[The Republican Party]

How do "Conservative Christians" (Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, TV evangelists, etc.) and the "liberal Christians" (Quakers) share such conflictual views from the same source? They merely pick different parts of the bible to emphasize.

From what I see, I believe conservative Christians take the whole text, Old Testament and New Testament, as a historical account, and seem to believe in the literal existance of God. The emphasis of these Christians is to avoid punishment by God, therefore they directly follow things God says on homosexuality and different reasons for which they can go to Hell. These Christians have less of an stress on forgiveness and more on justice. Morals such as loyalty, hard work, and a duty to spread the word and convert new Christians are much more important in these versions of Christianity.

Liberal Christians seem to ignore all of the Old Testament and the later parts of the New Testament and focus only on the gospels. Their emphasis is on trying to live like Jesus did, peaceful and forgiving, but many that I have met do not sound like they actually believe that Jesus existed. These Christians seem to see the life of Jesus as a guide, but not an event. They tend not to spread the Word, hence their numbers grow much slower than the evangelists.

Which do you agree with? Personally, I don't understand why the liberal Christians even call themselves Christian if they don't believe in the events of the bible.

[enLight]

I think that you point out the difference between liberal and conservative Christains very well. The difference is also noted in church reforms/conflicts - as we witnessed in the Episcopalian church not too long ago.

The cause comes from this: In the Old Testement, God is protrayed as a violent being who actively punishes wrong-doers and dishes out justice and punishment wherever it is due. In the New Testement, the protrayal od God changes. There are almost no references to this violent, punishing God. The New Testement God is portrayed as loving and forgiving.

So you are right in the sense that different religions chose which aspect of God in the Bible to focus on. However, I would say that Liberal Christains do believe in the Bible to an extent, but regard many of the miracles as tall tales or metaphors.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I think you oversimplify the issue to the extent of distorting it greatly.

You almost get it. The difference is in the *way* you interpret the Bible. But your comparitive analysis of this *way* is a bit warped.

From what I see, I believe conservative Christians take the whole text, Old Testament and New Testament, as a historical account, and seem to believe in the literal existance of God.

- You should say that conservatives adopt a "literalist" framework of interpretation. Namely, they often believe that all sections of the Bible can be read completely literally. They believe the length of the ark, the sun standing still, the existence of the Garden of Eden etc. They, of course, believe in the "literal existence of God", but so do ALL theists.

Liberal Christians seem to ignore all of the Old Testament and the later parts of the New Testament and focus only on the gospels. Their emphasis is on trying to live like Jesus did, peaceful and forgiving, but many that I have met do not sound like they actually believe that Jesus existed. These Christians seem to see the life of Jesus as a guide, but not an event. They tend not to spread the Word, hence their numbers grow much slower than the evangelists.

- "Liberal" Christians emphasise the Bible as a source to be interpreted through hermeneutical principles. They recognise that the Bible was historically derived from multiple sources. They recognise that the work was divinely inspired, but this does not mean it is "error-free" in the modern conception of the term. They recognise there is a evolutionary gulf between Mosaic law and Jesus' teachings -- that while there is a link, there are great differences. They do not *ignore* other sections of the Bible, but recognise Jesus' teachings as pre-eminent. These 'liberals' are often highly evangelical, incidentally.

Now, there are more non-Christian groups. There are those non-Christians who believe that there is much to be learned from Jesus' ethical system, and those that adopt Judaeo-Christian ethics without recognising Jesus' divinity. This thought is present in many heresies such as Arianism.

So, I reject outright your suggestion that "liberal Christians don't believe in the events of the Bible".

[clownboy]

This may help you to understand. Think of it like a close-knit family. Each of the family members disagrees over the actual details of how the family should be run, but when the family unit is threatened from outside, those details become unimportant.

The important unifying principle is belief in God and Christ (you WERE talking about christians here).

Another example would be Al Queda. A loose organization of groups with disparate goals, but organized around a unifying principle.