Why Are Liberal Christians Liberal? Re:
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- There have been many recent controversies about Christianity's alleged fault in the rise of liberalism and progressivism in the west. @AcademicAgent is one such figure that has made such criticisms. But, there is a question which must be settled first, what precisely is the origin of liberal Christianity? Is it just the newest Christian denomination or something qualitatively new?
/ settlerslament
www.youtube.co...
/ discord
teespring.com/...
www.subscribes...
/ settlerslament
#AcademicAgent #politics #christian
Strauss as a Christian makes about as much sense as a Vegetarian Steakhouse.
Heresy must be crushed.
Look no further than your "vicar of christ" bend and kiss his ruby clad rings. The pope and catholic church is on the wrong side of the culture war. I believe in not so long a time YOU and all traditional conservative catholics will be outed as heretics from the catholic church. And you will PROTEST against this excommunication. You will yell about the unbiblical teaching handed down by the pope.. It all seems like a very familiar cycle doesn't it?
With a smirking face, irony will rebuke. You to will be a "Martin Luther".
Un-ironically
Purge the heretic!
"Evil" cannot be destroyed.
Another reason why it would be unwise to take a Catholic vs. Protestant tack on this issue is that Catholic liberals are just as bad. Of course, just like right-wing Protestants will correctly say "liberal Protestants are not Christians," right-wing Catholics will say "liberal Catholics reject the teachings of the church and are not Catholic." But they have the major disadvantage of the fact that right-wing Protestants rarely share membership rolls with Protestant heretics, while Catholics have to bear the shame of James Martin and the German Catholic bishops still being in communion with them, and no excommunication decrees from Francis seem likely.
One cannot be Liberal AND Catholic. As they oppose each other.
One must choose either liberal or Catholic. To combine the two is to be bipolar.
If one is liberal and a Catholic then they are just a liberal protestant. And the title of Catholic is for being trendy.
Like Joe Biden.
He says he's Catholic which he isn't. He's a Protestant. He acts like one and thinks like one.
After all Liberalism is a Sin.
Protestants can be liberal because they are heretics as it is. Which they really are Anglo Saxon pagans deep down. I mean, Martin Luther blamed God when he had sex with a nun. And Protestants blamed alcohol because their women were loose.
The problem is the CDF has actually reiterated that many of the things these liberal Catholics have said are indeed heretical. It is a problem of discipline whereas contemporary low church American protestantism is not only dissimilar from Catholicism but from their own protestant forefathers. Also, historically protestants recognized the need to have their views represented and passed down in a tradition, though they often eschewed that term, from the early Church thus their belief in a kind of accretionism and successionism. Those aforementioned American low church protestants, and their descendants through cultural interactions and missionary work, think it's perfectly fine to flip to some random verse and use it as a proof text in a way that has never been done before for whatever you want, because sola scriptura. So they have literally no authority against liberal protestants. If a liberal protestant says, well that's how the rule was for ancient peoples, but in the modern day things are applied differently, what can they really say besides appealing to their tradition that they refuse to recognize is a tradition to spite Catholics.
That’s because all Popes since the passing of Pius XII in 1958 have been Freemason modernists and heretics.
I will say this. I’m a member of the ELCA and our church denomination is the biggest Protestant church in North and South Dakota, 2 extremely conservative states. Many of those “liberal” denominations are as diverse as the Roman church in their theology.
Yes, all my loyal minions rejoice at the presence of a new Settler's Lament video.
I see us as fish out of water gasping for water-oxygen and this video was a splash on us.
Are you still alive?
AA is such a reddit atheist lmfao
UK Millennials man lol
Solid video.
Thanks
IvanTheHeathen has a great series of videos where he discusses Michael Gillespie's book "The Theological Origins of Modernity". He argues convincingly that certain philosophic debates around nominalism and antinomianism during the Scholastic period were crucial in the development of Protestantism and ultimately why someone like Strauss could consider his views an acceptable development of Christianity.
Technically, the Bible is inerrant, not infallible.
Infallibly applies to persons (The Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Magisterium, or the Sensus Fidelium). Inerrancy applies to texts (Scripture, Canons of Ecumenical Councils, or Ex Cathedra Proclamations).
Basically the same thing, as in both infallibility and inerrancy refer to the inability of containing falsehoods, but there is still a semantic difference.
Sorry to nitpick.
Very fair video; your analysis here is definitely true!
Thanks
Christianity is a hobby for many therefore LGBTQ Christianity exists
This is just like when Sneed feed and chuck
It's quite simple: liberal is when bogus oreo and conservative is when cigar
First-ish and only 25 minutes late, I reckon it has to do with a perception of Christianity as supporting the weak but then it is taken to extremes.
Second ;)
@@LiquidSwan third
There are plenty of people who think they're christen but are just people who prevert the bible for their own needs. Most protestants I know including myself don't believe in the absolute ridiculousness these "christians" spout.
great video, but ironic at the end since the current Pope holds the same views on scripture as the liberal "Christians"
It's all very cyclical isn't it? The entire conservative catholic movement will be deemed as hectics themselves by the pope. Without knowing it, they will all be "Martin Luther"
He doesn't at all. He is misrepresented in the media and by those conservatives with Francis derangement syndrome. You will never hear a liberal "Christian" say homosexuality is inherently disordered and homosexual behavior is sinful, yet Francis says this regularly. He also reiterates the Catholic view on marriage and against things like materialism and consumerism.
@@TheThreatenedSwan you are delusional if you think Francis doesn't peddle a liberal theology
@@TheThreatenedSwan He says things against homosexuality, yes. But some of his actions speak otherwise.
@@tballs7619 He is quite liberal, but he is still more conservative than 99% of western politicians and protestant organizations with more than a few million followers.
Finally, a new video :)))
Great video
Isn't it unfair to claim Strauss is presupposing that secularism is right but for you and many Christians to presuppose God and Christianity (and few of its many sects) are also right?
For a tad bit of context I am an agnostic. I do not hate Christianity. I think its a beautiful religion in many ways. I think its a good religion for the west and I defend it even among more agnostic atheists and nu wave neo pagans I encounter.
But that being said from a reasonable standpoint Christians always start from this view. When asked for evidence they have none physically to give. Usually resorting to faith, the Bible, 'miracles', or arguing that God is there but he has no reason to show himself. I do believe Jesus existed. I went to Sunday school, raised catholic. I have read part of a King James Bible. I have read part of some Christian scholars such as Augustine of Hippo.
This is not meant to disparage you. But simply to ask how you expect people who are not religious to believe without more evidence. It seems all the cool crap God did in the Bible like leveling Sodom or doing the Flood always happens in the past with no cameras and not now where we could all see and have no doubts. Call it an atheist talking point but its not a bad one. I am not making the argument God can't exist because the world is cruel. I don't think other religions are any more right. Whether it be the pagans, Muslims, Jews, various natives or Asians myths.
But in what way do you know aside from subjective anecdotes and experiences that He exists and that your sect of Christianity is right?
Genuinely, help me to understand. I have contemplated going back to being a Christian but it seems like a tall order sometimes. I don't agree with some of the teachings and find the supernatural aspects to be harder to believe. But I won't throw the metaphorical baby out with the bath water as Christianity has a lot to offer.
I know this won't completely answer your question but here are some of the reasons I'm a Christian 1) The concept of humans having a sinful nature- Not all religions teach this, but Christianity does. It makes a lot of sense when I examine my own thoughts and motivations, and observe other people and think about the problems in the world. 2) The Bible seems to be correct on sexual immorality- if people kept sex within a faithful, lifelong marriage instead of having hookups, then we could probably eliminate STIs, the amount of unplanned pregnancies and abortions would decrease, etc. 3) God in the Bible is counter-intuitive- other religions are somewhat more human-centered- do good works to reach God and be saved. But in Christianity, God reached down to us to save us, and we can't save ourselves by good works alone. In other religions, marriage exists in heaven, and heaven is a place that's filled with physical pleasure, while Jesus in the Bible said there's no marriage in heaven, etc.
Christian Nationalist .... Is that someone who desires that the obligations of believers and the church should be carried out by the state?
It's simply someone that advocates for the fusion of Christian doctrine and ethnic tribalism within a state, I. E., a national church. Critics of this ideology usually come from universalist absolutist circles (like liberal "Christians"), leftists groups that pretend to know the Bible better than them and of course neopagans that interpret the NT as promoting anti-nationalism and open borders.
What these aforementioned fools don't get is, that no Christian before the advent of 19th century marxism interpreted it that way.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard - And they all forget that the sword was only given for one purpose.
Ban all sin
Sounds like you want to create the "utopian dream" and establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. Just like the the jews..
So true, yet liberals fear this.
@@tballs7619
Thats me all right!
@@resvero8342 I can smell your Catholicism.
@Res Vero Go, go and align yourself with the jews. They also believe self righteousness will bring about a Earthly kingdom and reward. Or go join a Amish commune where the black spirit of self righteousness sifts souls as wheat.
I myself will hold to the belief that we are ALL tarnished and sin will be with us all until death regardless of wether or not we live in a commune or we "ban sin" (not even possible) The only one able to defeat sin, death and the Devil is Jesus Christ OUR SAVIOR.
This video is good. I appreciate your content.
You need to get a pop filter by the way. It'll increase your audio quality.
Submit to the Pontiff? He is as woke as it is possible to be. He literally gets down on his hands and knees and whimpers at, begs and kisses the bare feet of Blacks who hate and despise us. In fact the Pope looks down upon, sneers at and hates and despises us as well. What are you saying!? I am aghast at what has happened to Christianity. But we have to face facts. The Church in Rome as well as every Christian Church has fallen. None were strong enough to defend us from the Left. Nor even strong enough to defend themselves from being completely taken over, subverted and now used against us. These are indisputable facts.
And „God save the king“? He and his mother before him were and remain a representative part of all the filth that is against us.
Having a bad pope doesn't mean that the Church has fallen.
@@gch8810 yes I understand what you mean. However he was elected by the College of Cardinals. And they knew exactly what he was when they elected him. I am Catholic. I attended 12 years of Catholic school graduating from a prestigious all boy Catholic High School. I have 2 cousins that are Catholic priests and various other relatives who have since passed on who were Catholic clergy as well. The two I mentioned are still active. One of them is an out in the open Communist. He is all about redistribution of wealth, confiscation of property, jailing anyone to the Right of Hilary and everything else Hard Left. It is useless to talk to him. I tried a few years ago to reason with him and 3 of his friends who also are Catholic priests. I very respectfully made my points. As you can imagine since I am just a regular guy trying to be respectful in front of several priests. After a while there was nothing more they could do in the face of truth and logic. And they began trying to smear me with mud and insults. The other cousin of whom I speak is more in line with one you might find in these circles. He is completely alone in these matters among his clergy peers. He is actually much older than I in that he is my Father’s cousin. He and I have had many wonderful conversations over the years regarding this topic and many others. He is as troubled and broken heated over this as I am. I assure you the vast majority of bishops, Cardinals and priests are with the enemy. Somewhere along the way the Church and Christianity were hollowed out from within and the ugly entity is inside wearing its skin. Here are a just a few stats. More than 500 Christian Churches in recent years have closed their doors forever in London alone. Thousands more all across Europe and North America. Look up the results of the Continental Episcopal Synod conducted by John Paul in the Late 1990’s You can readily find this information and countless more of it on line. Look up abandoned churches in Europe. That we have a bad Pope is not the real problem. The real problem is that he is but just 1 of the innumerable symptoms of a dying and dead Church. I assure you the Church indeed all of the Christian Churches have fallen. We are now living in the afterglow of Christianity. Whether it can recover in the centuries to come remains to be seen. I pray for it but it absolutely does not look good. Thank you for your comment, at least I know I am not alone and God Bless You.
@@daqt6079 Agaim, the Church has not died. It is in a serious crisis. The Church cannot die, for Christ makes this clear in the Bible.
@@daqt6079 Please put paragraphs in your wall of text.
@@1685Violin okay.
Pray for the pope
Don't you just love an argument which starts by assuming their exegesis is inerrant?
Very well put together. Do you suppose there are any views within the church that come from right-wing thought rather than from Scripture? The only example I can think of is a conservative eisegesis of the old testament and claiming the Messiah is still to come. Of course, that's a stretch, and it's much easier to chalk it up to denying revelation and actual historical facts.
Yes I think there are many examples of that. I believe economics is one very common example of this where conservative Christians will equate their centre-right liberal economic views as 'the Christian view' and believe you have to hold their economic views to be a good Christian.
I think some of the thoughts on race fall into this sphere, even if they are consistent with Christian morality. A White father rejecting a potential Black son is His prerogative, but not because God wants to preserve the races, but because the father has authority over his daughter. This is not saying that the converse is Godly, it is just recognizing where the authority is held.
Could you both expand on this? What is this "conservative eisegesis"?
@@Harlequin619 reading conservatism into the Bible because you're conservative, not because the Bible is conservative. The exact opposite of what liberal Christians do.
@@SettlersLament It would be better if they had an understanding of what is prudential vs what is strictly prohibited due to inherently being sinful. Surely some taxes could be considered theft, but there is a wide latitude on the percent that a state could levy. The other thing is protestants don't differentiate between or even have much of an understanding between the literal vs spiritual interpretation of scripture.
Strauss's argument against miracles, isn't an argument against God. It's an argument that miracles are against God's will, therefore, cannot happen. God is the perfect creator.
The correct argument that should be argued is: what is the intent of God's creation?
Life, it should be obvious.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard yeah
Good video
Submit to Bergoglio?! No, I don’t think so…
1. The Bible isn’t 1 thing; Scripture, witness testimony, history, parables, and even editorials just to name a few.
2. Exactly what verse tells women not to lay with other women like they would a man? (Sodomy is forbidden but not lesbianism.)
3. All knowledge can be utilized to inform Biblical interpretation. (For example, my understanding of the parable of the Midas was greatly improved by my understanding of economics.)
4. What? No. There’s always 3, any more is just piling on.
Christ is among us!
1. You are correct in the sense that the Bible is not one genre, though I am unsure what exactly you mean by the wording of this point. Having multiple genres does not mean that there is not a unity to the Bible. There is some room for different views among Catholic as to details of inspiration, but what is common among the views is that the Bible has both God and the inspired men as its authors. Having God as its author is what gives it its unity and ensures its inerrancy, while the inspired men influenced it through things such as their literary styles. Dei Verbum 11 and 12 (when read in their entirety and not an isolated paragraph) give a good, fuller description of this.
2. For the sake of this argument, let us say that it is not there. We have been made with reason and conscience to work these things out. The Bible does not explicitly say not to do many things that are sinful (e.g., racist actions). As a Catholic, I will affirm that, starting with what we know from Scripture and the natural law, we can arrive at the conclusion that any sexual act that is outside of marriage and/or not open to procreation is sinful. If one wants to avoid using so much reason, we have tradition that we can simply look to to affirm it.
3. This gets into the presuppositions one approaches the Bible with. There is certainly a sense in which one may find a subjective message which is separate from the objective interpretation (e.g., I might turn to a passage in Kings describing something in the life of Elijah which helps me with something in my life at the moment), but that does not mean the objective interpretation is not there. This is where those "m" and "t" words (magisterium and Tradition) become important.
I pray this may (through the grace of God) be edifying.
@Three Emperors So none of the 613 commandments.
What editorials? Claims that the Bible has been rewritten come from its enemies, that they have never proven. Except things like the Junia/Junias controversy, which was more a mistranslation rather than intentional deception.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard All of Paul’s (et al) letters are editorials, that is to say, his (their) opinion.
"Sodomy is forbidden but not lesbianism"
_nice_
Furthermore, gay churches could be considered, in a way, a mircacle. As in it's something that shouldn't happen, but happened anyways. Is this God's intended creation? If not: then is God not the perfect creator?
And I'll reiterate a previous question here: what is the purpose of God's creations?
"If God good, why bad thing happen?"
Get new material, anti-th*ist!
@@Michael_the_Drunkard I think you've replied to the wrong comment.