Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[stewstew03]

Certainly. And the fact that you even ask the question says something about what a distorted view you have of liberals.

Edwin, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I should point out, though, that my question “do liberals think ‘truth’ is good” was a rhetorical device. Please note that I placed “truth” in quotes. When quotes are used in this way, it often signals to the reader that the author is being ironical.

Of course liberals value truth (it’s absurd that I even need to type that statement in an effort to defend myself). The irony here is two-fold (1) liberals preach freedom of expression and viewpoint tolerance, but appear unable to practice their own virtues; and (2) liberals pretend to value truth over bias, and in this case Dan Cathy said nothing to indicate that he hates homosexuals or is fearful of homosexuality. I should also note that everyone (generally speaking) values freedom of expression, tolerance, truth, etc. What’s unique to liberals is that they often abuse these terms in an effort to distinguish themselves from those with opposing views. The backlash against Mr. Cathy is a superb example.

Here are Cathy’s statements:

We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that. We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.

In what way does this show hatred toward homosexuals? Not even the ACLU is willing to proscribe Cathy’s statement as “hate speech.” The ACLU is often seen as a beacon of liberalism. So, if liberals really do value the aforementioned principles (truth and tolerance), then perhaps the ACLU’s non-condemnation (I won’t use the word support) of Cathy’s statements is signaling that something else is going on here. Indeed, it appears that liberals who have decided to castigate Mr. Cathy for his statements have abandoned their own principles in favor of something else. And I believe that the “something else” is actually an intolerance of Christian values.

You are free to disagree, of course, but that doesn’t make the assertion absurd.

 

[Kdruesedow]

But as these Episcopalian churches die out, where are the people going? Many of them are going to more traditional churches, including the Catholic Church. Letting the failed churches die doesn’t mean letting the congregations spiritually die.

Those who attend these churches often leave their traditional church because they feel discriminated against (as if one sin is worse than any others! we are ALL sinners and have no right to look down on anyone else for committing a sin that we see as worse than the ones we commit every day). Knowing this, it is more likely that as the episcopalian churches die out, many of these people will NOT return to the church they left because they were not being shown the love of god there. They will either find an alternate church, choose another religion, or fall out of faith entirely.
This sad fact is one of the reasons why it is so important that we remember that just because you go to a certain church or you think your sins are less grave than those of others, you really need to step back and work on yourself and your congregation.
I know a Lesbian woman who was ostracized once she came out even though nothing about her actual person had changed-she had always been a lesbian and was still the same wonderful, sweet, moral woman—but she was met with such hate that she decided Christianity was not the religion for her, not because of her orientation, but because she could not deal with her church that preached love for all but acted out hate instead.

 

[LisaA]

Those who attend these churches often leave their traditional church because they feel discriminated against (as if one sin is worse than any others! we are ALL sinners and have no right to look down on anyone else for committing a sin that we see as worse than the ones we commit every day). Knowing this, it is more likely that as the episcopalian churches die out, many of these people will NOT return to the church they left because they were not being shown the love of god there. They will either find an alternate church, choose another religion, or fall out of faith entirely.
This sad fact is one of the reasons why it is so important that we remember that just because you go to a certain church or you think your sins are less grave than those of others, you really need to step back and work on yourself and your congregation.
I know a Lesbian woman who was ostracized once she came out even though nothing about her actual person had changed-she had always been a lesbian and was still the same wonderful, sweet, moral woman—but she was met with such hate that she decided Christianity was not the religion for her, not because of her orientation, but because she could not deal with her church that preached love for all but acted out hate instead.

Appreciate your weighing in. Have you read some of the earlier discussion? The Church is clear in its attitude toward those battling same sex attraction and that is to be charitable. I do not know the denomination where your friend was ostracized, but I suggest it was not the Catholic Church nor do I think that treatment was supported by whatever church was involved.

As you said we are all sinners. That your friend decided that the hostility of human beings meant CHRISTIANITY was not for her, demonstrates that she mistook the sins of others as a failing of the church itself. Other than the moonbats of the Westboro “Baptist” Church I don’t know of any Christian denomination that promotes hate or discrimination. Again maybe individuals in individual churches but we face bigoted and hateful people in all walks of life.

That being said, your friend might also ask herself how SHE approached the members of the church. If she as a Lesbian was “in your face,” defiant, demeaning of church doctrine that opposed homosexual “marriage” or otherwise seeming to pick a fight, maybe she brought on some of the hostility by her own actions. Now you say she was sweet and kind and the same person so I have a hard time believing that the entire world of Christianity seemed aligned against her as a person. Further this speaks to the DADT theory which I think should be applied more frequently. Most of us do not make a public spectacle of our sins and if we do, then we should expect our fellow Christians to show us the error of our ways, in love not in a hateful way. Acceptance and tolerance of sin is NOT a loving act even if it seems so to some.

Lisa

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Further this speaks to the DADT theory which I think should be applied more frequently. Most of us do not make a public spectacle of our sins and if we do, then we should expect our fellow Christians to show us the error of our ways, in love not in a hateful way.

A quick question, Lisa–what sin is being revealed (in a public and spectacular way) when someone comes out as having a same sex attraction?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[LisaA]

Grace & Peace!

A quick question, Lisa–what sin is being revealed (in a public and spectacular way) when someone comes out as having a same sex attraction?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

As I said, it is not simply “coming out” (although I am still not sure why one must share one’s private life with the public) but the manner in which it is done. Please read the post and note that I suggested that depending on the attitude, the magnitude and the overt actions, the Lesbian in question may have triggered the reaction. But realize that a similar reaction would result in someone making a public spectacle of heterosexual sin…a blatant extramarital affair, for example.

I still maintain that DADT is appropriate with respect to sin. This is something we struggle with individually, with our confessor, in our relationship with God. It does not need to be a public display. But for whatever reason, homosexuals think we all have a great need to know what they are doing in their bedrooms. I for one, do not have the slightest interest in anyone else’s sex life. Do you?

Lisa

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Please read the post and note that I suggested that depending on the attitude, the magnitude and the overt actions, the Lesbian in question may have triggered the reaction.

True enough.

But realize that a similar reaction would result in someone making a public spectacle of heterosexual sin…a blatant extramarital affair, for example.

But this goes to the heart of why I asked–why would you assume that coming out as a lesbian (which is to say, coming out as a woman who is same-sex attracted) is thereby or is also revealing sexual sin? Being same-sex attracted is no sin.

But for whatever reason, homosexuals think we all have a great need to know what they are doing in their bedrooms.

One does not also announce what one does in the bedroom just by revealing that one is same sex attracted any more than a heterosexual dating couple at coffee hour reveal that they have a taste for kink simply by being what they obviously are: a heterosexual dating couple. Often, a same-sex attracted person will reveal this fact about themselves when they feel they have been welcomed and are comfortable with the company they’re in–the self-revelation is actually an attempt at honesty. What it says is, “I like you guys and I don’t want to give you any false impression about who I am–I want to know you better, and I want to be better known by you.” There’s nothing particularly improper in that, Lisa–your insinuation of impropriety is unjustified and not worthy of you.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Kdruesedow]

Appreciate your weighing in. Have you read some of the earlier discussion? The Church is clear in its attitude toward those battling same sex attraction and that is to be charitable. I do not know the denomination where your friend was ostracized, but I suggest it was not the Catholic Church nor do I think that treatment was supported by whatever church was involved.

As you said we are all sinners. That your friend decided that the hostility of human beings meant CHRISTIANITY was not for her, demonstrates that she mistook the sins of others as a failing of the church itself. Other than the moonbats of the Westboro “Baptist” Church I don’t know of any Christian denomination that promotes hate or discrimination. Again maybe individuals in individual churches but we face bigoted and hateful people in all walks of life.

That being said, your friend might also ask herself how SHE approached the members of the church. If she as a Lesbian was “in your face,” defiant, demeaning of church doctrine that opposed homosexual “marriage” or otherwise seeming to pick a fight, maybe she brought on some of the hostility by her own actions. Now you say she was sweet and kind and the same person so I have a hard time believing that the entire world of Christianity seemed aligned against her as a person. Further this speaks to the DADT theory which I think should be applied more frequently. Most of us do not make a public spectacle of our sins and if we do, then we should expect our fellow Christians to show us the error of our ways, in love not in a hateful way. Acceptance and tolerance of sin is NOT a loving act even if it seems so to some.

Lisa

Lisa,
I see your point and I agree that a failing of Christians doesn’t mean the failing of the church itself. It was a Catholic church, but once again, “the failing of christians…”. She did not even come out to anyone in the church or discuss it with anyone there before she was ‘attacked’ by the members. She had outed herself to a friend, who then outed her to the congregation so they could ‘help’.
Now, although I see your point, I feel that sometimes Christians (and those of other religions that preach love) run people off with their holier than thou attitude, so although my friend left the church, she did not leave ‘God’ so to speak. She left to find a more accepting denomination or congregation that would see her as an equal- a sinner trying to improve.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa,
I see your point and I agree that a failing of Christians doesn’t mean the failing of the church itself. It was a Catholic church, but once again, “the failing of christians…”. She did not even come out to anyone in the church or discuss it with anyone there before she was ‘attacked’ by the members. She had outed herself to a friend, who then outed her to the congregation so they could ‘help’.
Now, although I see your point, I feel that sometimes Christians (and those of other religions that preach love) run people off with their holier than thou attitude, so although my friend left the church, she did not leave ‘God’ so to speak. She left to find a more accepting denomination or congregation that would see her as an equal- a sinner trying to improve.

Well sadly it sounds as if your friend was subjected to the incredibly sinful actions of those who betrayed a confidence, gossiped about her, and then acted upon hearsay. The larger sin was of those who have engaged in this un-Catholic and uncharitable behavior.
I don’t believe the Priest in this parish was aware of the problem as he should have spoken to those who engaged in the unkind behavior.

I hope your friend has found a parish that is more aware of what Catholicism teaches with regard to same sex attraction. The behavior of those involved was disgraceful.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Grace & Peace!

True enough.

But this goes to the heart of why I asked–why would you assume that coming out as a lesbian (which is to say, coming out as a woman who is same-sex attracted) is thereby or is also revealing sexual sin? Being same-sex attracted is no sin.!

I made no such assumption and said this. I did say that the individual involved MAY have triggered the response by her words or actions. Now we’ve since learned that she was betrayed in a very despicable way by someone she trusted and that’s a completely different issue altogether. In the range of sins, gossiping and acting on gossip is far more grave than someone struggling with same sex attraction.

One does not also announce what one does in the bedroom just by revealing that one is same sex attracted any more than a heterosexual dating couple at coffee hour reveal that they have a taste for kink simply by being what they obviously are: a heterosexual dating couple. Often, a same-sex attracted person will reveal this fact about themselves when they feel they have been welcomed and are comfortable with the company they’re in–the self-revelation is actually an attempt at honesty. What it says is, “I like you guys and I don’t want to give you any false impression about who I am–I want to know you better, and I want to be better known by you.” There’s nothing particularly improper in that, Lisa–your insinuation of impropriety is unjustified and not worthy of you.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

And you are correct, one cannot make assumptions but one can respond to overt actions. For example a young couple in my parish is not only cohabitating (and darned proud of it!) and during Mass they engage in rather sexualized behavior. They have been confronted, reprimanded and asked not to take the Eucharist. This is what I mean by overtly sinful public behavior. Unfortunately for some reason, some homosexual activists feel they should be admired for overt displays of their sexuality in public “We’re here! We’re queer! Deal with it!” is the message if not the chant. They demean the Church, those who believe in a traditional viewpoint of marriage, or anyone who disagrees. Then they call those who object to such public displays as “haters.” I think we know the difference between someone who struggles with sin and someone who seemingly brags about it.

OTOH if someone confides in a supposed friend and is betrayed, well that is absolutely un-Catholic and un-Christian behavior and in no way have I suggested that this is a proper course of action.

Lisa

 

[CMatt25]

I for one, do not have the slightest interest in anyone else’s sex life.

Lisa

I think maybe you meant to say you don’t have the slightest interest in anyone’s sex life until it comes to a woman’s right to privacy, her right to choose, and her right to have contraception coverage mandated in her employer health care coverage.

 

[SteveVH]

Grace & Peace!
what sin is being revealed (in a public and spectacular way) when someone comes out as having a same sex attraction?

I would think a good example would be a homosexual bishop openly living an active homosexual life style with church approval. That rises to the level of scandal and affects the entire Church. The sin being revealed is the full consensual act of participating in sexual acts which are striclty forbidden by God.

 

[LisaA]

I think maybe you meant to say you don’t have the slightest interest in anyone’s sex life until it comes to a woman’s right to privacy, her right to choose, and her right to have contraception coverage mandated in her employer health care coverage.

I have no interest in other women’s sex lives, their contraception or lack thereof. I DO care about their unborn babies who presumably are not engaged in sex. As a practicing Catholic I also do not want to be complicit in providing women with abortion inducing drugs. Again my interest is NOT in the woman or what she does in bed but the child resulting from that activity is a completely different person and completely different issue Nice try CMatt but your logic is flawed.

Lisa

 

[SteveVH]

I think maybe you meant to say you don’t have the slightest interest in anyone’s sex life until it comes to a woman’s right to privacy, her right to choose, and her right to have contraception coverage mandated in her employer health care coverage.

The so-called “right” of a woman to “choose” to kill her unborn child involves a lot more than a woman’s sex life. It involves the most fundamental “right” of a person, the right to life, being taken away, in most cases for the simple convenience of another. It involves the taking of a human life. It is always that “other life” that seems to be forgotten by those who support abortion under the guise of “women’s rights”.

As far as the government mandating that the Church subordinate its beliefs to the will of the government, sorry. We must do the will of God when His will conflicts with the will of the government. This was the entire purpose of “freedom of religion”; to prevent the very thing that is happening as we speak. The government is now imposing its own “religion” upon everyone in this country under threat of punishment. We are not allowed to believe that “contraception” is an offense against the will of God and act accordingly.

 

[CMatt25]

I have no interest in other women’s sex lives, their contraception or lack thereof. I DO care about their unborn babies who presumably are not engaged in sex. As a practicing Catholic I also do not want to be complicit in providing women with abortion inducing drugs. Again my interest is NOT in the woman or what she does in bed but the child resulting from that activity is a completely different person and completely different issue Nice try CMatt but your logic is flawed.

Lisa

No problem Lisa. I understand small government conservatives are big government people when it comes to getting involved in women’s private lives. Rachel Maddow often points this out too and her logic is sound enough to me.

 

[LisaA]

No problem Lisa. I understand small government conservatives are big government people when it comes to getting involved in women’s private lives.

Specioius and baseless. Again you seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the individual rights of individual human beings. I do not want to impinge on any woman who wishes to dive into bed with anyone she pleases. I am sorry if she believes this is an appropriate use of her gifts and graces but I do not think we should have laws against fornication.

OTOH if her actiity results in the creation of another human being, then yes some type of intervention is necessary if she decides to kill that human being. I assume you believve if someone is abusing a (born) child that law enforcement should get involved. Even the most ardent conservative wants the weak and marginalized protected through government based law enforcement. That goes for unborn babies as well.

I realize you do not believe unborn babies are human beings and it may be completely impossible for you to understand the difference between interfering with someone’s sex life and protecting the life that results from it.

Another nice try but flawed logic results in flawed conclusions.

Lisa

 

[CMatt25]

I would think a good example would be a homosexual bishop openly living an active homosexual life style with church approval. That rises to the level of scandal and affects the entire Church. The sin being revealed is the full consensual act of participating in sexual acts which are striclty forbidden by God.

This again reminds me of a story an Episcopal priest, who was raised Catholic but became Episcopalian, shared with me recently which I think bears repeating. Because her conclusion makes a lot of sense to me.

She said when she arrived at the church she currently shepherds, a gentleman approached her and asked her about Bishop Gene Robinson who is openly gay. She said she had no problem with him being a bishop. The man appeared in shock or insulted. Until she asked him if he believed in one God and in Jesus. When the man replied he did, she said well so does she. So they were on the same page even if they disagreed on homosexuality and that they did not have to agree in order to worship together and be part of the same family. 8 yrs later the man is still attending this church regularly she said for which she is thankful.

And her words made so much sense to me too. Family members don’t always agree on things. But they are still part of the same family.

God bless all His family as we walk in faith. Not by sight. And peace on earth and love and goodwill to all His created people, gay or straight, who walk His earth.

 

[SteveVH]

This again reminds me of a story an Episcopal priest, who was raised Catholic but became Episcopalian, shared with me recently which I think bears repeating. Because her conclusion makes a lot of sense to me.

She said when she arrived at the church she currently shepherds, a gentleman approached her and asked her about Bishop Gene Robinson who is openly gay. She said she had no problem with him being a bishop. The man appeared in shock or insulted. Until she asked him if he believed in one God and in Jesus. When the man replied he did, she said well so does she. So they were on the same page even if they disagreed on homosexuality and that they did not have to agree in order to worship together and be part of the same family. 8 yrs later the man is still attending this church regularly she said for which she is thnakful.

And her words made so much sense to me too. Family members don’t always agree on things. But they are still part of the same family.

God bless all His family as we walk in faith. Not by sight. And peace on earth and love and goodwill to all His Creation who walk His earth.

Sorry, but believing in one God and Jesus is just not enough. Trust me, even the demons believe in one God and Jesus but that does not make them part of the Christian family. Jesus said that believing in him meant to do God’s will. He has very clearly revealed his will when it comes to homosexual behavior. Yes, God absolutely loves the homosexual no less than any other human being and we must treat them with charity and dignity. But we cannot accept sinful activity as being permissible in anyone’s life, especially those in positions of power within the church. So when one such as this engages openly in this behavior and it is accepted as permissible by that body of believers then something is very wrong.

 

[CMatt25]

I realize you do not believe unborn babies are human beings and it may be completely impossible for you to understand the difference between interfering with someone’s sex life and protecting the life that results from it.

Another nice try but flawed logic results in flawed conclusions.

Lisa

Well at least I now know I’m not the only one who can flawly conclude.

 

[CMatt25]

Sorry, but believing in one God and Jesus is just not enough. Trust me, even the demons believe in one God and Jesus but that does not make them part of the Christian family. Jesus said that believing in him meant to do God’s will. He has very clearly revealed his will when it comes to homosexual behavior. Yes, God absolutely loves the homosexual no less than any other human being and we must treat them with charity and dignity. But we cannot accept sinful activity as being permissible in anyone’s life, especially those in positions of power within the church. So when one such as this engages openly in this behavior and it is accepted as permissible by that body of believers then something is very wrong.

Steve, you don’t have to be sorry to me for what you believe and for what you believe is His will. It’s what you believe. God bless you in your walk of faith.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Jesus said that believing in him meant to do God’s will.

Jn 14:15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Jn 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me
1 Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments
1 Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
2 Jn 6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.
Rev 12:17 who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
Rev 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

And the Commandment of Love (the “greatest commandment”) is not in opposition to the moral code but includes the moral code, because love of God equals keeping the commandments. Authentic love of neighbor can never oppose love of God, which requires love of God’s law (the means to union with Him). Jesus made that clear.