Liberal Christians?

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the other problems is that most arguments FOR abortion FROM people who say they are pro-life is "If we make abortion legal, people will abort in unsafe environments and die."

But that's not a sound argument. It's true that it would happen because history says so, but we wouldn't permit killing a 3-year-old if it means easing poverty on the mother. Nor would we permit a genocide because it would curb third-world hunger.

We kill a fetus and people go crazy.

But when we send a 216 month old child of ours to fight and die in a war that is unjustified we don't bat an eye.
We don't panic if we allow a 84 month old child to have to fend for himself on a gang ridden street because the single mom is addicted to crack. We just say What a Shame, poor kid.
We call it a right of passage for a 192 month old child to go and drink with his friends then they drive home and die in a car accident. It then becomes merely tragic if you're nice about it; more often it comes with dumb kid he just thinned the herd.

Infanticide comes in all forms. I despise all of it.
 
Thankfully, science has officially recognized when life begins and has for quite awhile now. Open any bio-genesis textbook and they all say the same thing -- LIFE BEGINS AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION. From embryo to zygote to fetus, these are all defined, by science, as being a human life, albeit underdeveloped and with the highest level of dependency.

Googled bio-genesis textbook, Find no such text. Where is this from?

And all I have seen of anything biogenesis cane be summed up by this: The principle that life originates from only preexisting life and never from nonliving material.

So far the scientists are all have their own definitions. Most being life begins at 22 weeks. Where the embryo can exist if need be out of the womb. Some point at respiration, some at brain wave activity.

So there is NOT a clear definition.
 
Googled bio-genesis textbook, Find no such text. Where is this from?

And all I have seen of anything biogenesis cane be summed up by this: The principle that life originates from only preexisting life and never from nonliving material.

So far the scientists are all have their own definitions. Most being life begins at 22 weeks. Where the embryo can exist if need be out of the womb. Some point at respiration, some at brain wave activity.

So there is NOT a clear definition.
I'm en route to work, but I'll give references today. Maureen McCormick is one prominate bio-genesis who makes it very clear, but you deserve more than one reference.
 
Googled bio-genesis textbook, Find no such text. Where is this from?

And all I have seen of anything biogenesis cane be summed up by this: The principle that life originates from only preexisting life and never from nonliving material.

So far the scientists are all have their own definitions. Most being life begins at 22 weeks. Where the embryo can exist if need be out of the womb. Some point at respiration, some at brain wave activity.

So there is NOT a clear definition.

Here are some references I found in an old email of mine -- my mother's old co-worker sent these awhile ago (both are OBGYN and pro-life advocates).

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology
(7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003):
"A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

From Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55):
Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed."

From T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology (10th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, p. 11):
"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."

William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology [New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998, pp. 1, 14]: "Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization[.] … This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

The word “embryo” is defined as such (Considine, Douglas [ed.], Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, 5th edition, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943): "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. … At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune (known as the Father of Modern Genetics) told lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

The Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, made this official statement (not scientific, but despite their ruling...)
"To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

There are the only ones I had in my email. But I'm interested in seeing the statements you found when you researched.
 
So who self-defines as a liberal Christian? (I do.)

And an unrelated second question: What do you think liberal Christianity has in common with liberal politics, and what do you think conservative Christianity has in common with conservative politics?

I think as the bible says, " there is nothing new under the sun"...

For me this verse defines someone as a "liberal"..

Judges 21:25

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

For me there is a King in Israel: Jesus the Christ!

You believe He is THE way THE truth and THE life and you have a King, other wise, I think you are a liberal...

Politicaly, for me its like this for all parties today...

Once we had a King=Jesus now we are a no-christian Nation anymore...

Once Christians were the majority and gradualy we are becoming less of it, at same time I think its no too hard to see how ditiorated we became in senses...

[emoji1]
 
I think as the bible says, " there is nothing new under the sun"...

For me this verse defines someone as a "liberal"..

Judges 21:25

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

For me there is a King in Israel: Jesus the Christ!

You believe He is THE way THE truth and THE life and you have a King, other wise, I think you are a liberal...

Politicaly, for me its like this for all parties today...

Once we had a King=Jesus now we are a no-christian Nation anymore...

Once Christians were the majority and gradualy we are becoming less of it, at same time I think its no too hard to see how ditiorated we became in senses...

[emoji1]
Sooooo...you think that you cannot be a liberal Christian because you think there is no such thing?
 
The first time someone define us as Christians, thats the term they used..."Christians", not Liberal or Conservative...we invented that...How many Churches does Jesus adresses in Revalation?
 
Sooooo...you think that you cannot be a liberal Christian because you think there is no such thing?
The first time someone define us as Christians, thats the term they used..."Christians", not Liberal or Conservative...we invented that...How many Churches does Jesus adresses in Revalation?By todays standards, some of the 7 would be more conservative or liberal..Jesus adresses them as Churches not with divisions...
[emoji1]
 
Do we have the authority to define that?

I only ask because there are two definitions; 1) a Classical liberal (which is closer to what a libertarian is) and 2) a Progressive Liberal (like the president or Nancy Pelosi).

Milton Friedman considered himself a liberal (little l) but he was a classical liberal and believed in self-governing. Barack Obama considers himself a Liberal (big L) because he's a progressive.
 
In terms of Christianity I think a liberal Christian is a little more lax with things such as rules and doesn't think of things as being quite so strict. I never set out to define myself as such but I found I could not get behind all the things that went against my human rights principles - it took having a conversation with a friend who confessed to me that he was gay before I properly understood what it all meant. He wasn't a wicked, perverted, filthy sinner as some Christians would believe, he was a kind, quiet, sensitive, lonely person who could only make that special bond with someone of the same sex. And he hated himself for it. That just tore my heart out, and I have tried very hard not to judge others ever since, and certainly not to beat them up with my Bible. I do NOT think that was what Christ wanted, nor to "educate" him or convert him or change him.
 
In terms of Christianity I think a liberal Christian is a little more lax with things such as rules and doesn't think of things as being quite so strict. I never set out to define myself as such but I found I could not get behind all the things that went against my human rights principles - it took having a conversation with a friend who confessed to me that he was gay before I properly understood what it all meant. He wasn't a wicked, perverted, filthy sinner as some Christians would believe, he was a kind, quiet, sensitive, lonely person who could only make that special bond with someone of the same sex. And he hated himself for it. That just tore my heart out, and I have tried very hard not to judge others ever since, and certainly not to beat them up with my Bible. I do NOT think that was what Christ wanted, nor to "educate" him or convert him or change him.
In that sense, I'd say I'm a traditionalist, not a liberal Christian.

That said, if we're talking about homosexuality, I believe it's not a choice to be gay in that I didn't choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. I believe it's neurological, and studies have concluded it over and over that it's often due to a hormonal reaction when they were in their mothers' womb.

However, people also think this means it's ok to simply be gay and peruse relations, etc. -- it's not. A romantic relationship was intended, by God, as a man and a woman. The right thing for a gay person to do is to live a chaste life.
 
I think as the bible says, " there is nothing new under the sun"...

For me this verse defines someone as a "liberal"..

Judges 21:25

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

For me there is a King in Israel: Jesus the Christ!

You believe He is THE way THE truth and THE life and you have a King, other wise, I think you are a liberal...

Politicaly, for me its like this for all parties today...

Once we had a King=Jesus now we are a no-christian Nation anymore...

Once Christians were the majority and gradualy we are becoming less of it, at same time I think its no too hard to see how ditiorated we became in senses...

[emoji1]

When were we the majority in this world?
 
The term liberal comes from liberty.. there are two ideas of liberty? One is liberty from God and His right to be the Judge of the whole earth. The "liberty" that we have as believers is the liberty to worship our God as we choose and to be set free from the sinful lust and passions of this fallen world.
 
I do not see the US stated in the first post.

All I see is liberal christians. Not all ofus are in the states.

The US is still a majority christian in name. But it has never been in action.
 
I do not see the US stated in the first post.

All I see is liberal christians. Not all ofus are in the states.

The US is still a majority christian in name. But it has never been in action.
I dont agree.....I believe we were for quite of a long time.....but apostasy have to come...so let it come...
 
In terms of Christianity I think a liberal Christian is a little more lax with things such as rules and doesn't think of things as being quite so strict. I never set out to define myself as such but I found I could not get behind all the things that went against my human rights principles - it took having a conversation with a friend who confessed to me that he was gay before I properly understood what it all meant. He wasn't a wicked, perverted, filthy sinner as some Christians would believe, he was a kind, quiet, sensitive, lonely person who could only make that special bond with someone of the same sex. And he hated himself for it. That just tore my heart out, and I have tried very hard not to judge others ever since, and certainly not to beat them up with my Bible. I do NOT think that was what Christ wanted, nor to "educate" him or convert him or change him.
We all need to be changed from being wicked, perverted, filthy sinners. Yes, he needed changed, you needed changed and I needed changed. No matter what our innate, sinful nature has that we struggle with most, be it lying, stealing, gossiping, arrogance, sexual perversions, ... you name the abomination, we need help from the Holy Spirit to make these changes and continue to journey towards righteousness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top