• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hurray for these Christians!

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I've often contributed to threads condemning fundamentalist religious bigotry. Wahhabism, WBC, Haredi and Moral Majority types have all had my condemnation. If you criticise wildly reactionary Christian morals strongly, then I think you also have the obligation to recognise when other Christian denominations do something that demonstrates love, acceptance and moral tolerance.

I was heartened to read this article about one such Christian church doing something positive and progressive. Good for the URC (Presbyterian/Congregationalist) if and when they make this momentous decision, and congratulations to the happy couple, whenever they tie the knot.

Gay marriage vote: The couple hoping to marry in church - BBC News
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,456
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Congregationalists are governed by their congregation, it doesn't mean the whole denomination would perform this sacrilege, only that these heretics would.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
35,297
Reaction score
24,122
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Congregationalists are governed by their congregation, it doesn't mean the whole denomination would perform this sacrilege, only that these heretics would.

Sacrament.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Congregationalists are governed by their congregation, it doesn't mean the whole denomination would perform this sacrilege, only that these heretics would.

From the article:
on Saturday the general assembly of the United Reformed Church (URC) will decide whether same-sex marriage ceremonies can be held in its churches.
The URC has around 56,000 members in Britain, and if the motion is passed it will be the first major Christian denomination in the UK to allow such ceremonies to take place.
I think that means all 1,400 congregations.

As far as heresy goes, what are your qualifications for deciding what constitutes heresy? Who decides, and more to the point, how is heresy judged?

Something in my vague memory tells me that you may be a Catholic. If that is the case, surely all Protestant denominations are, by their very nature, heretical, aren't they? They do not follow your othodoxy, and for that matter, you do not follow theirs so to many Christians, aren't you a heretic too?
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
and protesters don't view marriage as a sacrament there Skippy...

Clearly the two women in the article do view it as a sacrament. They're not protesting anything, they just want to get married.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,456
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From the article:
I think that means all 1,400 congregations.

As far as heresy goes, what are your qualifications for deciding what constitutes heresy? Who decides, and more to the point, how is heresy judged?

Something in my vague memory tells me that you may be a Catholic. If that is the case, surely all Protestant denominations are, by their very nature, heretical, aren't they? They do not follow your othodoxy, and for that matter, you do not follow theirs so to many Christians, aren't you a heretic too?

You said Congregationalist , congregationalists are governed by their congregation.

Your memory serves you well. I am Catholic and while I adhere to Catholic social teaching my theology isn't quite fully in communion. But I'm working on that. (I've taken Erasmus's approach rather than Luther's, or since we're speaking of the Reformed, Calvin...)

They could call me a heretic, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong, (though it wouldn't be on this issue as they most certainly are) but I could never be called sacrilegious and never, I mean NEVER would I be called late for dinner.
 
Last edited:

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,456
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Clearly the two women in the article do view it as a sacrament. They're not protesting anything, they just want to get married.


Protestants, or as I affectionately like to call them "protesters" especially those who follow Calvinist theology don't view marriage as a sacrament. In the theological-ontological sense of the word...
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I've often contributed to threads condemning fundamentalist religious bigotry. Wahhabism, WBC, Haredi and Moral Majority types have all had my condemnation. If you criticise wildly reactionary Christian morals strongly, then I think you also have the obligation to recognise when other Christian denominations do something that demonstrates love, acceptance and moral tolerance.

I was heartened to read this article about one such Christian church doing something positive and progressive. Good for the URC (Presbyterian/Congregationalist) if and when they make this momentous decision, and congratulations to the happy couple, whenever they tie the knot.

Gay marriage vote: The couple hoping to marry in church - BBC News

Changing the fundamental ethics offers a religion is always tempting to attract more payers. Finance is a strong motivator.

This is interesting at a time, when the Christian population is growing faster than the global population. You see, it is continuity of law that is a major atractor of religions. Jettisoning it is risky stuff as beliefs generally loose legitimacy, when they go relativistic.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Congregationalists are governed by their congregation, it doesn't mean the whole denomination would perform this sacrilege, only that these heretics would.

Without wanting to judge the values, it is pretty clear that it is heresy.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Changing the fundamental ethics offers a religion is always tempting to attract more payers. Finance is a strong motivator.

Who judges what is 'fundamental ethics' of any religion. Are religions like democracies, whatever the majority think is what goes? Do the believers decide what is 'fundamental'? If you argue that scripture is sovereign, who's to interpret that? Clergy? Laity? Both? Or neither?

There have been dozens of changes to 'fundamental ethics' in the history of Christianity, even within Catholic doctrine. Can't we just agree that evolution is inevitable and unstoppable; applaud the changes we approve of according to our own ethics, and bemoan those we disagree with?
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I've often contributed to threads condemning fundamentalist religious bigotry. Wahhabism, WBC, Haredi and Moral Majority types have all had my condemnation. If you criticise wildly reactionary Christian morals strongly, then I think you also have the obligation to recognise when other Christian denominations do something that demonstrates love, acceptance and moral tolerance.

I was heartened to read this article about one such Christian church doing something positive and progressive. Good for the URC (Presbyterian/Congregationalist) if and when they make this momentous decision, and congratulations to the happy couple, whenever they tie the knot.

Gay marriage vote: The couple hoping to marry in church - BBC News

"Yes, I'm in favor of gay marriage. Gays should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us." -Kinky Friedman
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
You said Congregationalist , congregationalists are governed by their congregation.

Your memory serves you well. I am Catholic and while I adhere to Catholic social teaching my theology isn't quite fully in communion. But I'm working on that. (I've taken Erasmus's approach rather than Luther's, or since we're speaking of the Reformed, Calvin...)

They could call me a heretic, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong, (though it wouldn't be on this issue as they most certainly are) but I could never be called sacrilegious and never, I mean NEVER would I be called late for dinner.

So, judging heresy is little more than factional in-fighting. Got it. Not to be dismissive, but you threw out the epithet 'heretics' unprovoked. Why should that carry any weight as an insult if you admit that you are a heretic too? If you didn't mean it as an insult, what did you mean by it?
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
"Yes, I'm in favor of gay marriage. Gays should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us." -Kinky Friedman

I've read that before. Great point IMHO. I've never had any desire to marry any of my SS partners, and pretty fundamentally disagree with the institution, but if any two, or perhaps too, consenting adults want to do it...
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Who judges what is 'fundamental ethics' of any religion. Are religions like democracies, whatever the majority think is what goes? Do the believers decide what is 'fundamental'? If you argue that scripture is sovereign, who's to interpret that? Clergy? Laity? Both? Or neither?

There have been dozens of changes to 'fundamental ethics' in the history of Christianity, even within Catholic doctrine. Can't we just agree that evolution is inevitable and unstoppable; applaud the changes we approve of according to our own ethics, and bemoan those we disagree with?

Nope. It is quite clear cut, what features are fundamental to an ethical system.
Yes, it is true that religions have been known to make changes to their codes. And as I think I mentioned, history shows this can be divisive and even dangerous to the society accepting relativism.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Nope. It is quite clear cut, what features are fundamental to an ethical system.
I think the degree of diversity of opinion across all denominations pretty much disproves that assertion.

Yes, it is true that religions have been known to make changes to their codes. And as I think I mentioned, history shows this can be divisive and even dangerous to the society accepting relativism.
Your subjective opinion doesn't really cut the mustard, unless you have a definitive list of 'fundamental ethics' that all Christians hold to be applicable. I challenge you to enumerate any such list.
 

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,705
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am glad that it makes them happy

god loves them no more or less for their sexual leaning or indulgences

as for me, the institution of marriage is over rated and the benefits of leaving a bad marriage are under rated

it's a man made institution and it generates lots of dollars which could be better spent
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the degree of diversity of opinion across all denominations pretty much disproves that assertion.

Your subjective opinion doesn't really cut the mustard, unless you have a definitive list of 'fundamental ethics' that all Christians hold to be applicable. I challenge you to enumerate any such list.

Not at all. It is true that the transparency of many religious ethics does tend to imply relativity of marginal values. But to say they "'disproves" anything that was said is false.

But why not take a class in ethics and their impact? You might enjoy it.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Not at all. It is true that the transparency of many religious ethics does tend to imply relativity of marginal values. But to say they "'disproves" anything that was said is false.

But why not take a class in ethics and their impact? You might enjoy it.

If it were to lack the rationality your responses display, I think I'll pass. Until you can demonstrate any universality to Christian ethics or doctrine, talk of 'heresy' is pretty much meaningless. Indeed, what it displays is your relativist thinking.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,456
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who judges what is 'fundamental ethics' of any religion. Are religions like democracies, whatever the majority think is what goes? Do the believers decide what is 'fundamental'? If you argue that scripture is sovereign, who's to interpret that? Clergy? Laity? Both? Or neither?

There have been dozens of changes to 'fundamental ethics' in the history of Christianity, even within Catholic doctrine. Can't we just agree that evolution is inevitable and unstoppable; applaud the changes we approve of according to our own ethics, and bemoan those we disagree with?

and here is the great question.

Catholics follow that scripture must be viewed through the eyes of Tradition. The Church created the Bible, the Bible didn't create the Church.

Protesters believe in the primacy of sola scriptura, or scripture alone. Leaving each of us to interpret the Bible for ourselves. Calvin, which is where these spoken of denominations get their foundational theology from was a huge advocate for this. He however would never allow for the crazed notion of interpreting scripture in away that actually contradicts scripture.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,456
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, judging heresy is little more than factional in-fighting. Got it. Not to be dismissive, but you threw out the epithet 'heretics' unprovoked. Why should that carry any weight as an insult if you admit that you are a heretic too? If you didn't mean it as an insult, what did you mean by it?

Not at all. Tertullian, the father of latin Christianity, the one who is credited with the development of the Trinity as it is known today was branded a heretic for some of his thoughts. As was Origen, and a few other well knowns.

Be dismissive as it pleases you, I'm not truly expecting to change your mind. I would be branded a heretic (one who goes against orthodoxy) due to my held beliefs of a more panentheistic ontological makeup of our Creator and how he and we are related or interrelated. They are branded heretics because they have interpreted scripture in a way that actually contradicts it. I'm being nice here and giving them this benefit of the doubt and not accusing them of out and out ignoring or defying what is written. It is a well established tradition of protesters to simply remove pieces of scripture that don't jive with their personally held beliefs. Which is why there are 72 books in the Catholic edition of the bible while only 66 in the Protestant one.
 

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,609
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Who judges what is 'fundamental ethics' of any religion. Are religions like democracies, whatever the majority think is what goes? Do the believers decide what is 'fundamental'? If you argue that scripture is sovereign, who's to interpret that? Clergy? Laity? Both? Or neither?

There have been dozens of changes to 'fundamental ethics' in the history of Christianity, even within Catholic doctrine. Can't we just agree that evolution is inevitable and unstoppable; applaud the changes we approve of according to our own ethics, and bemoan those we disagree with?

God is sovereign, he works his will. You can think of Orlando or 9/11 as hints. Calling a group a "church" doesn't make it Godly.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
and here is the great question.
And yet you leave it unanswered. I'm aware of the differences between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant attitudes to scripture, tradition and mystery.

Catholics follow that scripture must be viewed through the eyes of Tradition. The Church created the Bible, the Bible didn't create the Church.
And I'm aware of that position too.

Protesters believe in the primacy of sola scriptura, or scripture alone. Leaving each of us to interpret the Bible for ourselves. Calvin, which is where these spoken of denominations get their foundational theology from was a huge advocate for this. He however would never allow for the crazed notion of interpreting scripture in away that actually contradicts scripture.

Not at all. Tertullian, the father of latin Christianity, the one who is credited with the development of the Trinity as it is known today was branded a heretic for some of his thoughts. As was Origen, and a few other well knowns.
And yet you respect him? A heretic? So, how come you used the word 'heretic' as an insult with which to dismiss the URC?

Be dismissive as it pleases you, I'm not truly expecting to change your mind. I would be branded a heretic (one who goes against orthodoxy) due to my held beliefs of a more panentheistic ontological makeup of our Creator and how he and we are related or interrelated. They are branded heretics because they have interpreted scripture in a way that actually contradicts it.
Did Tertullian do that too? or was he perhaps a heretic because he was the first to interpret scripture in a particular way that contradicted tradition, not contradicted scripture itself, which is, after all, clearly open to interpretation.

I'm being nice here and giving them this benefit of the doubt and not accusing them of out and out ignoring or defying what is written. It is a well established tradition of protesters to simply remove pieces of scripture that don't jive with their personally held beliefs. Which is why there are 72 books in the Catholic edition of the bible while only 66 in the Protestant one.
I see, so their acceptance of gay marriage, which they DID indeed approve today, is secondary to the fact that they are scriptural Christians, rather than 'traditional' Christians.
 
Top Bottom