Are liberal Christians Abrahamic?

[danieldemol]

Someone proposed to me the following criteria for being 'Abrahamic'

'Whether or not you believe in the scriptures that are said to be from that God.

Whether you believe in and follow the rules set by this God.

Not every such monotheistic God is the Abrahamic one.'

So does this mean that liberal Christians and others who do not necessarily believe the texts/laws are God's inerrant word are not Abrahamic even if they may share a monotheistic creator concept as one example amongst others? Or are the criteria off? Or is there another explanation?

 

[Rival]

There is the explanation I gave you.

That not every monotheist is Abrahamic.

That's literally all I was saying.

And no, if you don't believe in anything associated with the Abrahamic God, what right have you to call yourself Abrahamic?

 

[Augustus]

So does this mean that liberal Christians and others who do not necessarily believe the texts/laws are God's inerrant word are not Abrahamic even if they may share a monotheistic creator concept as one example amongst others? Or are the criteria off? Or is there another explanation?

The idea that the Bible is 'God's inerrant word' doesn't even reflect the traditional Christian position. Those who promoted this idea were the "heretics".

 

[Rival]

The idea that the Bible is 'God's inerrant word' doesn't even reflect the traditional Christian position. Those who promoted this idea were the "heretics".

See here for context,

I have changed my mind | Religious Forums

"an intelligent force/spirit/God who has created the universe/universes"

Is not necessarily the Abrahamic God, but Daniel said it's still under the Abrahamic umbrella. I said it needn't be. There are many monotheists of this kind who are not Abrahamic. My statement quoted in the OP are criteria based on how one should divide between Abrahamic monotheism and just monotheism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Someone proposed to me the following criteria for being 'Abrahamic'

'Whether or not you believe in the scriptures that are said to be from that God.

Whether you believe in and follow the rules set by this God.

Not every such monotheistic God is the Abrahamic one.'

So does this mean that liberal Christians and others who do not necessarily believe the texts/laws are God's inerrant word are not Abrahamic even if they may share a monotheistic creator concept as one example amongst others? Or are the criteria off? Or is there another explanation?

It really, really depends on what those scriptures have to say about it. If, uh, the scriptures say that you must believe that these scriptures are inerrant and you don't then no...but that isn't what the Christian scriptures say. Therefore a liberal Christian (one who interprets scripture liberally) is a Christian, because the scripture doesn't say we cannot do so. Actually I'd argue it says the opposite.

Starting with James and the gospels then spiraling out, you've got all kinds of freedom in choosing your scripture base. Christian scripture is oozing with liberality about what is scripture and what isn't. It seems to be all about conscience. Jesus says plainly "Let your conscience be your guide" which *directly* contradicts the idea of letting scripture alone be your guide or letting a teacher of wisdom be your guide.

How about Jesus soliloquy to Nicodemus in chapter 3 of John? He says "The spirit goes where it wills. You don't know where its going or where it comes from." "Where it comes from" means he directly challenges the idea of knowing what is scripture, who is the best rabbi etc. If you don't know where the spirit comes from, then you had best be liberal about your scripture hadn't you?

 

[stvdv]

And no, if you don't believe in anything associated with the Abrahamic God,

what right have you to call yourself Abrahamic?

My right would be: "Freedom of Religion" (In Holland we have this right)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So does this mean that liberal Christians and others who do not necessarily believe the texts/laws are God's inerrant word are not Abrahamic even if they may share a monotheistic creator concept as one example amongst others? Or are the criteria off? Or is there another explanation?

In my opinion, I would not say that. Just expect to have a difficult time of it as you overlook some of the things the Bible has said regarding God, as well as things done by others in God's name.

 

[Rival]

My right would be: "Freedom of Religion" (In Holland we have this right)

They have the freedom to call themselves what they like, but how others folks view them won't be as easy.

 

[stvdv]

They have the freedom to call themselves what they like, but how others folks view them won't be as easy.

Very true

And more important is "how God views them"

I would not call myself a "Devotee of God"
One reason is that Sai Baba give 3 criteria for a Devotee

And I am still working hard to accomplish the first criteria "Think of God 24/7"

 

[sun rise]

To me being "Abrahamic" is to follow any of the western religions that reference him: Judaism, Christianity and Islam primarily. And that's all it means.

A discussion and a list of faiths with much smaller numbers of adherents is here Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia

 

[danieldemol]

There is the explanation I gave you.

That not every monotheist is Abrahamic.

That's literally all I was saying.

And no, if you don't believe in anything associated with the Abrahamic God, what right have you to call yourself Abrahamic?

As per @stvdv 's comment I'd assert you still have the right, however I don't think that the person referred to in the other thread didnt believe in anything associated with the Abrahamic God.

Being creator of the universe is associated with the Abrahamic God as is sending holy souls to intervene.

 

[stvdv]

Someone proposed to me the following criteria for being 'Abrahamic'

'Whether or not you believe in the scriptures that are said to be from that God.
Whether you believe in and follow the rules set by this God.

Not every such monotheistic God is the Abrahamic one.'

So does this mean that liberal Christians and others who do not necessarily believe the texts/laws are God's inerrant word are not Abrahamic even if they may share a monotheistic creator concept as one example amongst others? Or are the criteria off? Or is there another explanation?

Or is there another explanation?

That is entirely between the person and God alone, and none of my business what/how others believe or believe not

 

[Rival]

Being creator of the universe is associated with the Abrahamic God

No it isn't. My religion has many creator Gods. I'll name just a few,

Amun.
Ra.
Khnum.
Ptah.
Atum.
Neith.

As well as the general concepts of Deism of Theism.

There are creator Gods in Dharmic faiths.

Etc.

as is sending holy souls to intervene.

Again, not limited to Abrahamic religion. This is known elsewhere.

 

[danieldemol]

To me being "Abrahamic" is to follow any of the western religions that reference him: Judaism, Christianity and Islam primarily. And that's all it means.

A discussion and a list of faiths with much smaller numbers of adherents is here Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia

Ok but what about liberals such as liberal Christians, they may still reference Abraham as well even though they may not have strict scriptural adherence.

 

[Nakosis]

Someone proposed to me the following criteria for being 'Abrahamic'

'Whether or not you believe in the scriptures that are said to be from that God.

Whether you believe in and follow the rules set by this God.

Not every such monotheistic God is the Abrahamic one.'

So does this mean that liberal Christians and others who do not necessarily believe the texts/laws are God's inerrant word are not Abrahamic even if they may share a monotheistic creator concept as one example amongst others? Or are the criteria off? Or is there another explanation?

There's no requirement to accept any text as the inerrant word of God as far as I know. There may be other reasons to say a religion is not Abrahamic.

The Prophets of these religions, like Baha'i claim to represent the same God. Whatever prophet the belief accepts who claims to represent this same God.

Interesting division of religions.

 

[stvdv]

Ok but what about liberals such as liberal Christians, they may still reference Abraham as well even though they may not have strict scriptural adherence

Being creator of the universe is associated with the Abrahamic God as is sending holy souls to intervene

. I love that part "God sending us holy souls" ... the more the better

I think that there are not many who manage "strict scriptural adherence", as there are quite a few rules in the Scriptures (knowing all rules is already problematic, let alone following them)

BUT

In a weird way it's good we humans mess up, because, it inspires God to send us "holy souls" to inspire us again

 

[danieldemol]

No it isn't. My religion has many creator Gods. I'll name just a few,

Amun.
Ra.
Khnum.
Ptah.
Atum.
Neith.

I think we can agree that having multiple creators is not generally seen as Abrahamic

As well as the general concepts of Deism of Theism.

I think we can agree deism would not generally be seen as Abrahamic.

There are creator Gods in Dharmic faiths.

They don't generally reference Abraham, so I can see how they would not be seen as Abrahamic.

I guess if the person referred to does not consider Abraham as one of those 'holy souls' then I can see why they are not seen as Abrahamic.

 

[Rival]

I think we can agree that having multiple creators is not generally seen as Abrahamic

There aren't multiple creators.

In Ancient Egypt there wasn't just one religion; there were different theologies in different provinces. Almost each province had a creator God. Ultimately Amun became seen as the hidden, transcendent etc. creator behind the universe. One creator God.

Amun-Ra retained chief importance in the Egyptian pantheon throughout the New Kingdom (with the exception of the "Atenist heresy" under Akhenaten). Amun-Ra in this period (16th to 11th centuries BC) held the position of transcendental, self-created[2] creator deity "par excellence"; he was the champion of the poor or troubled and central to personal piety.

Amun - Wikipedia

So no, this is not an Abrahamic concept.

Are you honestly suggesting anyone who believes in a transcendent creator God is an Abrahamic?

 

[danieldemol]

There aren't multiple creators.

In Ancient Egypt there wasn't just one religion; there were different theologies in different provinces. Each province had a creator God. Ultimately Amun became seen as the hidden, transcendent etc. creator behind the universe. One creator God.

So no, this is not an Abrahamic concept.

Are you honestly suggesting anyone who believes in a transcendent creator God is an Abrahamic?

Well I was, but I see your point. Still I think if a person references Abraham they are Abrahamic, so to me it depends on whether the referred to person considers Abraham amongst the holy souls they like rather than on whether they believe in scriptures being a word for word dictation of God. So I concede there is room for them to be non-Abrahamic.

 

[Windwalker]

Someone proposed to me the following criteria for being 'Abrahamic'

'Whether or not you believe in the scriptures that are said to be from that God.

Whether you believe in and follow the rules set by this God.

Not every such monotheistic God is the Abrahamic one.'

So does this mean that liberal Christians and others who do not necessarily believe the texts/laws are God's inerrant word are not Abrahamic even if they may share a monotheistic creator concept as one example amongst others? Or are the criteria off? Or is there another explanation?

This is a good question. Liberals and progressives and modernist, postmodernist, and beyond Christians are all part of that vast tree of the Christian lineage. It is all the same shared symbolism, just understood through a different set of eyes.

Christianity has had many sets of eyes, and all of them wanting to claim absolute supremacy of view, but that's not its reality. The reality of Christianity is the multiperspectival viewpoints around a core attitude and philosophy of life and spiritual practice. From that, people create their own religious perspectives. So as part of that lineage of Faith, yes they would be included as Abrahamic as well.