Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[Contarini]

Edwin,

In marriage two become one, what they do is the action as a one. The particulars are what it is made up of.

In same sex relationships they cannot become one, what they do as actions is not as one and is seen as such. The particulars are relevant as to to what it is made up of.

In the first case it is a proper marriage, one acting illegally…these actions are viewed first by me and seen in particular as a proper marriage.

In the second case it is not a proper marriage and what is done is relevant to what it is made up of in particular as it the cause of my seeing and understanding that this is not a proper marriage regardless of what comes of it.

Ok…

Coptic,

You still seem to be missing the fact that I’m drawing an analogy not between same-sex relationships and marriage but between same-sex relationships and nonsexual friendship. Obviously many of the virtues of friendship are also those of marriage. But no relationship between two persons of the same sex can possibly exhibit the goods that are genuinely particular to marriage (as distinct from friendship). The point I’m making is that such relationships, even when they include an element of disordered sexuality, nonetheless include many of the goods of friendship. These are the goods that liberal Christians tend to value in any relationship–in other words, they have little regard for those qualities that genuinely distinguish marriage from friendship. (The fact that our culture has a radically impoverished understanding of friendship, while exalting the friendship-like aspects of marriage, is part of the problem with the whole debate.)

And yet again, the larger point I’m arguing here is that liberal Christians have norms other than “tolerance” by which they judge moral issues related to sexual relationships.

I think I’ve established this quite solidly, and folks are simply trying to evade the point or declare it irrelevant.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Catholic Church does not argue against friendship, Contarini, including the friendship between members of the same sex, including friendship between close or distant relatives, including friendship between clergy members and lay members. Friendship, by itself, is virtuous and produces virtue.

But friendship sexualized, when it doesn’t belong to the male-female marital model, is something else entirely. We don’t give friendship institutional blessings, or declare that any inappropriate sexual dimension to it is sanctified or sanctifiable, because of whatever benefits the friendship provides. Friendship does not order a disordered relationship.

 

[Publisher]

Coptic,

You still seem to be missing the fact that I’m drawing an analogy not between same-sex relationships and marriage but between same-sex relationships and nonsexual friendship. Obviously many of the virtues of friendship are also those of marriage. But no relationship between two persons of the same sex can possibly exhibit the goods that are genuinely particular to marriage (as distinct from friendship). The point I’m making is that such relationships, even when they include an element of disordered sexuality, nonetheless include many of the goods of friendship. These are the goods that liberal Christians tend to value in any relationship–in other words, they have little regard for those qualities that genuinely distinguish marriage from friendship. (The fact that our culture has a radically impoverished understanding of friendship, while exalting the friendship-like aspects of marriage, is part of the problem with the whole debate.)

And yet again, the larger point I’m arguing here is that liberal Christians have norms other than “tolerance” by which they judge moral issues related to sexual relationships.

I think I’ve established this quite solidly, and folks are simply trying to evade the point or declare it irrelevant.

This goes part and parcel with much that is stated here…“don’t allow ANY thought or idea that gay relationships are other than disordered.”

It’s what separates so many GLBTQ people from Christianity…while it may not be motiveated by hate and bigotry…it sure sounds like it is.

When two people of the same sex have loving and caring relationship that exhibits in so many ways “selflessness”…they are told…“Gay people cannot have a loving relationship…gays cannot love…because there’s nothing “loving” with gay relationships.”

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church does not argue against friendship, Contarini, including the friendship between members of the same sex, including friendship between close or distant relatives, including friendship between clergy members and lay members. Friendship, by itself, is virtuous and produces virtue.

But friendship sexualized, when it doesn’t belong to the male-female marital model, is something else entirely. We don’t give friendship institutional blessings, or declare that any inappropriate sexual dimension to it is sanctified or sanctifiable, because of whatever benefits the friendship provides. Friendship does not order a disordered relationship.

And I’m not saying that it does.

Again, please bear in mind that this was originally a debate over whether Episcopalians have norms other than tolerance. When I named “fidelity” as one such norm, you responded that “fidelity” in a disordered sexual relationship is simply a succession of sinful acts.

By bringing in the analogy with nonsexual friendship, I’m pointing out that the fidelity liberal Episcopalians value is not simply a succession of sinful acts. I’ve earlier given a lot of specific examples: care for the other person in sickness, etc.

That is the thread of my argument. Contrary to your unjust accusation, I have never lost track of it. But you appear to have done so, several times.

Edwin

 

[Elizabeth502]

When I named “fidelity” as one such norm, you responded that “fidelity” in a disordered sexual relationship is simply a succession of sinful acts.

No. Again, Edwin, at least 3 others have noticed that you have difficulty separating your own arguments from the arguments of others.

You contextualized fidelity within a disordered sexual relationship, suggesting that the fidelity itself somehow transforms an otherwise disordered relationship into an ordered one. It never would, in Roman Catholic theology, regardless of how you believe it could in Episcopalian theology.

Fidelity within a friendship is laudable. However, it does not elevate the relationship as a whole if the relationship is essentially disordered. So bringing in “fidelity” in the context of a homosexual relationship is irrelevant to the immorality of the relationship as a whole.

It would be as if an adult incestor rationalized his sexualized relationship as sort of OK, or having virtuous dimensions to it, because of his tenderness toward the object of his incest. His relationship with his relative is disordered, period. He doesn’t get a pass on virtue because he’s a nice guy. He is always redeemable, ultimately. We all are, despite our grave sins. And the relationship, with extreme and prolonged therapeutic intervention, may itself also be redeemable, when restored to normalcy. But until then, it is a toxic relationship at its core.

 

[Contarini]

You contextualized fidelity within a disordered sexual relationship, suggesting that the fidelity itself somehow transforms an otherwise disordered relationship into an ordered one.

No. I never suggested this in any way.

The level of slander and misrepresentation on this thread has become toxic.

Again, you are the one who lost track of my argument.

I have summarized my argument in my previous post.

If you really are so invested in proving your accusation against me, show me the post in which I have made any statement that did not fit the argument I’ve outlined.

I do lose track of my argument sometimes, because I wander down rabbit trails.

But in this case I do not believe I have done so. I have, however, frequently been frustrated by the fact that you and others who are arguing with me insist on portraying me as defending the legitimacy of sexual relationships between members of the same sex, even though I have said over and over that I am doing no such thing.

To repeat yet again: what I am arguing is that when Episcopalians value fidelity in homosexual relationships, and when they claim to seek God’s intentions for their bodily desires, these are meaningful norms that are not reducible to some sort of corrupted postmodern notion of “tolerance” (though this false notion of tolerance is certainly present as well and distorts the liberal understanding of sexuality).

Edwin

 

[jam070406]

No. I never suggested this in any way.

The level of slander and misrepresentation on this thread has become toxic.

Again, you are the one who lost track of my argument.

I have summarized my argument in my previous post.

If you really are so invested in proving your accusation against me, show me the post in which I have made any statement that did not fit the argument I’ve outlined.

I do lose track of my argument sometimes, because I wander down rabbit trails.

But in this case I do not believe I have done so. I have, however, frequently been frustrated by the fact that you and others who are arguing with me insist on portraying me as defending the legitimacy of sexual relationships between members of the same sex, even though I have said over and over that I am doing no such thing.

To repeat yet again: what I am arguing is that when Episcopalians value fidelity in homosexual relationships, and when they claim to seek God’s intentions for their bodily desires, these are meaningful norms that are not reducible to some sort of corrupted postmodern notion of “tolerance” (though this false notion of tolerance is certainly present as well and distorts the liberal understanding of sexuality).

Edwin

It’d be more profitable for souls if they valued fidelity to God’s moral order.

 

[CMatt25]

My belief is based on the words in the Bible. Do you believe in Christ’s teachings and his directives and his proclamations or not? Maybe you are among the “Jesus Project” folks who went through the Bible and decided that much of what is attributed to Jesus was made up by writers centuries later?

I keep responding to you CMatt although you are doing your best to avoid answering any questions. I’ve told you that I base my faith on Scripture and 2000 years of tradition, intellectual inquiry and faithful adherence to the Word of God.

What do you base your “liberal” Chrisitanity upon CMatt? You keep saying liberals “believe something different” (that’s pretty obvious with the support of abortion, gay marriage, belief in big government programs to address society’s ills). The question CMatt is WHY do you have such beliefs? There seems to be no basis other than “we interpret the Bible differently.” IOW the Bible says what I think it says.

Is that your standard? That’s what I do not understand about liberal Christianity because it seems to ignore many of the foundational teachings: respect for human life, love as defined by the willingness to lay down one’s life, i.e. self sacrificial, focus on the Kingdom of Heaven, not what we may desire at this moment.

Help me out here CMatt. I’m trying to understand your thought process.

Lisa

Lisa, you first state I avoid answering and then you say I “keep saying”. Just because you don’t like or agree with my answers or what I am saying does not mean I have avoided. But anyway…

Yes I believe in Christ’s teachings. But I don’t believe in taking every word in the Bible literally. By reading the words, I used to believe in a Creation of 6 - 24 hr days. With the evening and the morning (24 hrs) being one of the 6 days of Creation. But as my faith and understanding grew, I no longer believed those words of Scripture in a literal sense. I do not believe Creation began and ended with man being created all within 144 hours. I have never believed women should be silent in churches. There are a whole host of things I don’t take literally.

And though I no longer struggle with possibly being bound by CCC after learning on CAF I am not a Catholic, why I have my beliefs and their basis can actually be summed up from parts of your catechism, 1776, 1782, and 1790.

Deep within my conscience I discover what I must obey. Called foremost to love and to do good. It is there in my most secret core and sanctuary where I am alone with God Whose voice echos within its depths. Where I have the freedom to make moral decisions and must not act against my conscience especially in religious matters. If I were to act against my conscience I would condemn myself.

So Lisa my faith is based on opening my heart and mind to God’s spirit and I pray a lot, use reason, and try to the best of my understanding to follow the Holy Spirit’s guidance in my life. And I don’t limit myself to only Catholic thought but I open my mind as well to non Catholic scholars, theologians, and clergy to seek their understanding. I do not outright reject the idea that Christ may need to reform in order to avoid the gates from prevailing if His Church has strsyed. I also look at the fruits by which I am to know them by. And I do not reject the idea that greater understanding of the words and meaning and intent of Scripture can not be achieved as time goes by so I do not limit myself to an interpretation 2000 yrs ago. What you however will never see me doing is saying I know I am right and everyone else is wrong in matters of faith. Christ said for us to be humble and to have the faith of little children. And one of the biggest problems I have with faiths that think and believe they are right on everything is I see a lack of this humility. We can believe and think we know. But every human has a finite mind and I don’t believe any human can with 100% absolute certainty claim infallibility in matters of faith or claim they know with such certainty the absolute truth. Now don’t get me wrong as so many on this forum do and cry moral relativism. I believe there is ultimate Truth. I believe Christ died for your sins and for mine and for the sins of all of us. I believe He rose from the tomb and ascended into heaven. I believe He is seateth at the right hand of the Father. I believe in faith He will come again. And if in faith this occurs, that is when this part of our faith will be known and be proven or disproven. Not until then or until we die whichever comes first. And the same goes for all aspects of faith.

In any case I hope this answer helps you. I have my doubts it will though because I am not one who needs all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed and you may be. And at some point we must simply agree to disagree. But again peace to you Lisa and God bless you along your faith journey.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, you first state I avoid answering and then you say I “keep saying”. Just because you don’t like or agree with my answers or what I am saying does not mean I have avoided. But anyway…

Yes I believe in Christ’s teachings. But I don’t believe in taking every word in the Bible literally. .

Neither do I. Is there a demand in Catholic teaching that we take everything literally? So many people mistake fact for truth. IOW if there is a phrase, a parable or a verse that contains an eternal truth, that the event used to make the point didn’t happen exactly as told doesn’t make the TRUTH any the less valid.

I don’t think any reasonably sophisticated Biblical scholars demand literal belief of every word.

And though I no longer struggle with possibly being bound by CCC after learning on CAF I am not a Catholic, why I have my beliefs and their basis can actually be summed up from parts of your catechism, 1776, 1782, and 1790.

Deep within my conscience I discover what I must obey. Called foremost to love and to do good. It is there in my most secret core and sanctuary where I am alone with God Whose voice echos within its depths. ** Where I have the freedom to make moral decisions and must not act against my conscience especially in religious matters. If I were to act against my conscience I would condemn myself.**

OK we’re back to my original conclusion, you believe what your self tells yourself even if it’s in direct opposition to some basic fundamental Biblical teaching. Again I ask for the source of these conclusions. You thought long and hard, prayed and God told you that abortion is fine and gay marriage is fine. Does that sum it up?

I had hoped you would have more than just “voices in my head” which as we all know can be invalid.

So Lisa my faith is based on opening my heart and mind to God’s spirit and I pray a lot, use reason, and try to the best of my understanding to follow the Holy Spirit’s guidance in my life. And I don’t limit myself to only Catholic thought but I open my mind as well to non Catholic scholars, theologians, and clergy to seek their understanding. I do not outright reject the idea that **Christ may need to reform **in order to avoid the gates from prevailing if His Church has strsyed. I also look at the fruits by which I am to know them by.

OK once again, I am to understand that you read, pray and discern. Through that process you have rejected some of the most fundamental truths regarding life right? IOW thou shalt not murder is old and outmoded so no reason to worry about that one when the act refers to an unborn human. The many prohibitions against homosexuality in both the OT and NT are incredibly passe’ We are so much more enlightened now that we don’t need to be burdened with these silly ideas anymore than we need to worry about whether to wear blended fabrics (yes this was an actual example provided by an esteemed professor of Religious Studies!).

I’m most curious that Christ needs to reform. Really? In what way? He was sinless, perfect and wholly human as well as wholly divine. What does Jesus need to do to get with the times?

And I do not reject the idea that greater understanding of the words and meaning and intent of Scripture can not be achieved as time goes by** so I do not limit myself to an interpretation 2000 yrs ago**. What you however will never see me doing is saying I know I am right and everyone else is wrong in matters of faith. Christ said for us to be humble and to have the faith of little children. And one of the biggest problems I have with faiths that think and believe they are right on everything is I see a lack of this humility. We can believe and think we know. But every human has a finite mind and I don’t believe any human can with 100% absolute certainty claim infallibility in matters of faith or claim they know with such certainty the absolute truth. Now don’t get me wrong as so many on this forum do and cry moral relativism. I believe there is ultimate Truth. I believe Christ died for your sins and for mine and for the sins of all of us. I believe He rose from the tomb and ascended into heaven. I believe He is seateth at the right hand of the Father. I believe in faith He will come again. And if in faith this occurs, that is when this part of our faith will be known and be proven or disproven. Not until then or until we die whichever comes first. And the same goes for all aspects of faith. .

Again, you either misinterpret or misunderstand. Jesus taught 2000 years ago but the interpretation of His teaching both preceeded and succeeded His time on earth. That is the point. I don’t think we are mired hopelessly in the past because there are some basic thruths that stand the test of time…and the test of Jesuits and other Biblical scholars. That is why I think such truths are still valid.

IOW Jesus didn’t teach on cell phone etiquette but I think we can apply His teachings to our modern day conveniences…the prohibitions against gossip for example are still valid even if we aren’t leaning over the fence and chatting with a neighbor but Skyping with a friend 2000 miles away.

I just think your approach is to gloss over the fundamental truths by claiming that we are so much more enlightened now. But I fail to see any evidence that human nature has changed at all.

In any case I hope this answer helps you. I have my doubts it will though because I am not one who needs all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed and you may be. And at some point we must simply agree to disagree. But again peace to you Lisa and God bless you along your faith journey.

Well not really because you never give any specifics, just that these thoughts and conclusions came to you as a result of prayer and attempts to listen to the Holy Spirit. But when a teaching is in direct oppostition to Scripture, then it’s not a valid teaching. This is where I think “liberal” Christianity falls apart and its followers are lost. They are like a mechanic who runs a car through the wash instead of fixing it. From the outside it looks nice and shiny but from the inside it’s still a mess.

I don’t “need” all the i’s dotted or t’s crossed to believe. But I do need more than the latest thought that ran through my head. You are right that none of us know for sure and to claim otherwise is incredibly arrogant. Still I think it’s far more arrogant to think we know more than the great scholars and teachers who have walked this path long before we did.

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

I just want to point out for all reading (backing up Lisa’s already excellent post), that undoubtedly there are in fact private interpreters of the U.S. Constitution. (I know there are.) These citizens (and occasionally foreigners as well) are convinced that it is their individual privilege and responsibility to ignore decades and centuries of constitutional analysis by experts. Rather, they must Reinvent the Constitutional Wheel. If they are not “personally” convinced that the Founders meant what the Founders wrote, and that such meaning is further clarified by expert research on historical documents and legal foundations by people credentialed to be such experts, then they merely discard one or another constitutional principles. For them, not unlike some believers of some religions, constitutional interpretation is a matter of private belief (conviction), or private opinion, not a matter of commonly understood language and the import of that language.

There are at least two levels or dimensions of assent to a religion. The first dimension is the rational or intellectual. If you don’t have the proper information about that religion (including about that religion’s documents), accurate discernment is an impossibility.

The second dimension is obviously the spiritual. You (we!) may or may not succeed in believing what an authoritative community of scholars and teachers hands down to us as our Sacred Tradition, and that process is often life-long. Faith is not equivalent to absolute certainty. Like the other theological virtues, faith (surrender) combines with hope (openness to the workings of the Holy Spirit) combines with charity (love of God above all, and with that, His creation) to produce, patiently, the enlightenment & submission that often only prayer and worthy reception of the Sacraments can provide in time.

Intellectual scrutiny alone rarely conquers obstacles to belief and assent. We could wring our hands endlessly and never reach that rational insight. It is true, however, that many Catholics (not limited to the Saints) have experienced that practicing the moral behavior (for example) often itself succeeds in providing intellectual clarity. Ours is a practiced faith, not a mind-trip.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,

You still seem to be missing the fact that I’m drawing an analogy not between same-sex relationships and marriage but between same-sex relationships and nonsexual friendship. Obviously many of the virtues of friendship are also those of marriage. But no relationship between two persons of the same sex can possibly exhibit the goods that are genuinely particular to marriage (as distinct from friendship).** The point I’m making is that such relationships, even when they include an element of disordered sexuality, nonetheless include many of the goods of friendship. **These are the goods that liberal Christians tend to value in any relationship–in other words, they have little regard for those qualities that genuinely distinguish marriage from friendship. (The fact that our culture has a radically impoverished understanding of friendship, while exalting the friendship-like aspects of marriage, is part of the problem with the whole debate.)

And yet again, the larger point I’m arguing here is that liberal Christians have norms other than “tolerance” by which they judge moral issues related to sexual relationships.

I think I’ve established this quite solidly, and folks are simply trying to evade the point or declare it irrelevant.

Edwin,

To say that there may be an element of disordered sexuality is to say “just a little pregnant”…not that much sin, just a little sin…and the remainder of the relationship is OK

That is what I see.

 

[SteveVH]

This goes part and parcel with much that is stated here…“don’t allow ANY thought or idea that gay relationships are other than disordered.”

It’s what separates so many GLBTQ people from Christianity…while it may not be motiveated by hate and bigotry…it sure sounds like it is.

When two people of the same sex have loving and caring relationship that exhibits in so many ways “selflessness”…they are told…“Gay people cannot have a loving relationship…gays cannot love…because there’s nothing “loving” with gay relationships.”

Publisher, even looking at this from a purely biological aspect, one can reasonably determine that something is wrong here. It is contrary to natural law in that it contradicts the ultimate (not solitary) purpose of the sexual act, that being to procreate. This is the way God created us and even the animals. A man’s body does not make sense by itself, nor does a woman’s. A man is born with a penis, not for the purpose of urinating (women urinate just fine) but for the purpose of impregnating a female. A woman is created with a vagina and breasts. I don’t have to tell you why. It is only when the two come together as one that the purpose of our different natures is realized.

When the ultimate purpose of the sexual act (procreation) is removed from the equation, problems arise. This is true even among heterosexual couples, which is why our Church forbids contraception. The purpose of the sexual act changes from a life producing, mutual self-giving to one of selfish gratification. The person become an object of pleasure.

To label the acceptance of this practice as tolerance and loving acceptance of all people is misguided thinking. Our Church accepts everyone and we are commanded to love them. However, we are not commanded to love their sins. Obviously there are those who are attracted to the same sex. The reasons for this are not completley understood and the Church makes no difinitive statement in this regard. They are called to celibacy, just as are heterosexuals who are not living within the bonds of marriage. In other words, homosexuals are placed under no greater burden then are heterosexuals when it comes to sexual relations. No one has ever said that …“Gay people cannot have a loving relationship…gays cannot love…because there’s nothing “loving” with gay relationships” unless we are speaking of sexual relations.

I have two nieces who are living a gay lifestyle. I love them as much today as I did before they entered into this life style. There is really nothing they could do that would prevent me from loving them. But what they are doing is destructive and they are being robbed of motherhood and the intimate relationship that God had planned from the beginning for man and woman. We were created the way we were created (male and female) for a purpose and it was God who created us that way. It was meant as an image of the Holy Trinity; a complete self giving of one to the other resulting in life.

 

[LisaA]

This goes part and parcel with much that is stated here…“don’t allow ANY thought or idea that gay relationships are other than disordered.”

It’s what separates so many GLBTQ people from Christianity…while it may not be motiveated by hate and bigotry…it sure sounds like it is.

When two people of the same sex have loving and caring relationship that exhibits in so many ways “selflessness”…they are told…“Gay people cannot have a loving relationship…gays cannot love…because there’s nothing “loving” with gay relationships.”

Strawman alert! No one has said those with same sex attraction cannot have a loving relationship or there is nothing loving in homosexual relationships. What has been said repeatedly is that you cannot transform a same sex romantic (versus simple platonic friendship) relationship into the equivalent of male female marriage by looking the other way about the intrinsic disorder characterizing such relationships and focusing only on the positive aspects. Several have drawn valid analogies…an incestuous relationship that has certain loving aspects or an adult/child sexual relationship that can never overcome the disorder because the adult treats the child in a kind and loving fashion when not engaged in sexually assaulting the child.

If you ever read the statements of pedophiles or sexually abusive parents, they do the same thing…talk about all the positive aspects of the relationship. It’s just that one little problem that we should overlook. And before the howls and screams, no I am not saying that adult same sex relationships are equivalent to a sexual abuser, just pointing out that that same type of “excuse” is given to rationalize maintaining the relationship.

With respect to Edwin’s comments, the problem I have with TEC and other very liberal religions is that they simply abandon Scripture,their own tradition, and even Natural Law with respect to homosexuality. It is apparently very important to exhibit tolerance, acceptance if not celebration of what have historically been considered abnormal relationships. Where did this originate since it’s obviously not based in Scripture?

Lisa

 

[Publisher]

Strawman alert! No one has said those with same sex attraction cannot have a loving relationship or there is nothing loving in homosexual relationships. What has been said repeatedly is that you cannot transform a same sex romantic (versus simple platonic friendship) relationship into the equivalent of male female marriage by looking the other way about the intrinsic disorder characterizing such relationships and focusing only on the positive aspects. Several have drawn valid analogies…an incestuous relationship that has certain loving aspects or an adult/child sexual relationship that can never overcome the disorder because the adult treats the child in a kind and loving fashion when not engaged in sexually assaulting the child.

If you ever read the statements of pedophiles or sexually abusive parents, they do the same thing…talk about all the positive aspects of the relationship. It’s just that one little problem that we should overlook. And before the howls and screams, no I am not saying that adult same sex relationships are equivalent to a sexual abuser, just pointing out that that same type of “excuse” is given to rationalize maintaining the relationship.

With respect to Edwin’s comments, the problem I have with TEC and other very liberal religions is that they simply abandon Scripture,their own tradition, and even Natural Law with respect to homosexuality. It is apparently very important to exhibit tolerance, acceptance if not celebration of what have historically been considered abnormal relationships. Where did this originate since it’s obviously not based in Scripture?

Lisa

You haven’t been reading the various threads on marriage equality…the assertion is not necessarily made in this particular thread…so…not a “strawman”…but perhaps not tied to this thread.

As far a “abaondoning Scripture”…that too is inaccurate…no “liberal” Christian believes that scripture is being “abandoned”…it’s not understood the way YOU understand it…it is firmly beleived that “liberal” Christians ARE being faithful to scripture. Not everyon accepts your understanding of Natural Law…as a Friend scripture is very important to me…I know of no Friend who claims to have “abandoned” scripture…nor any UCC, MCC, TEC, or any other faith community who seeks to understand and embrace the gospel in our modern age with some of the complexities of experience not addressed specifically in scripture…but these complexities are sought to be understood within the context of how scripture is understood…no one has “abandoned” scripture.

 

[LisaA]

You haven’t been reading the various threads on marriage equality…the assertion is not necessarily made in this particular thread…so…not a “strawman”…but perhaps not tied to this thread.

As far a “abaondoning Scripture”…that too is inaccurate…no “liberal” Christian believes that scripture is being “abandoned”…it’s not understood the way YOU understand it…it is firmly beleived that “liberal” Christians ARE being faithful to scripture. Not everyon accepts your understanding of Natural Law…as a Friend scripture is very important to me…I know of no Friend who claims to have “abandoned” scripture…nor any UCC, MCC, TEC, or any other faith community who seeks to understand and embrace the gospel in our modern age with some of the complexities of experience not addressed specifically in scripture…but these complexities are sought to be understood within the context of how scripture is understood…no one has “abandoned” scripture.

Publisher I can only respond on this thread to statements made on this thread. Your claim was invalid, arguing against statements not made and attitudes not held by anyone participating on this thread. BTW I love the euphamism…marriage equality. You know for the Left EQUALITY is the true god they worship. Everything else pales in comparison to their devotion to this utterly impossible standard.

TEC and other liberal denominations have abandoned Scripture with respect to certain issues, unborn human life is a biggie and then of course homosexual acts is another favorite. They don’t even bother to justify their warped thinking by basing it on anything but being experts at their own opinion. In their opinion homosexual pairings are equivalent and to be honored just as man woman marriage and in their opinion “thou shalt not murder” means only select humans apparently deemed worthy of life.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to the Scriptural source for these opinions? So far no one arguing for the above can give any Biblical basis for their conclusions. Maybe you have the secret?

Lisa

 

[Publisher]

Publisher I can only respond on this thread to statements made on this thread. Your claim was invalid, arguing against statements not made and attitudes not held by anyone participating on this thread. BTW I love the euphamism…marriage equality. You know for the Left EQUALITY is the true god they worship. Everything else pales in comparison to their devotion to this utterly impossible standard.

TEC and other liberal denominations have abandoned Scripture with respect to certain issues, unborn human life is a biggie and then of course homosexual acts is another favorite. They don’t even bother to justify their warped thinking by basing it on anything but being experts at their own opinion. In their opinion homosexual pairings are equivalent and to be honored just as man woman marriage and in their opinion “thou shalt not murder” means only select humans apparently deemed worthy of life.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to the Scriptural source for these opinions? So far no one arguing for the above can give any Biblical basis for their conclusions. Maybe you have the secret?

Lisa

Friend, you may dismiss all of my posts entirely…that is your right.

Scripture has not been abandoned…the TEC has chosen to be faithful to their understanding of culture, history, science, psychology…ALONG with scripture as God reveals Himself still within history…YOU and other conservative Christians CLAIM they have abandoned scripture in the light of your beleifs…but those who have embraced sexual equality as completely biblical…have sought to remain faithful to scripture, God and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives…since all other references to other threads are dismissed…rehasing the scriptural understanding that has led us to embrace sexual equality in marriage…it doesn’t seem it would do much good…it has been “argued” using scripture…it’s just that it’s conclusions are rejected as being “unfaithful”…I’m sure I have lots of secrets…which one do you think I might be evading?

 

[LisaA]

Friend, you may dismiss all of my posts entirely…that is your right.

Scripture has not been abandoned**…the TEC has chosen to be faithful to their understanding of culture, history, science, psychology**…YOU and other conservative Christians CLAIM they have abandoned scripture in the light of your beleifs…but those who have embraced sexual equality as completely biblical…have sought to remain faithful to scripture, God and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives…since all other references to other threads are dismissed…rehasing the scriptural understanding that has led us to embrace sexual equality in marriage…it doesn’t seem it would do much good…it has been “argued” using scripture…it’s just that it’s conclusions are rejected as being “unfaithful”…I’m sure I have lots of secrets…which one do you think I might be evading?

I didn’t dismiss your post, I responded to it. So do tell where in this thread people have claimed homosexuals cannot love? That was your claim.

TEC and other liberal denominations worship a false god in my opinion. No one has provided a Biblical basis for supporting abortion or elevating homosexual pairings to that of traditional man/woman marriage. You and CMatt and Edwin all say that “we have come to a different conclusion” but it must be based on the secret knowledge available only to those who share the same philosophy since they seem loathe to make their argument public.

Again maybe you know where they found the source of this amazing revelation. Please do share.

Lisa

 

[Publisher]

I didn’t dismiss your post, I responded to it. So do tell where in this thread people have claimed homosexuals cannot love? That was your claim.

TEC and other liberal denominations worship a false god in my opinion. No one has provided a Biblical basis for supporting abortion or elevating homosexual pairings to that of traditional man/woman marriage. You and CMatt and Edwin all say that “we have come to a different conclusion” but it must be based on the secret knowledge available only to those who share the same philosophy since they seem loathe to make their argument public.

Again maybe you know where they found the source of this amazing revelation. Please do share.

Lisa

Friend, I must not have been able to communicate, please forgive me…but I thought I had stated that in other threads…perhaps not this one it was claimed that homsexuals cannot love…if I didnt’ make that clear, I apologize…but then I thought you had repsonded to the effect that if it had taken place in other threads it wasn’t germane to this discussion…perhaps I read incorrectly.

There is no “secret knoledge”…it’s there for all to read…whether it is accepted by those of a more conservative persuasion is what is in question…no one has been “loathe to make their arguement” public…it’s just that when we have done so…we are “abandoning scripture”…your words…not mine friend…no “amazing revelation” needed…and such statements meant to belittle or call into question motivations and ideas…are to an extend what is known as “disscussion stoppers”…

I apologize if I lack the literary skills to make myself understood…I am in good company with Edwin and CMatt…you flatter me…thank you for the compligment.

 

[LisaA]

Friend, I must not have been able to communicate, please forgive me…but I thought I had stated that in other threads…perhaps not this one it was claimed that homsexuals cannot love…if I didnt’ make that clear, I apologize…but then I thought you had repsonded to the effect that if it had taken place in other threads it wasn’t germane to this discussion…perhaps I read incorrectly.

There is no “secret knoledge”…it’s there for all to read…whether it is accepted by those of a more conservative persuasion is what is in question…no one has been “loathe to make their arguement” public…it’s just that when we have done so…we are “abandoning scripture”…your words…not mine friend…no “amazing revelation” needed…and such statements meant to belittle or call into question motivations and ideas…are to an extend what is known as “disscussion stoppers”…

I apologize if I lack the literary skills to make myself understood…I am in good company with Edwin and CMatt…you flatter me…thank you for the compligment.

Publisher I feel like I’m pulling teeth here. You claim there is Scriptural support for abortion, gay marriage etc but tell me “it’s there for you to read.” Apparently in my studies I’ve missed these passages.

What you claim is a “conservative” interpretation is the same interpretation that was accepted up until very recently. Liberal Christians have rejected the traditional Scriptural teaching, IOW they have abandoned Scripture as it’s been interpreted for thousands of years to create a completely new version of what human life is worth preserving and what defines marriage. I am just trying to understand what information or interpretation was so compelling that the last 2000 years have been kicked aside for a completely new idea.

Again, what is the source for rejecting Scripture as it has been interpreted for two millenia and substituting what seems to be the influence of modern culture?

Lisa

 

[Nabooru]

I’m going to jump in here with a thought: does anyone else feel that liberal Christians are practically apologetic about being Christian? Because they’re really into “understanding” and “dialogue” with other religions that seems to veer over into behaving as though those religions have a more valid basis or more worthy practice than Christianity.

For example, a couple or so years ago I read about a local Episcopalian priest spending Lent living as a Muslim, praying Islamic prayers 5x a day, studying the Quran, eating halal food, etc. so he could “identify” with them. I thought, what’s the point of that? Are you a Muslim? If not, then why do you need to become a pseudo-Muslim in order to respect them? What really drives it home for me is that liberal Christians feel this strong need to introduce and explain other faiths to their followers - without ever getting that “open” response back. As another example, my cousins’ church recently hosted a Hindu to give a presentation on Hinduism. How many Hindu temples invite Christians to describe their faith to them? How many mosques have, as a symbol of solidarity with other faiths, a Christian priest or a rabbi give the sermon during Ramadan? Why do liberal Christians feel the need to be so overwhelmingly accommodating that they’ll deny their own religious conviction (making it very, very clear that they’re not like “other” Christians and they’ll totally never force their religion on you, but you can talk about your own all you want) in order to appear supportive of other religions?