Liberal Christians?

Status
Not open for further replies.
tezriLi said:
Seriously? Then loving another is equal to wanting to have sex with them?
Click to expand...
In the real world as we know it, any husband/wife has a relationship containing both love and sex. If either of those things is missing, the relationship tends to fall apart. Why would it be different for a homosexual?
 
LysanderShapiro said:
I wouldn't consider myself a far right opponent. To be honest, I don't think the government should be restricting marriage, but only because I don't think marriage should be a government institution in the first place. It would mean people have the free will to choose right or wrong.

I'm only expressing what I've observed. When I say agenda, I mean a rhetoric that welcomes only one opinion and unwelcomes anything even slightly different even if it's only in question. It's almost impossible to bring up a perspective from another angle without being branded bigoted and homophobic, even if it is done with love.
Click to expand...
Your perspective does not differ from any Catholic I have ever met, apart from the fact that you suggest there is an agenda. (I'm not saying no Catholics feel that way, I'm sure some do, I just haven't met any.) I do find most Catholics to be full of compassion for homosexuals, even though they take a hardline view on it being sinful.
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
Your perspective does not differ from any Catholic I have ever met, apart from the fact that you suggest there is an agenda. (I'm not saying no Catholics feel that way, I'm sure some do, I just haven't met any.) I do find most Catholics to be full of compassion for homosexuals, even though they take a hardline view on it being sinful.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to divide Catholics from Catholicism itself in this case...I say that because many MANY Catholics are concluding that the Catholic Church is wrong on homosexuality (meaning it is OK) but the Catholic Church itself teaches strongly against it. I have stand by the Catholic teaching on this because I really don't have any authority to step against God. In fact, I don't have the strength to step against Him either.

I don't want my position to be viewed as not having compassion for them...I'm doing my best and I really have sympathy for them...but I can't pander to sin either, no matter how unpopular it may be.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
I think it's important to divide Catholics from Catholicism itself in this case...I say that because many MANY Catholics are concluding that the Catholic Church is wrong on homosexuality (meaning it is OK) but the Catholic Church itself teaches strongly against it. I have stand by the Catholic teaching on this because I really don't have any authority to step against God. In fact, I don't have the strength to step against Him either.

I don't want my position to be viewed as not having compassion for them...I'm doing my best and I really have sympathy for them...but I can't pander to sin either, no matter how unpopular it may be.
Click to expand...
I respect your position on this and understand it, even if I disagree with you - it's important you recognize that. It's just one of those catch-22 things. I can't conclude that it is sin because I don't think a person should be punished due to the way they are "wired" for lack of a better word and I must look at what I think is most humane (if not Christian). I see no problem with a homosexual couple living the life of a married couple (with or without the marriage) as long as they are monogamous and committed to one another.
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
I respect your position on this and understand it, even if I disagree with you - it's important you recognize that. It's just one of those catch-22 things. I can't conclude that it is sin because I don't think a person should be punished due to the way they are "wired" for lack of a better word and I must look at what I think is most humane (if not Christian). I see no problem with a homosexual couple living the life of a married couple (with or without the marriage) as long as they are monogamous and committed to one another.
Click to expand...

I understand.
Consider this; each one of us is wired to sin. Sin is written in our hearts, but speaking semi-clinically, whether we like it or not, our brains are wired to react to things and sometimes those things are sinful; sometimes our knee-jerk reactions are hateful, many times they are lustful, sometimes they are prideful or envious. Sometimes we even have a reaction of gluttony when we should be practicing temperance.

Your case is "if this is just how they've been wired biologically, is it wrong?" The answer is their biological creation isn't wrong, but how they respond can be depending on how they do it. If it's a response that does interject what God has in mind, then it is wrong. We can't logically have a right answer that differs from God. If a gay guy has feelings for another guy and intends to save himself for him, marry him, and live faithfully, the sin he has committed is disobedience to God's model of marriage. His intentions may be faithful, but his faithfulness to God has been corrupted only because it sidesteps the holy definition of marriage.

It's not a legal argument or a even an argument of kindness, but it's really a theological one. Marriage isn't just a physical institution, more importantly, it's a spiritual institution.

This is the best way that I can explain it. I had this discussion with my younger sister who holds the same position as you. While I suspect both of your intentions are good and mean to try and look further before restricting someone from something that may actually be good, it's still important to try and understand why it may not be, but more importantly, why marriage is sacred in the first place.
 
Last edited:
LysanderShapiro said:
Your case is "if this is just how they've been wired biologically, is it wrong?" The answer is their biological creation isn't wrong, but how they respond can be depending on how they do it. If it's a response that does interject what God has in mind, then it is wrong. We can't logically have a right answer that differs from God. If a gay guy has feelings for another guy and intends to save himself for him, marry him, and live faithfully, the sin he has committed is disobedience to God's model of marriage. His intentions may be faithful, but his faithfulness to God has been corrupted only because it sidesteps the holy definition of marriage.

It's not a legal argument or a even an argument of kindness, but it's really a theological one. Marriage isn't just a physical institution, more importantly, it's a spiritual institution.
Click to expand...
I am looking at this from more than the Christian standpoint however. I'm looking at it as a human rights thing. Like it or not, we as human beings all have a sexual component. How people choose to use that (or not use it) is of course their decision to make, and yes there are terrible sexual sins, but I feel strongly that if two consenting adults wish to pledge their faithfulness to one another and have a happy life that it really makes no difference if they're heterosexual or homosexual. If these people were running around behind each other's backs causing pain to one another and being destructive I would be far more concerned.

I just cannot get behind the idea that we should ask all homosexuals to be celibate. It's tantamount to castration for all intents and purposes. I think everyone should have the chance to love and be loved in a marriage (or as close to marriage as homosexuals are allowed) situation.
 
I believe as Christians we are not to take "Sides" as our allegiance is to Christ the King. But for arguments sake the word calls us to have certain positions....MONEY...be a wise steward, but also consider the poor, the fatherless, etc.,...LIFE...life is sacred it is the gift of God do all you can to preserve it and protect it even if that means capturing, incarcerating, or executing those who threaten it...(we have an obligation to protect our brothers and sisters FROM such others)....SOCIETY...feed the poor, house the homeless, clothe the naked, heal the sick, teach the children....there is much more that could be said but this should suffice...

So if one is a follower of Christ they can only be called a libservative or perhaps a coniberal...but today's EXTREME "liberal" Christianity picks what suits their liberal political views and rejects and denies the reliability of God's word where it brings their PC-ness into question....while EXTREME conservative Christianity beats people up with their Bibles and will support a politician for one seemingly Biblical view even though that person does and has many views utterly the opposite of God and His word...

Now then most others fall in between somewhere but I want to warn you...both political extremes are dangerous because both exploit you to get your votes saying one thing and in fact doing another...each American "party" politician is a puppet clone of a "party" agenda and should not be viewed as a person who really cares OR speaks the truth...for this country to move forward and complete it dream we must bring down the two party system...real choice does not lay on the selection of one or the other they have predetermined for you to choose from (sold to the masses by engineered rhetoric and propaganda technique)...

So as you study the word, if you find yourself saying..."I just do not accept that" or "no that must be an add in" or without realizing it, be as a god unto yourself, doing what is right in your own eyes...deciding for you as lord what is good or evil...then IMO that one is a child of Belial or else deceived by those who are....

In His love

Paul
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
I am looking at this from more than the Christian standpoint however. I'm looking at it as a human rights thing. Like it or not, we as human beings all have a sexual component. How people choose to use that (or not use it) is of course their decision to make, and yes there are terrible sexual sins, but I feel strongly that if two consenting adults wish to pledge their faithfulness to one another and have a happy life that it really makes no difference if they're heterosexual or homosexual. If these people were running around behind each other's backs causing pain to one another and being destructive I would be far more concerned.

I just cannot get behind the idea that we should ask all homosexuals to be celibate. It's tantamount to castration for all intents and purposes. I think everyone should have the chance to love and be loved in a marriage (or as close to marriage as homosexuals are allowed) situation.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, I'm really only responding to the theological answer to it.
The LEGAL answer to it is that each person, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else, has the right to choose how they will live their lives, and it means taking responsibility for their own actions.

I have two acquaintances who are a gay couple. Both are good guys, hard working (one is a pediatrician), and monogamous (I just had coffee with one of them yesterday in fact). They know my position on it and miraculously still have respect for me. And while I like both of them, what they are doing is casting judgment onto themselves. They know I feel this way, and I've said it before -- they think I'm just a nice guy who happens to believe in an old-fashioned religion.

But while I hold to my position that it is damning, I also hold the position that we can't force people to live the way we want them to live. They still have free will and what they do with it is up to them.
 
Last edited:
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
I am looking at this from more than the Christian standpoint however. I'm looking at it as a human rights thing. Like it or not, we as human beings all have a sexual component. How people choose to use that (or not use it) is of course their decision to make, and yes there are terrible sexual sins, but I feel strongly that if two consenting adults wish to pledge their faithfulness to one another and have a happy life that it really makes no difference if they're heterosexual or homosexual. If these people were running around behind each other's backs causing pain to one another and being destructive I would be far more concerned
Click to expand...
So why are you prejudice against bisexuals? They are attracted to both sexes and can fall in love with two people and maintain a relationship with both. Don't you want them to be happy and love as they were "wired" to be? I can see three or four bisexuals having a committed relationship with each other, and wouldn't that be the best marriage? More parents to share the work of raising children and might solve the daycare problem, having three parents working so one could stay at home and raise the kids. I feel enlightened now. The Bible should be updated for our times, don't you think?
 
Big Moose said:
So why are you prejudice against bisexuals? They are attracted to both sexes and can fall in love with two people and maintain a relationship with both. Don't you want them to be happy and love as they were "wired" to be? I can see three or four bisexuals having a committed relationship with each other, and wouldn't that be the best marriage? More parents to share the work of raising children and might solve the daycare problem, having three parents working so one could stay at home and raise the kids. I feel enlightened now. The Bible should be updated for our times, don't you think?
Click to expand...
I'm not prejudiced against bisexuals. If they fall in love, let them. I'm not quite sure of the point you think you're making with this "group" arrangement though, two people is the usual arrangement for a marriage or partnership. Do you also fear gay marriage because people will marry their pets and cars? Same slippery slope argument.
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
I'm not prejudiced against bisexuals. If they fall in love, let them. I'm not quite sure of the point you think you're making with this "group" arrangement though, two people is the usual arrangement for a marriage or partnership. Do you also fear gay marriage because people will marry their pets and cars? Same slippery slope argument.
Click to expand...
You need to think about it and be open minded about the group marriage. I don't want you to fear it.
 
Why do you want to discriminate against 3, 4, or 5 people getting married? They love each other, why do they need to go through life with only one mate?
 
Big Moose said:
Why do you want to discriminate against 3, 4, or 5 people getting married? They love each other, why do they need to go through life with only one mate?
Click to expand...
I don't, I just don't see anyone coming forward to demand it. I don't care. Knock yourself out if you feel strongly about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top