Is this not the natural outgrowth of liberal "Christianity"

[BandGuy]

Dennett and LaScola made a very interesting and important observation in their research report. They acknowledged that defining an unbelieving pastor is actually quite difficult. Given the fact that so many liberal churches and denominations already believe so little, how is atheism really different? In the name of tolerance, the liberal denominations have embraced so much unbelief that atheism is a practical challenge.

In the words of Dennett and LaScola: "This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believe in God, many people could sincerely say that they don't know what they are being asked."

The Clergy Project gets to the point more concisely, defining its membership as "active and former clergy who do not hold supernatural beliefs." Nevertheless, this definition suffers from the same problem. Many liberal ministers hold to no supernatural beliefs, but they also tenaciously hold to their pulpits without admitting atheism.

The Clergy Project is a parable of our times, but it is also a pathetic portrait of the desperation of many atheist and secularist groups. They are thrilled to parade a few trophies of unbelief, but do they really believe that these examples are serving their cause? They celebrate a former Pentecostal preacher with no education, who was already a theological liberal when called to his church, and who then educated himself by reading Sagan, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Seriously?

http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=38634

 

[brianb]

If Dawkins wants them he can have them - they are certainly no help to the church. It would be better though if the liberals would just repent.

 

[rsc2a]

If Dawkins wants them he can have them - they are certainly no help to the church. It would be better though if the liberals would just repent.

It would be better if the liberals and the conservatives would just repent.

 

[brianb]

If Dawkins wants them he can have them - they are certainly no help to the church. It would be better though if the liberals would just repent.

It would be better if the liberals and the conservatives would just repent.

I
That's a whole other topic/can of worms. We need revival for sure - a national one on both sides of the border. I'm ashamed to say that my country Canada has never had a national revival such as the Great Awakenings America had. I think it is due to our slothfulness in praying and thinking we are ok.

 

[BandGuy]

If Dawkins wants them he can have them - they are certainly no help to the church. It would be better though if the liberals would just repent.

It would be better if the liberals and the conservatives would just repent.

So, do you agree that liberal theology naturally leads to atheism?

 

[rsc2a]

If Dawkins wants them he can have them - they are certainly no help to the church. It would be better though if the liberals would just repent.

It would be better if the liberals and the conservatives would just repent.

So, do you agree that liberal theology naturally leads to atheism?

Depends on how you define the term "liberal". I'd also say that the "conservative" side has its own faults that are equally damaging.

 

[BandGuy]

Do you not know what a theological liberal is?  Let's start with a very simple definition and see if you agree:

They generally tend to view that which is described as supernatural in Scripture with skepticism and tend to try and find natural explanations for it.  They do not believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

 

[brianb]

Do you not know what a theological liberal is?  Let's start with a very simple definition and see if you agree:

They generally tend to view that which is described as supernatural in Scripture with skepticism and tend to try and find natural explanations for it.  They do not believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

I was defining liberal as the article was defining it. I've never used the term liberal to mean things like using modern versions like the NIV which was put together by conservatives so it wouldn't accurate to call it liberal any ways.

 

[brianb]

If Dawkins wants them he can have them - they are certainly no help to the church. It would be better though if the liberals would just repent.

It would be better if the liberals and the conservatives would just repent.

So, do you agree that liberal theology naturally leads to atheism?

I've believed that for a long time although liberal theology by itself doesn't lead to atheism. Other factors must be involved such as so-called rationalism. There are still liberals that believe in and "worship" God as is evident in old liberal churches that are still around. The liberal churches such as in the United Church of Canada have been losing large numbers of people for years and probably a large number of these people are atheists unless they are going to churches that preach the truth. The United Church however accepts atheists as members - it's a real mess. It didn't start out that way though. The United Church began as a gospel preaching church in Canada.

 

[Izdaari]

Do you not know what a theological liberal is?  Let's start with a very simple definition and see if you agree:

They generally tend to view that which is described as supernatural in Scripture with skepticism and tend to try and find natural explanations for it.  They do not believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

By that definition, I am no liberal. I believe the miracles in the Bible are genuine supernatural phenomena, caused by God. I also believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, though you'd probably think my interpretation of that was liberal.

 

[Izdaari]

If Dawkins wants them he can have them - they are certainly no help to the church. It would be better though if the liberals would just repent.

It would be better if the liberals and the conservatives would just repent.

So, do you agree that liberal theology naturally leads to atheism?

It certainly can, if taken too far. Just as conservative theology, taken to extremes, can be the ditch on the other side of the road. Better to drive down the middle, and not into either ditch.

 

[rsc2a]

Do you not know what a theological liberal is?  Let's start with a very simple definition and see if you agree:

They generally tend to view that which is described as supernatural in Scripture with skepticism and tend to try and find natural explanations for it.  They do not believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

By that definition, I am no liberal. I believe the miracles in the Bible are genuine supernatural phenomena, caused by God. I also believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, though you'd probably think my interpretation of that was liberal.

^^ This.

 

[rsc2a]

Do you not know what a theological liberal is?  Let's start with a very simple definition and see if you agree:

They generally tend to view that which is described as supernatural in Scripture with skepticism and tend to try and find natural explanations for it.  They do not believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

I'd also point out that those two ideas (sentences) are not interdependent even if there might be evidence for correlation.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=brianb]I've believed that for a long time although liberal theology by itself doesn't lead to atheism. Other factors must be involved such as so-called rationalism...[/quote]

Actually, what he has described isn't "liberalism" at all. It's naturalism. It appears like he is confusing political and/or social philosophies with scientific philosophies and calling them equal (not to say that they cannot influence one another).

 

[BandGuy]

Nope.  Actually, what I am describing is theological liberalism.  There was actually nothing political or social in my definitions.  It was doctrinal on both counts.  Here is more about theological liberalism:

http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism

Izdaari,

When you say that you believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, what is your interpretation of that which you believe I would disagree with?  Personally, I hold mainly to the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy as stated and explained here:  http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

 

[BandGuy]

Here is an even more simple statement of what I believe theological liberalism is:

A rebellious, sinful human being who doesn't want to be told that something is wrong and therefore have to change their life, reads the Bible, doesn't like what it says, and spends their entire life trying to reinterpret or explain away the Bible to where it fits their sin and rebellion.  I think that works for me.  Bottom line, Liberal religion is a dead religion with no Scriptural support and no power to change lives or to save from sin.  The only thing it does is support heresy and a life of outright rebellion to God and His Word and leads its followers to Hell.

 

[BandGuy]

Here is an even more concise explanation of theological liberalism:

3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound[a] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

 

[rsc2a]

Nope.  Actually, what I am describing is theological liberalism.  There was actually nothing political or social in my definitions.  It was doctrinal on both counts.  Here is more about theological liberalism:

http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism

Might want to try a less biased article for your definition. 

 

[rsc2a]

Here is an even more simple statement of what I believe theological liberalism is:

A rebellious, sinful human being who doesn't want to be told that something is wrong and therefore have to change their life, reads the Bible, doesn't like what it says, and spends their entire life trying to reinterpret or explain away the Bible to where it fits their sin and rebellion. I think that works for me.

Funny...I heard the same message Sunday at an extremely conservative church.

[quote author=BandGuy]Bottom line, Liberal religion is a dead religion with no Scriptural support and no power to change lives or to save from sin.  The only thing it does is support heresy and a life of outright rebellion to God and His Word and leads its followers to Hell.[/quote]

What you are arguing against here wouldn't even be remotely limited to "liberal religion".

 

[BandGuy]

Here is an even more simple statement of what I believe theological liberalism is:

A rebellious, sinful human being who doesn't want to be told that something is wrong and therefore have to change their life, reads the Bible, doesn't like what it says, and spends their entire life trying to reinterpret or explain away the Bible to where it fits their sin and rebellion. I think that works for me.

Funny...I heard the same message Sunday at an extremely conservative church.

Did you listen to them and take heed of it, or find yourself someone else to tell you what you wished to have heard?

[quote author=BandGuy]Bottom line, Liberal religion is a dead religion with no Scriptural support and no power to change lives or to save from sin.  The only thing it does is support heresy and a life of outright rebellion to God and His Word and leads its followers to Hell.

What you are arguing against here wouldn't even be remotely limited to "liberal religion".
[/quote]

I never said it would.  It is, however, the hallmark of liberal theology.  Nice attempt at a dodge, though.  Are you a theological liberal or is there another reason you keep trying to redirect the focus of this thread to attacking conservatives?  Perhaps, if you would like to attack conservative theology, you should start another thread and I might interact with you on that subject, and even agree on some issues.  The bottom line is, when the atheists in the original post on page one of this thread can't tell the difference between a theological liberal and an atheist, it ought to cause us to stop and reflect on whether or not liberal theology is nothing more than a lie from the pit of Hell designed to deceive its followers into following a dead religion and feeling good about themselves.  It is not a major surprise to me that the so called pastors who are becoming atheists and joining this attack on Christianity come from liberal denominational backgrounds.