- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
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.
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
And yet you leave it unanswered. I'm aware of the differences between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant attitudes to scripture, tradition and mystery.
And I'm aware of that position too.
And yet you respect him? A heretic? So, how come you used the word 'heretic' as an insult with which to dismiss the URC?
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 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.
Actually I did answer it.
This isn't a "position" this is a fact.
I said I respected him? When? He was a heretic because he taught (concerning remarriage of widows and fleeing persecution) that which was against what the Church taught. Like homosexuals can marry. Which is a contradiction of both scripture and tradition.
Their acceptance of gay marriage is indeed a testament to how far the apple has fallen from the tree. It's merely a symptom, a natural progression of a continued errancy of thought which has accumulated with time.
I think you have this simple notion of heresy. To be in full communion with the Church means that every jot and tittle you believe is as the Church has taught. As the jots and tittles pile up that you've thrown by the way side in accepting your own version of things, your own interpretation that doesn't align with the Church the less you are in communion with Her.
So, for instance, while I subscribe whole-heartedly and believe what is dogma and doctrine concerning the Church's social teaching (with the exception of one aspect of which I am still open to accepting), me being in communion with the Church there, I have ontological arguments that I feel need to be addressed, revisited, explored et al. that do not align with the Church's teaching. Therefore (oh, wonderful! therefore!) I can be considered a heretic in that regard. I'm not wholly in communion with the Church.
As it pertains to these individuals, their dogmas, doctrines, beliefs, etc etc... they are so far removed from communion with the Church that they can be called heretics on any number of issues not the least of which would be gay marriage.
It's not a case of you are either a True Believer or you are a Heretic. In or Out. It's a matter of degrees.
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
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.
Lol. So you celebrate Christians, as long as they behave the way you wish them to. How magnanimous of you. :roll: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
This is an abomination.
Gay sex is clearly a sin in the Bible. And thus, gay marriage would be nothing more than institutionalized sin.
The following quote from your article also was an exercise in folly: ""I don't think we're there yet, but I'm optimistic that we will get there. I think there has been a monumental societal shift within the LGBT community and that everybody widely accepts that this is about love," she says.
So, if it's all about love then two adulterers in love must be okay too. Nope, not a chance.
For the record,
"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" - 1 Corinthians 13
And,
"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences)
So, nice try but no cigar.
Lol. So you celebrate Christians, as long as they behave the way you wish them to. How magnanimous of you. :roll:
Lol. So you celebrate Christians, as long as they behave the way you wish them to. How magnanimous of you. :roll:
He gave credit where it was due. Get in the sack with Chez and Logicman.
I'm hardly going to celebrate them doing something I deem despicable, now am I? I'm guessing you aren't celebrating this development because they aren't doing what you'd wish them to do. Circular logic.
I suspect that their judgement of what constitutes heresy, and interpretation of what they believe their God wishes is different from yours. Who knows, perhaps it's not even the same God that you worship.Why would I celebrate those who adopt heresy as an official part of their doctrine? It has nothing to do with what I wish them to do, it concerns what the God they claim to worship wishes them to do.
No. I don't have a pony in your gun control debate. None of my business.Do you applaud fellow leftists who are pro gun rights?
Why would I celebrate those who adopt heresy as an official part of their doctrine? It has nothing to do with what I wish them to do, it concerns what the God they claim to worship wishes them to do.
Do you applaud fellow leftists who are pro gun rights?
A purported follower of a fgure who was so concerned about "an abomination" he never mentioned it?
His message of universal love passed YOU by!
He gave credit where it was due. Get in the sack with Chez and Logicman.
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.
Heretic is the Christian word for Infidel.
You know where that leads us to Brother.
Where does it lead? Orthodox teaching? Obedience to God?
Its one thing to have doctrinal differences of opinion, it's another thing entirely to eschew doctrine altogether.
That would lead to executing all who are not rightous in the name of Jesus Christ.
This has been tried before.
How do you know that it isn't the changes in policies, rules, edicts, ethics, whatever you want to call it, that isn't attracting more Christians? That could be the very thing that is increasing those numbers, particularly in either developed countries or in countries where the dominate religion is even more hostile.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh good grief, gimme a break. Talk about heresy. :roll:
Blasphemy might get you excommunicated, while heresy is a death sentence.
Shirley, you know this.
Yeah, modern Christians are executing heretics left and right. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?