DAVIDF: Why so bitter and angry? You make me an Aunt Sally, although you know almost nothing about my views within Christianity. I strongly reject the "Religious Right" and the narrow nastiness of some fundamentalists.

Dear Glorfindel,

I don’t think I am bitter and angry. To ask me why is a bit like, “When did you stop beating your wife?” I don’t know what an Aunt Sally is. Please tell me. I am arguing with the points you made. I am not making value judgments about your state of mind. I would appreciate similar restraint on your part.

Glorfindel wrote: You, a non-Christian, claim Spong as a Christian although he was well and truly on the outer within the (tiny) Episcopal Church in the USA. Have you actually read his autobiography, "Here I stand"? I have, cover to cover. I approved of many of his attitudes of compassion and inclusiveness, but not his appendix of Twelve Theses which junk theism and some core beliefs which most denominations consider essential to Christianity.

Dear Glorfindel,

I didn’t claim Spong as a Christian. He is a bishop in his denomination, and they have not unfrocked him. I wrote that I accept their judgment. Christianity like Judaism and other religions is not a one size fits all. Whether most denominations claim certain beliefs are essential to Christianity is not relevant if other branches do not agree. I have not read his biography but have read “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism”, “Christianity Must Change or Die”, “Sins of Scripture” and “Beyond Moralism.” “Beyond Moralism” contained much autobiographical material.

Glorfindel wrote: You say "It is the mark of a religious fanatic to claim that only his belief is truth." NO. I'm not fanatical, I don't want to burn Spong (or Mormons or JWs) at the stake.

Dear Glorfindel,

I said it was the mark of a fanatic. I still say so. We apparently define fanatic differently. One does not have to want to burn people at the stake to be a fanatic.

continued

Glorfindel, I don't think you understand Solzhenitsyn either.

Isn't it nice to be able to say that you've read him though?

Relda.
Well, yes. Robust liberalism began in the English church (I am not sure about elsewhere) partly as a response to relgious wars, burnings at the stake, persecution, and sectarian enthusiasm. Liberalism in Restoration England was a response to the extremes of high Calvinism under Cromwell. This produced the Latitudinarian Church of England,at least in the Episcopacy. Liberalism in the church occurs whenever our gaze lifts from the Lord and we pay attention to the other voices that press us with their needs. In the turn of the 17th and 18th C the need was to heal a nation torn apart by civil war and sectarian religious groups. Hence the search for a universal rational religion based on nature. In our day the other voices are still the voice of modernity that take naked rationalism as their chief method and would reduce doctrine to the lowest common denominator. As the comments in this section demonstrate, liberalism hides behind the horrors perpetrated in the name of God, that is why everyone is onside. It is also why the posts to this article are so hysterical. But one does have to look a bit deeper at what is going on. The secular still holds the horrors over our heads and would have us be deeply ashamed and to abandon the central core of the faith. To this we must not yield.

Peter Sellick

This discussion has exposed all sorts of ideas and many thanks are owed to Peter Sellick for starting it. How about this for a scenario. Under Roman Catholic allegiance, Queen Mary I a devout Roman Catholic burned numerous Protestant Christians at the stake, between 1553 and 1558, for printing the Holy Bible. The foundation of liberalism is found in the rules of the New Testament.

However Liberalism, of the capital L variety, a la political party, is a form of Roman Catholicism. It assumes, as an inviolable rule, that what Parliament says and does, is Gospel. But Liberalism also as a matter of legislation has returned Australia to the dark ages of the law. The catechisms of the New Liberal Regimes, are the Rules of Court made by the Priests of New Liberalism. To be a lawyer you must be catechized. That is you must know the Rules. Not the rules of the Gospels that Queen Mary 1 tried to stamp out, but the rules made by the State Priests appointed since Liberal Governments abolished Protestant Christianity, and appointed mini–Popes, to run the Courts of the State.

The tumultuous years between 1553 and 1640 are upon us again. Queen Mary I was followed by Elizabeth I, who restored Protestant Christianity. In 1640, the Parliament of the United Kingdom declared that any proceeding in any Court had without following the Protestant Christian Principles enshrined in the Magna Carta were void. The very essence of liberalism is grounded in a belief in a higher authority than any one man, King or commoner, and that higher authority is the Almighty God in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The judges of S 79 Constitution must be 12 liberals.

When a man oppresses you, you ought to be able to access Almighty God for a remedy. When Roman Catholic individuals were admitted to Parliaments after 1828, their allegiance remained with Rome. When lawyers were readmitted to Parliament after 1870, their allegiance was to their profession. Neither recognize the authority of the Holy Bible. That is what is wrong with Liberalism.

Peter the Believer,

Yes, the Christians burnt William Tyndale at the stake, because Tyndale translated the Bible from Latin into English. Moreover, the Christians pursued across Europe, after he fled.

Albeit, Tyndale was shown some mercy by the Christians, whom garrotted him, before throwing his dead body into the flames. His translations were later used as a basis for the King James Bible.

Aside: It is interesting, as James VI of Scotland, James sat lower than the alter in Scotland, yet, as James II, he sat above the alter in England.

Sells,

The liberal spirit goes back further than Cromwell. Liberalism was a response to Feudalism. Liberal emacipation was not only from the Chistrian church, but also from Monarchy and the divine right/rule of kings

Sells

<<Well, yes. Robust liberalism began in the English church (I am not sure about elsewhere) partly as a response to relgious wars, burnings at the stake, persecution, and sectarian enthusiasm. Liberalism in Restoration England was a response to the extremes of high Calvinism under Cromwell.>>

That sounds like a good enough reason for dumping Christianity to me Sells.

As Jesus told you, 'You are your father's sons.'