Very Liberal Christianity

[IACOBVS]

Are there any other liberal Christians besides me out there on this forum? (As in: reproductive choice, same sex marriage, trans-gender rights, that Jesus really meant it when he said that if he would draw all people to himself through his sacrifice on the cross, etc.) Some of you conservatives are very nice in your own way, but I'm looking for some "kindred spirits", as Anne of Green Gables would have said ... and no comments from the peanut gallery about any kindred spirits that would go along with what I'm asking would have to be evil spirits. Just wondering. :smile:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are there any other liberal Christians besides me out there on this forum? (As in: reproductive choice, same sex marriage, trans-gender rights, that Jesus really meant it when he said that if he would draw all people to himself through his sacrifice on the cross, etc.) Some of you conservatives are very nice in your own way, but I'm looking for some "kindred spirits", as Anne of Green Gables would have said ... and no comments from the peanut gallery about any kindred spirits that would go along with what I'm asking would have to be evil spirits. Just wondering. :smile:

I haven't noticed any

:smirk:

 

[psalms 91]

Nope

 

[Josiah]

Not me

 

[hedrick]

Yes.

However it's worth noting that "liberal" can be used in several ways, such as political, social, and theological. While it's unlikely that a person who is very conservative theologically would accept liberal gender / sexual positions, those positions can and do coexist with moderate theology. Note for example the wide acceptance of homosexuality among American Catholics.

That Jesus died for everyone is common among non-Calvinists (unless you're implying universalism).

 

[psalms 91]

Yes.

However it's worth noting that "liberal" can be used in several ways, such as political, social, and theological. While it's unlikely that a person who is very conservative theologically would accept liberal gender / sexual positions, those positions can and do coexist with moderate theology. Note for example the wide acceptance of homosexuality among American Catholics.

That Jesus died for everyone is common among non-Calvinists (unless you're implying universalism).

Just because man or an institution accepts something does not mean that God does, I bwelieve that He called it an abomination

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just because man or an institution accepts something does not mean that God does, I bwelieve that He called it an abomination

Be careful. The old testament has God say stone to death people who work on the sabbath and to stone disobedient sons and daughters. Not everything written in holy scripture is sound advice for conduct today.

 

[hedrick]

I'm guessing that the OP wasn't interested in a discussion of the merits of homosexuality, so I'm not going to respond to that.

 

[JRT]

Are there any other liberal Christians besides me out there on this forum? (As in: reproductive choice, same sex marriage, trans-gender rights, that Jesus really meant it when he said that if he would draw all people to himself through his sacrifice on the cross, etc.) Some of you conservatives are very nice in your own way, but I'm looking for some "kindred spirits", as Anne of Green Gables would have said ... and no comments from the peanut gallery about any kindred spirits that would go along with what I'm asking would have to be evil spirits. Just wondering. :smile:

I would fit your bill.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Just because man or an institution accepts something does not mean that God does, I bwelieve that He called it an abomination

Paul called many things to our attention, just in case we thought it prudent to have a go at others first:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these..." (Gal. 5:19a). I'll let you look up the rest. It's quite the list.

 

[psalms 91]

Paul called many things to our attention, just in case we thought it prudent to have a go at others first:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these..." (Gal. 5:19a). I'll let you look up the rest. It's quite the list.

Yes it is, not sure what your point was though

 

[Pedrito]

The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10:
“9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

If the Bible is accepted as God’s Holy Revelation to us, than there is no room for any of the above within (what might be generally termed) the true Church of Christ. Nor for the ordination of female ministers and priests (as shown by other inspired statements). The Bible is the unique and unequivocal authority.

If Paul’s statements (for instance) are considered to be not inspired by God, then the Bible is not the source of authoritative information regarding Christian faith and conduct, and regarding God’s overall purpose.

In the latter case, Pedrito must ask IACOBVS and like-minded others, upon what authority do they base their liberal perspectives?

The question is not a trivial one. It is central in determining the appropriateness of the stated perspectives in God’s eyes.

So, Pedrito seeks understanding regarding just where and how God revealed that Paul’s statements above (and those brought to our attention in Post #10) were inappropriate.

(Assuming that God is even in the equation, that is.)

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Yes it is, not sure what your point was though

Just because man or an institution accepts something does not mean that God does, I bwelieve that He called it an abomination

Being sure we're not identifying "abominations" (by God's estimation or our own), until we can successfully get through a short list without tripping over our own feet

But, I'll bow out. Sorry for the derail.

 

[IACOBVS]

Paul called many things to our attention, just in case we thought it prudent to have a go at others first:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these..." (Gal. 5:19a). I'll let you look up the rest. It's quite the list.

Ah, but what really are some of those things on that list? They've been translated so many different ways in so many different versions. Let's not get too excited about the latest fad in translation; it will change again in a few years. (That question was asked rhetorically, btw. I'm not going to get into it with anyone on a public forum.)

 

[IACOBVS]

The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10:
“9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

If the Bible is accepted as God’s Holy Revelation to us, than there is no room for any of the above within (what might be generally termed) the true Church of Christ. Nor for the ordination of female ministers and priests (as shown by other inspired statements). The Bible is the unique and unequivocal authority.

If Paul’s statements (for instance) are considered to be not inspired by God, then the Bible is not the source of authoritative information regarding Christian faith and conduct, and regarding God’s overall purpose.

In the latter case, Pedrito must ask IACOBVS and like-minded others, upon what authority do they base their liberal perspectives?

The question is not a trivial one. It is central in determining the appropriateness of the stated perspectives in God’s eyes.

So, Pedrito seeks understanding regarding just where and how God revealed that Paul’s statements above (and those brought to our attention in Post #10) were inappropriate.

(Assuming that God is even in the equation, that is.)

I was merely asking if there were others like me here. I'm not going to argue with anyone about it, nor will I get into a public defense of those beliefs here. That would only cause a fight.

 

[IACOBVS]

I'm guessing that the OP wasn't interested in a discussion of the merits of homosexuality, so I'm not going to respond to that.

Precisely.

 

[IACOBVS]

Just because man or an institution accepts something does not mean that God does, I bwelieve that He called it an abomination

One should make sure that one knows what a so-called abomination is before one gets too worked up about that word, though. Just sayin'.

 

[Josiah]

Frankly, I like diversity in a discussion forum..... theologically and otherwise..... The opening poster seems to only desire to better understand the consensus of the community here (or maybe just determine how unique he might be here, lol). If he is a minority, I celebrate that. And frankly, a good-natured and respectful "fight" can be a good thing. Frankly, I've done some of my best growing and learning in the midst of a "fight" LOL.

 

[IACOBVS]

Frankly, I like diversity in a discussion forum..... theologically and otherwise..... The opening poster seems to only desire to better understand the consensus of the community here (or maybe just determine how unique he might be here, lol). If he is a minority, I celebrate that. And frankly, a good-natured and respectful "fight" can be a good thing. Frankly, I've done some of my best growing and learning in the midst of a "fight" LOL.

If I'm going to fight, I prefer to do that in private. It's never pretty in public.

 

[psalms 91]

No fight to it, I know what the bible says and that settles it for me, no need to try to convince me otherwise nor is there any reason for me to try to convince someone on the opposite side as they will believe they are right as well. I will base muine on the Word and let it drop right there.