TV, turned to me and declared in no uncertain terms: "You can't really touch the sky!"
You are (I hope) older than six.
ow!
ow!
Thanks to Hemant, you now have at least one Liberal Christian reading your blog.
I think you're confused about what we believe. We don't believe that the gospels are 100% accurate, complete, journalistic accounts of Jesus' life and preaching any more than Genesis is a literal, scientific account of how the world came to be. The Bible is more like a set of paintings than a set of photographs. We consider this more valuable, because artistic licence (even unintentional artistic licence, as the process of oral transmission tends to do to such stories) lets an artist focus on whatever the artist wants to focus on. A good painting can reveal more about a person than a photograph.
I also suspect that you've never had a philosophical conversation with a Rabbi. Rabbis still talk just like Jesus did. They speak in Socratic questions, in analogy, in riddles, in jokes and in hyperbole, and are willing to use just about anything to encourage you think about what they want you to think about. You can hardly blame Jesus for using stories that his audience knew to make his point.
And, of course, in 1st Century Palestine, Rabbis spoke in pesher, in typology and in apocalyptic language. These are not things that we understand directly today, but by careful research, we can understand some of the less familiar passages.
So that's the background.
Finally, some free advice: When arguing with a Liberal Christian, don't argue from a position of biblical literalism. We find it exasperating when fundies do it, but at least they claim to believe that kind of nonsense. When Atheists do it, it just looks ignorant.
Glad to have ya
I'm not arguing with liberal Christians, just asking questions to which you responded–and I'm glad you chimed in. I appreciate the Rabbinic method of teaching, but it makes sense that I frame my questions as one would expect a Western thinker to do so: with points, linear thought, without illustration or storytelling. I'm well aware that Hebraic and Eastern in general thought is so far separated from how I and Westerners understand and illustrate the world today. It's a fair reminder that if Jesus existed as a Rabbi, that we wouldn't be able to know if anything he said was actually said or how reliably it was ever recorded decades after the oral transmission to his talmidim/disciples. I still think trust comes into play with anyone's belief in the messages, wisdom, and overall picture painted of God and man in the bible.
So why not answer my question and simply word it in a way that better suits your point of view–take an 'artistic focus' perhaps. How do you judge for yourself what is trustworthy wisdom and teaching in a collection of religious and cultural writings such as the Tenakh and the New Testament? And do you apply the same filters, standards, decision making, and openness to appreciating value to other religious texts? How did yo choose the Bible as something you would trust?
Sure, here's the answer to your questions:
"How do you judge for yourself what is trustworthy wisdom and teaching in a collection of religious and cultural writings such as the Tenakh and the New Testament?"
Research. Historical research, linguistic research, textual research, philosophical research… lots and lots of research.
Different people, of course, have different emphases. The Jesus Seminar people, for example, are more interested in the historical figure that the gospel accounts are based upon. Bart Ehrman (who was something of a protogé of Bruce Metzger) is more interested in the process of textual transmission. John Shelby Spong is more interested in translating application between the culture of the time and today. It's all good.
"And do you apply the same filters, standards, decision making, and openness to appreciating value to other religious texts?"
Definitely. One of the defining moments in the formation of modern Liberal Christianity was the idea that you could apply the same tools of analysis that are applied to other ancient works of literature to the Bible.
Moreover, Liberal Christians are excessively ecumenical and inter-faith. There's even one person who hangs around some of the Atheism blogs who is starting an inter-faith dialogue between Christianity and Neo-Paganism.
"How did you choose the Bible as something you would trust?"
It's an interesting question, but I don't think it's well-posed. I'm a theist, not a bibliolator.
Like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, I think there are common threads in all major world religions. It's the multiple converging lines of evidence that convinces me that there's something underlying all of them.
I think the question you're asking is: Why be a Christian? True, I could have picked a different religion, but the liberal church I was brought up in fits pretty closely with my prejudices, so I see no reason to change.
For what it's worth, if I'd been brought up a fundamentalist, or even a more "mainstream" church, there's a pretty good chance I'd be an Atheist today, or maybe something more syncretic like a Unitarian, Bahá'í or Sam Harris-like Buddhist.
Oh, one more thing.
"It's a fair reminder that if Jesus existed as a Rabbi, that we wouldn't be able to know if anything he said was actually said or how reliably it was ever recorded decades after the oral transmission to his talmidim/disciples."
I think you'd be surprised what we can discover from the evidence that we have. We're actually pretty good at using the tools we've developed for other ancient texts to weigh the strength of a passage from the New Testament.
For example, we know a lot about how errors arise in manuscript copying. We know, for example, that when copyists are faced with two versions of the same story, one of which has a word that the other doesn't, tend to keep the word, especially if they have some reverence for the text. The upshot is that single words tend to get added over time. This gives us evidence about what readings of a story are older.
There's also internal evidence to take into account. Jesus likely spoke in Aramaic, but the New Testament is written in Greek. We can use what we know (and are still discovering) about Aramaic to find which of his recorded sayings sound more like they were originally spoken in Aramaic and which were originally written in Greek. That, then, becomes evidence about how "authentic" a saying is.
Then, there's theological evidence. Jesus was a mystic. Mystics before him and after him have said pretty similar things about the mystical things that they experience. That is evidence that either Jesus really said those things, or that whoever inserted that story were themselves a mystic.
So it's not like we have no evidence whatsoever.
I've enjoyed reading your response. I was brought up in a fundamentalist household and I currently label myself an atheist. You've really given me some things to think about. Thank you.
The accuracy of the newer texts compared to the older manuscripts and the degree to which the text appears to have been translated from Aramaic can't tell us anything about the validity of the claim that Jesus said the things in the first place.
The problem here is that it's a single source. We need external confirmation. Otherwise, it might just be a well-maintained mythology about an itinerant rabbi.
This argument, to me, is essentially the same one that you occasionally hear from some Christians that Atheists have no reason to be moral, because they have no external reference for morality. It's the argument from ignorance fallacy, essentially, in both cases.
It's also quite ignorant of the way that historical research happens. Unlike scientists, historians can't really do experiments. All we have is what we have, and we have to make the most sense of it that we can. In this case, what we have is that there is internal evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and no evidence against it.
What disturbs me about this is the willingness of certain otherwise quite rational people to quickly side with the tiny minority "way out there" fringe of scholarship. If it was about any other subject, we wouldn't hesitate to smack it down in an instant. What's so special about religion that it should be treated differently?
Thanks to Hemant, you now have at least one Liberal Christian reading your blog.
I think you're confused about what we believe. We don't believe that the gospels are 100% accurate, complete, journalistic accounts of Jesus' life and preaching any more than Genesis is a literal, scientific account of how the world came to be. The Bible is more like a set of paintings than a set of photographs. We consider this more valuable, because artistic licence (even unintentional artistic licence, as the process of oral transmission tends to do to such stories) lets an artist focus on whatever the artist wants to focus on. A good painting can reveal more about a person than a photograph.
I also suspect that you've never had a philosophical conversation with a Rabbi. Rabbis still talk just like Jesus did. They speak in Socratic questions, in analogy, in riddles, in jokes and in hyperbole, and are willing to use just about anything to encourage you think about what they want you to think about. You can hardly blame Jesus for using stories that his audience knew to make his point.
And, of course, in 1st Century Palestine, Rabbis spoke in pesher, in typology and in apocalyptic language. These are not things that we understand directly today, but by careful research, we can understand some of the less familiar passages.
So that's the background.
Finally, some free advice: When arguing with a Liberal Christian, don't argue from a position of biblical literalism. We find it exasperating when fundies do it, but at least they claim to believe that kind of nonsense. When Atheists do it, it just looks ignorant.
Glad to have ya
I'm not arguing with liberal Christians, just asking questions to which you responded–and I'm glad you chimed in. I appreciate the Rabbinic method of teaching, but it makes sense that I frame my questions as one would expect a Western thinker to do so: with points, linear thought, without illustration or storytelling. I'm well aware that Hebraic and Eastern in general thought is so far separated from how I and Westerners understand and illustrate the world today. It's a fair reminder that if Jesus existed as a Rabbi, that we wouldn't be able to know if anything he said was actually said or how reliably it was ever recorded decades after the oral transmission to his talmidim/disciples. I still think trust comes into play with anyone's belief in the messages, wisdom, and overall picture painted of God and man in the bible.
So why not answer my question and simply word it in a way that better suits your point of view–take an 'artistic focus' perhaps. How do you judge for yourself what is trustworthy wisdom and teaching in a collection of religious and cultural writings such as the Tenakh and the New Testament? And do you apply the same filters, standards, decision making, and openness to appreciating value to other religious texts? How did yo choose the Bible as something you would trust?
Sure, here's the answer to your questions:
"How do you judge for yourself what is trustworthy wisdom and teaching in a collection of religious and cultural writings such as the Tenakh and the New Testament?"
Research. Historical research, linguistic research, textual research, philosophical research… lots and lots of research.
Different people, of course, have different emphases. The Jesus Seminar people, for example, are more interested in the historical figure that the gospel accounts are based upon. Bart Ehrman (who was something of a protogé of Bruce Metzger) is more interested in the process of textual transmission. John Shelby Spong is more interested in translating application between the culture of the time and today. It's all good.
"And do you apply the same filters, standards, decision making, and openness to appreciating value to other religious texts?"
Definitely. One of the defining moments in the formation of modern Liberal Christianity was the idea that you could apply the same tools of analysis that are applied to other ancient works of literature to the Bible.
Moreover, Liberal Christians are excessively ecumenical and inter-faith. There's even one person who hangs around some of the Atheism blogs who is starting an inter-faith dialogue between Christianity and Neo-Paganism.
"How did you choose the Bible as something you would trust?"
It's an interesting question, but I don't think it's well-posed. I'm a theist, not a bibliolator.
Like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, I think there are common threads in all major world religions. It's the multiple converging lines of evidence that convinces me that there's something underlying all of them.
I think the question you're asking is: Why be a Christian? True, I could have picked a different religion, but the liberal church I was brought up in fits pretty closely with my prejudices, so I see no reason to change.
For what it's worth, if I'd been brought up a fundamentalist, or even a more "mainstream" church, there's a pretty good chance I'd be an Atheist today, or maybe something more syncretic like a Unitarian, Bahá'í or Sam Harris-like Buddhist.
Oh, one more thing.
"It's a fair reminder that if Jesus existed as a Rabbi, that we wouldn't be able to know if anything he said was actually said or how reliably it was ever recorded decades after the oral transmission to his talmidim/disciples."
I think you'd be surprised what we can discover from the evidence that we have. We're actually pretty good at using the tools we've developed for other ancient texts to weigh the strength of a passage from the New Testament.
For example, we know a lot about how errors arise in manuscript copying. We know, for example, that when copyists are faced with two versions of the same story, one of which has a word that the other doesn't, tend to keep the word, especially if they have some reverence for the text. The upshot is that single words tend to get added over time. This gives us evidence about what readings of a story are older.
There's also internal evidence to take into account. Jesus likely spoke in Aramaic, but the New Testament is written in Greek. We can use what we know (and are still discovering) about Aramaic to find which of his recorded sayings sound more like they were originally spoken in Aramaic and which were originally written in Greek. That, then, becomes evidence about how "authentic" a saying is.
Then, there's theological evidence. Jesus was a mystic. Mystics before him and after him have said pretty similar things about the mystical things that they experience. That is evidence that either Jesus really said those things, or that whoever inserted that story were themselves a mystic.
So it's not like we have no evidence whatsoever.
I've enjoyed reading your response. I was brought up in a fundamentalist household and I currently label myself an atheist. You've really given me some things to think about. Thank you.
The accuracy of the newer texts compared to the older manuscripts and the degree to which the text appears to have been translated from Aramaic can't tell us anything about the validity of the claim that Jesus said the things in the first place.
The problem here is that it's a single source. We need external confirmation. Otherwise, it might just be a well-maintained mythology about an itinerant rabbi.
This argument, to me, is essentially the same one that you occasionally hear from some Christians that Atheists have no reason to be moral, because they have no external reference for morality. It's the argument from ignorance fallacy, essentially, in both cases.
It's also quite ignorant of the way that historical research happens. Unlike scientists, historians can't really do experiments. All we have is what we have, and we have to make the most sense of it that we can. In this case, what we have is that there is internal evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and no evidence against it.
What disturbs me about this is the willingness of certain otherwise quite rational people to quickly side with the tiny minority "way out there" fringe of scholarship. If it was about any other subject, we wouldn't hesitate to smack it down in an instant. What's so special about religion that it should be treated differently?
Here's a rather good post from Triangulations which may also help.
Hey, thanks for the mention, Pseudo. Indeed, Atheists error by treating the Bible as literal. I just wrote a note to the Reason Project and told them they should change the Bible to be commentary by biblical critics rather than just simple categorizations from a literalist perspective. THAT would be a big contribution to both the Atheist and the Liberal Christian camps, don't you think?
You're welcome. That would be a big contribution, yes, but I suspect that you'd get more agreement if both camps got together and agreed on a wording.
Here's a rather good post from Triangulations which may also help.
Hey, thanks for the mention, Pseudo. Indeed, Atheists error by treating the Bible as literal. I just wrote a note to the Reason Project and told them they should change the Bible to be commentary by biblical critics rather than just simple categorizations from a literalist perspective. THAT would be a big contribution to both the Atheist and the Liberal Christian camps, don't you think?
You're welcome. That would be a big contribution, yes, but I suspect that you'd get more agreement if both camps got together and agreed on a wording.
the liberal church I was brought up in fits pretty closely with my prejudices
Pseudonym, that may be one of the coolest and most honest things I have ever heard any person with faith say. Bravo!
I find it a sad commentary on society that you feel that this is unusual enough to warrant attention. Wouldn't most of us leave any organisation that we had serious problems with?
the liberal church I was brought up in fits pretty closely with my prejudices
Pseudonym, that may be one of the coolest and most honest things I have ever heard any person with faith say. Bravo!
I find it a sad commentary on society that you feel that this is unusual enough to warrant attention. Wouldn't most of us leave any organisation that we had serious problems with?
Being an ex-Christian and towards the tail end I was a liberal Christian, here's my former perspective added with new things now that I think about the idea of "Liberal Christianity".
It is easy to trust your conception of what is known to be a 1st century Jew. You add in your social views that are not the same as the 1st century, things that you believe to be moral, immoral, the social norms of the society you live in etc., add in mythical beliefs towards that being be it orthodox, mainstream, or unorthodox and thus a per say "relationship" is built. It don't matter if one is a fundamentalist, moderate or liberal type of Christian. It is easy to do and thus it is easy to trust that perception simply because it makes sense to you as an individual.
One doesn't need biblical proof all the time. Am I expected to think that fundamentalist have it more right because they take a literal interpretation? How are even they 100 percent literal? Every believe applies moral relativistic views into their beliefs. Would Jesus stand for the fundamentalist agenda? I don't think so. Would Jesus stand for the liberal agenda? I don't think so. These are paradigms that, as far as I can see, were non-existant in the 1st century, and if they were in some "metaphorical" form, it would have to be a literal view of the Torah in relation to the fundamentalist, and no Christian fundamentalist takes the Torah "literal" as no liberal or moderate does.
Point being, yes, they can trust "Jesus" simply because the Jesus that modern day Christian of all systems of thought be it fundamentalist, moderate or liberal, do not and can not follow a 1st century Jew…they follow a Jesus that they created for themselves. I know this is probably tapping into the whole topic of, "Is Jesus myth?" type of stuff and its not my intention simply because I believe this is true for all types of religious figures regardless if they are a historical character or mythical character.
Being an ex-Christian and towards the tail end I was a liberal Christian, here's my former perspective added with new things now that I think about the idea of "Liberal Christianity".
It is easy to trust your conception of what is known to be a 1st century Jew. You add in your social views that are not the same as the 1st century, things that you believe to be moral, immoral, the social norms of the society you live in etc., add in mythical beliefs towards that being be it orthodox, mainstream, or unorthodox and thus a per say "relationship" is built. It don't matter if one is a fundamentalist, moderate or liberal type of Christian. It is easy to do and thus it is easy to trust that perception simply because it makes sense to you as an individual.
One doesn't need biblical proof all the time. Am I expected to think that fundamentalist have it more right because they take a literal interpretation? How are even they 100 percent literal? Every believe applies moral relativistic views into their beliefs. Would Jesus stand for the fundamentalist agenda? I don't think so. Would Jesus stand for the liberal agenda? I don't think so. These are paradigms that, as far as I can see, were non-existant in the 1st century, and if they were in some "metaphorical" form, it would have to be a literal view of the Torah in relation to the fundamentalist, and no Christian fundamentalist takes the Torah "literal" as no liberal or moderate does.
Point being, yes, they can trust "Jesus" simply because the Jesus that modern day Christian of all systems of thought be it fundamentalist, moderate or liberal, do not and can not follow a 1st century Jew…they follow a Jesus that they created for themselves. I know this is probably tapping into the whole topic of, "Is Jesus myth?" type of stuff and its not my intention simply because I believe this is true for all types of religious figures regardless if they are a historical character or mythical character.
Do liberal Christians trust God? Yes. I am a liberal Christian who trusts God. I am committed to truth and love, both of which Jesus preached.
But what to do about all those pesky sayings of Jesus that contradict what 21st Century Western thinkers decided was true?
I guess the problem is this. Either in his humanity he was ignorant, or in his divinity he knew the truth and lied. Assuming we are correct in saying that these OT stories are myths, we have to reconcile these sayings of Jesus with our beliefs about him.
My answer? Well, Jesus did not lie. He intended no deception. By calling the OT stories myths, we already acknowledge that ancient Jews were really not concerned with fact and fiction when it came to history. Rather, they wanted to demonstrate their theological point, however “primitive” we might call their means of achieving that. Jesus, born into this culture, either knowing or unknowing, spoke to the Jews of his time in terms they understood. If God descended to earth to tell them everything they knew was not factually correct, they wouldn’t even know what to do with that kind of revelation had they accepted it. They lacked the post-enlightenment obsession with facts, for one, nor would they have listened to Jesus at that point, and his teaching would be useless. God’s intention was not to teach them to discern fact from fiction, but instead love from hate, righteousness from depravity. The facts are simply one aspect of the truth. We have a hard time relating to God through the myths as they did, but us reasoning Western thinkers must glean whatever truth we can find about the nature of God through learning what these ancient documents in our Bibles were saying to the people of their times.
.-= Austin Davis’s last blog ..The Tree =-.
Do liberal Christians trust God? Yes. I am a liberal Christian who trusts God. I am committed to truth and love, both of which Jesus preached.
But what to do about all those pesky sayings of Jesus that contradict what 21st Century Western thinkers decided was true?
I guess the problem is this. Either in his humanity he was ignorant, or in his divinity he knew the truth and lied. Assuming we are correct in saying that these OT stories are myths, we have to reconcile these sayings of Jesus with our beliefs about him.
My answer? Well, Jesus did not lie. He intended no deception. By calling the OT stories myths, we already acknowledge that ancient Jews were really not concerned with fact and fiction when it came to history. Rather, they wanted to demonstrate their theological point, however “primitive” we might call their means of achieving that. Jesus, born into this culture, either knowing or unknowing, spoke to the Jews of his time in terms they understood. If God descended to earth to tell them everything they knew was not factually correct, they wouldn’t even know what to do with that kind of revelation had they accepted it. They lacked the post-enlightenment obsession with facts, for one, nor would they have listened to Jesus at that point, and his teaching would be useless. God’s intention was not to teach them to discern fact from fiction, but instead love from hate, righteousness from depravity. The facts are simply one aspect of the truth. We have a hard time relating to God through the myths as they did, but us reasoning Western thinkers must glean whatever truth we can find about the nature of God through learning what these ancient documents in our Bibles were saying to the people of their times.
.-= Austin Davis’s last blog ..The Tree =-.
This is not true I am not a Liberal Christian, but I know for a fact the Christ was the wisest man to walk on the earth He knew more than His followers, and He did everything that God told Him to do. The Bible is all true, there are no myths in it, why would God lie and make all of this stuff up? He didn’t thats why, because He is perfect, and He doesn’t sin. I will never be a Liberal Christian, I am Conservative, and I trust God with all my heart, that He will never lie, and that He sent his Son to die on the cross for my sin, that I may have eternal life with Him FOREVER!
You do realize that the existence of a historical Jesus is controversial among biblical scholars, historians, and others with a shred of intellect, right?
What? Jesus was and is the smartest person the ever walk on the face of the earth!
This is not true I am not a Liberal Christian, but I know for a fact the Christ was the wisest man to walk on the earth He knew more than His followers, and He did everything that God told Him to do. The Bible is all true, there are no myths in it, why would God lie and make all of this stuff up? He didn’t thats why, because He is perfect, and He doesn’t sin. I will never be a Liberal Christian, I am Conservative, and I trust God with all my heart, that He will never lie, and that He sent his Son to die on the cross for my sin, that I may have eternal life with Him FOREVER!
You do realize that the existence of a historical Jesus is controversial among biblical scholars, historians, and others with a shred of intellect, right?
What? Jesus was and is the smartest person the ever walk on the face of the earth!
And yet ‘he’ was both illiterate and ignorant.
Oh yeah and one more thing, He couldn’t believe in evolution, because there is no such thing, just look up Genesis 1, and Noah and Lot were real people too, Jonah lived inside a whale for three days, because He trusted that God would bring him out alive and healthy.
I don’t know how old you are, but you have been brought up wrong, but I know for a fact that I am younger than you, and I know and believe that God has brought me up the right way and they way that He wants me to be brought up.
I also have a question, do you believe in homosexuality?
I really, really like you. You truly are ‘Awesome’.
I’ll let my mother know that when she raised me as a devout Christian that she was doin’ it wrong.
To answer your question: I believe in heterosexuality, too.
Peace out!
Oh yeah and one more thing, He couldn’t believe in evolution, because there is no such thing, just look up Genesis 1, and Noah and Lot were real people too, Jonah lived inside a whale for three days, because He trusted that God would bring him out alive and healthy.
I don’t know how old you are, but you have been brought up wrong, but I know for a fact that I am younger than you, and I know and believe that God has brought me up the right way and they way that He wants me to be brought up.
I also have a question, do you believe in homosexuality?
I really, really like you. You truly are ‘Awesome’.
I’ll let my mother know that when she raised me as a devout Christian that she was doin’ it wrong.
To answer your question: I believe in heterosexuality, too.
Peace out!
You do that, and I hope and pray, that you will let God enter your life the way that He has in mine
Thank you. I’m sorry that I said that you were brought up wrong, you don’t need to tell your mother that either. You may be a Christian, but what you said about the ‘myths’ in the Bible, that is not true because the Bible is all true.
God be with you Awesome Ally
Just in case you missed it: I'm godless. An atheist. I am not a Christian anymore. There is no god.
If you are not a Christian anymore.. you never were a Christian before. If you ever believed, the faith would always be there, you could never lose it. And yes Jesus was God, the proof of design and how nature is defines this. There cannot be matter without their being matter before it, or it can can from something eternal. Even the most famed minds like Albert Einstein were amazed at the level of design in the universe. And if Jesus was God in flesh, which he was, (part of the three-fold, three in one), then science does not apply, as he created the laws of science. It is amazing how little faith people have, with all the proof of God around us, the people, nature, EXISTENCE itself.
um.. Wow..
You do that, and I hope and pray, that you will let God enter your life the way that He has in mine
Thank you. I’m sorry that I said that you were brought up wrong, you don’t need to tell your mother that either. You may be a Christian, but what you said about the ‘myths’ in the Bible, that is not true because the Bible is all true.
God be with you Awesome Ally
lol your funny, do you think today's scientists know more about life than did jesus 2000 years ago? what made you have the preassumption that scientists so called “facts” are true? and how many scientists are good with girls anyways… and tell me if your love for the opposite sex is more or less “true” than those so called “facts” that scientists blatantly “lies” about