Do all liberals support abortion and LGBTQ+?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

What is the forgiveness here in the case of abortion? Specifically an elective abortion to kill a child whom is viable and poses no risk to the mother? What is the theological liberal forgiving in that case? Is the abortion itself somehow a redemptive purging of the consequences of the sex this woman had? Or is the theological liberal forgiving the abortion itself?

Conservatives are not opposed to forgiving others. What we would insist on is some sort of genuine repentance and need to change one's life.

Click to expand...

Liberals do not include the demand (to genuinely repent and change ones life to meet somebody's standard) as part of the requirements of forgiveness.

For liberal the threshold of "poses no risk to the mother" is the decision of the mother and not the decision of the public.

For example, if a man threatens to kill his child after it is born. Sure, this never ever happens in a million years, but "For example" this would not meet your requirements so the female who would not want the fathers DNA to exist anymore, would have to endure the pregnancy as well as her mental state after bearing the child for the rest of her life.

Yes, her mental state is her own problem and not the child's. But a liberal would have compassion on such a woman and "forgiver her" to make her own decisions.

For example, when Jesus said to the woman "Go and sin no more" he didn't ask her to repent frst and didn't spell out any further demands on her like a good conservative would.

A good conservative Jesus would have asked if she regretted her sins, asked if she will change her ways, waited until she repented, then forgiven her and reminded her that her forgiveness requires that she live up to community standards from then on. Or else she faces further punishments.

That's why I no longer believe that Jesus was conservative. Because he didn't act like one.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I've never seen someone who was politically and theologically liberal be against abortion. They may exist, but I suspect the inherent logic of liberalism/leftism makes that an extremely minority position. What is theological liberalism and why does it tend to support things like abortion and access to it more so than theological conservatism?

Excluding arguments about rape or the life of the mother, I am curious why theological liberals are more likely to support abortion on demand. Does it come down to an overriding concern to protect the first two instances of abortion they will defend the latter as well? To prevent a slippery slope? Even if abortion on demand is immoral?

Click to expand...

I will speak to the situation among Protestant Christians in the United States. The situation in New Zealand, and among Orthodox and Catholic Christians is likely different.

Here are factors that I see in the mix as theologically liberal Protestants make a decision on this.

1) The legality of abortion and the morality of abortion are not the same thing. It is possible to want abortions to be legal even while believing that many/most are morally wrong.

2) Theological liberals tend to take women's voices, experiences, needs, rights, and agency very seriously.

3) In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a decision to move the beginning of fully developed, legally protected human life back to the point of conception. This was a phenomenon that happened primarily in the conservative churches, but not in the liberal churches.

Vesper_Jaye✝️ said:

I’m a conservative, but I understand the rules of this forum and I’ll be respectful of liberal Christians in this thread.

Do all liberals, specifically liberal Christians, support abortion and LGBTQ+?

Just wondering how much these issues are tied to politics.

Click to expand...

I'm not clear on exactly what the term "support" refers to in your poll. I thinks it's a bit ambiguous.

By "support," do you mean something firmer like 'endorse and approve,' or do you mean something looser like 'condone and tolerate'?

I find it rather difficult to place any kind of response on your poll because I have a third category that I parse out in my own thinking on the matter ... so, I can't designate my own spot on the poll.

Thanks!

PloverWing said:

I will speak to the situation among Protestant Christians in the United States. The situation in New Zealand, and among Orthodox and Catholic Christians is likely different.

Here are factors that I see in the mix as theologically liberal Protestants make a decision on this.

1) The legality of abortion and the morality of abortion are not the same thing. It is possible to want abortions to be legal even while believing that many/most are morally wrong.

2) Theological liberals tend to take women's voices, experiences, needs, rights, and agency very seriously.

3) In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a decision to move the beginning of fully developed, legally protected human life back to the point of conception. This was a phenomenon that happened primarily in the conservative churches, but not in the liberal churches.

Click to expand...

Right. I grew up in the 50s and 60s. At that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. The S Baptist church generally accepted Rowe v Wade.

I don't know why a sudden change occurred among evangelicals during the 80s and 90s. There's some evidence that key leaders saw racism dying and thought abortion could be used as a new rallying cry. (The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth *) But however it happened, mainline Protestants weren't part of the change, and retain the attitudes of the 50s and 60s.

--------

* For a while this could have been regarded as ad hominem speculation. But pretty clear evidence was found in Weyrich's papers after he died.

The situation on LGBT questions is different. On abortion the question is why evangelicals changed. On LGBT it's why the mainline churches changed. In general terms, it's because the mainline churches' understanding of human sexuality and of the difficulties of Christian gays changed, and they don't see Paul's letters as preventing that change (for reasons that can’t be dealt with here).

But it's nearly unanimous because conservatives who care about this issue consider it impossible to maintain fellowship with those who disagree. So they left, leaving the mainline churches either accepting or willing to work with people who are accepting.

hedrick said:

I don't know why a sudden change occurred among evangelicals during the 80s and 90s. There's some evidence that key leaders saw racism dying and thought abortion could be used as a new rallying cry. (The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth *) But however it happened

Click to expand...

Yes, the 1990s resulted in a lot of people experiencing those changes entering the church. It seemed like things would change. But as it happened, many who hated the uniqueness of the decade were the people who went to seminary.

This might be good to observe with future decades of change.

Why aren't men held responsible for a woman's pregnancy??? It's absurd to blame just women for pregnancy and punish them for the baby developing inside them. Why not force castration on men who create unwanted pregnancies?

( note: speaking in broad generality)

I believe a Christian should know that faith requires the overall awareness of love of God & neighbor. To observe this must be done in the fear of the Lord keeping the commandments ( Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, Deuteronomy 5 etc.).

The moral law of the old covenant is basically the same as the new. What the Lord Jesus Christ did was maintain it’s observance but forbid severity to be inflicted on transgressors ( a prime example being stoning) and fulfill the preaching of repentance. There was repentance under the Law of course but it was incomplete.

Compare a core example of the old covenant in Leviticus 18, Leviticus 19, & Leviticus 20 with Romans 1. These are basically the same and while some selective modernists try to separate the preaching of Paul from the Lord, they are mistaken. Paul knewthe Sermon on the Mount ( Matthew 5, Matthew 6, Matthew 7) and it is in this context that Romans 1 ( for ex.) applies. Paul affirms his understanding of the Gospel in Romans 13:8-10 which is basically what the Lord told the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-19 etc.

If this basic foundation of salvation by grace ( Ephesians 2:8-10) in which justification depends ( Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17) is lost, then how can we be saved? Sure, most of us will stumble so we need to work out our salvation ( Philippians 2:12).

I think we need to be politically aware and keep politics out of our churches. Worldly pressures to be “inclusive” are against the faith. As wrong as abortion is, I believe an issue like that is now in the area of spiritual warfare ( Ephesians 6:10-24). The only sexuality really justified by God is within heterosexual marriage for procreation ( Exodus 20:14). Easier said than done but that is really it and there is really no opportunity to “reason” anymore with the world. Soon a Christian will be like Lot ( Genesis 19) in dealing with the “world”.

Lukaris said:

The only sexuality really justified by God is within heterosexual marriage for procreation.

Click to expand...

So every sex act has no value to the couple outside of making babies?
And we know that's not true, according to scripture.

There is no mention of babies here, so your claim is denied.

How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are doves. Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead.
2
Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn, coming up from the washing. Each has its twin; not one of them is alone.
3
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like the halves of a pomegranate.
4
Your neck is like the tower of David, built with elegance [1] ; on it hang a thousand shields, all of them shields of warriors.
5
Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies.
6
Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, I will go to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of incense.
7
All beautiful you are, my darling; there is no flaw in you.
8
Come with me from Lebanon, my bride, come with me from Lebanon. Descend from the crest of Amana, from the top of Senir, the summit of Hermon, from the lions' dens and the mountain haunts of the leopards.
9
You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace.
10
How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!
11
Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon.
12
You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
13
Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates with choice fruits, with henna and nard,
14
nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with every kind of incense tree, with myrrh and aloes and all the finest spices.
15
You are [2] a garden fountain, a well of flowing water streaming down from Lebanon.
16
Awake, north wind, and come, south wind! Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits.

PloverWing said:

I will speak to the situation among Protestant Christians in the United States. The situation in New Zealand, and among Orthodox and Catholic Christians is likely different.

Here are factors that I see in the mix as theologically liberal Protestants make a decision on this.

1) The legality of abortion and the morality of abortion are not the same thing. It is possible to want abortions to be legal even while believing that many/most are morally wrong.

2) Theological liberals tend to take women's voices, experiences, needs, rights, and agency very seriously.

3) In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a decision to move the beginning of fully developed, legally protected human life back to the point of conception. This was a phenomenon that happened primarily in the conservative churches, but not in the liberal churches.

Click to expand...

1 ) To desire abortion on demand despite knowing the action itself is immoral and evil is strange position to hold. Especially when it comes to understanding why it is immoral. There is another life involved and if we are willing to tolerate that life being extinguished, for any reason the individual woman desires, then we are essentially tolerating murder.

2 ) To the detriment of other voices and the historical understanding of the Church. Plusit would be more accurate to say you take some women's voices and experiences seriously, not all women's voices seriously.

3 ) The standard for being against abortion is an ancient Church standard. Christians since the Didache have been quite clear that abortion is unacceptable. Why did liberals change their mind only recently? Why is abortion on demand needed?

pescador said:

Why aren't men held responsible for a woman's pregnancy??? It's absurd to blame just women for pregnancy and punish them for the baby developing inside them. Why not force castration on men who create unwanted pregnancies?

Click to expand...

They responsible. Men in many countries aren't allowed to just walk away from their child and will be forced to pay child support. As for castrating men, I agree we should castrate rapists but you don't really believe we should that.

Considering abortion and that one can procure an abortion for any reason in some places in the USA, we should ask why men have any responsibility in those states. If the woman is free to murder her offspring for any reason, why shouldn't the man be free to walk away for any reason?

SkyWriting said:

Liberals do not include the demand (to genuinely repent and change ones life to meet somebody's standard) as part of the requirements of forgiveness.

For liberal the threshold of "poses no risk to the mother" is the decision of the mother and not the decision of the public.

For example, if a man threatens to kill his child after it is born. Sure, this never ever happens in a million years, but "For example" this would not meet your requirements so the female who would not want the fathers DNA to exist anymore, would have to endure the pregnancy as well as her mental state after bearing the child for the rest of her life.

Yes, her mental state is her own problem and not the child's. But a liberal would have compassion on such a woman and "forgiver her" to make her own decisions.

For example, when Jesus said to the woman "Go and sin no more" he didn't ask her to repent frst and didn't spell out any further demands on her like a good conservative would.

A good conservative Jesus would have asked if she regretted her sins, asked if she will change her ways, waited until she repented, then forgiven her and reminded her that her forgiveness requires that she live up to community standards from then on. Or else she faces further punishments.

That's why I no longer believe that Jesus was conservative. Because he didn't act like one.

Click to expand...

Why does the woman who intentionally aborts a child in order to live a more convenient life deserve forgiveness? We're not talking here about cases which endanger the mother, not all pregnancy is life threatening nor is it going to destroy most women. If you want to render this a case of free choice, of which the Church and community is in no place to judge, how does the Church or community operate at all? Why have standards? Why have rules? What is the end of your standard? Pure individual autonomy, free from any constraint. That isn't historic Christianity. That is a sort of liberalism that ends in libertinism.

The end it seems to me is death. It's to satisfy oneself rather than to do the moral thing. I assume you consider abortion immoral or else you would not mention the need for repentance. Then again, are you even considering there is a need for repentance in this scenario? Do you consider abortion a sin? Specifically abortion on demand. Is there anything actually wrong in procuring it?

You have compassion for this woman, but why? Because she doesn't want to be a mother? It would seem to me in having an abortion she has violated what Saint Paul said about women being saved in childbirth. To the liberal, the woman is saved in aborting her own child. Saved from the tedium of having to raise her own child.

SkyWriting said:

So every sex act has no value to the couple outside of making babies?
And we know that's not true, according to scripture.

There is no mention of babies here, so your claim is denied.

How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are doves. Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead.
2
Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn, coming up from the washing. Each has its twin; not one of them is alone.
3
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like the halves of a pomegranate.
4
Your neck is like the tower of David, built with elegance [1] ; on it hang a thousand shields, all of them shields of warriors.
5
Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies.
6
Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, I will go to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of incense.
7
All beautiful you are, my darling; there is no flaw in you.
8
Come with me from Lebanon, my bride, come with me from Lebanon. Descend from the crest of Amana, from the top of Senir, the summit of Hermon, from the lions' dens and the mountain haunts of the leopards.
9
You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace.
10
How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!
11
Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon.
12
You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
13
Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates with choice fruits, with henna and nard,
14
nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with every kind of incense tree, with myrrh and aloes and all the finest spices.
15
You are [2] a garden fountain, a well of flowing water streaming down from Lebanon.
16
Awake, north wind, and come, south wind! Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits.

Click to expand...

It is still a likely outcome to the inspiration from Song of Solomon. Solomon was also a king of great wealth and was a polygamist; it was tolerated then. It was also Solomon who later said that there were times to embrace or refrain from embracing ( Ecclesiastes 3:5).

Believe me, I post this in utmost caution & not trying to talk down or be a Pharisee but this is basic scripture. This seems applicable to all the climate talk these days re overpopulation etc.and outright abstinence avoids birth control and abortion. Just throwing thoughts around.

Paul affirms either marriage or abstinence 1 Corinthians 7.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Why does the woman who intentionally aborts a child in order to live a more convenient life deserve forgiveness? We're not talking here about cases which endanger the mother, not all pregnancy is life threatening nor is it going to destroy most women. If you want to render this a case of free choice, of which the Church and community is in no place to judge, how does the Church or community operate at all? Why have standards? Why have rules? What is the end of your standard? Pure individual autonomy, free from any constraint. That isn't historic Christianity. That is a sort of liberalism that ends in libertinism.

The end it seems to me is death. It's to satisfy oneself rather than to do the moral thing. I assume you consider abortion immoral or else you would not mention the need for repentance. Then again, are you even considering there is a need for repentance in this scenario? Do you consider abortion a sin? Specifically abortion on demand. Is there anything actually wrong in procuring it?

You have compassion for this woman, but why? Because she doesn't want to be a mother? It would seem to me in having an abortion she has violated what Saint Paul said about women being saved in childbirth. To the liberal, the woman is saved in aborting her own child. Saved from the tedium of having to raise her own child.

Click to expand...

"If you want to render this a case of free choice, of which the Church and community is in no place to judge, how does the Church or community operate at all? Why have standards? Why have rules? What is the end of your standard? Pure individual autonomy, free from any constraint."

Reductio ad absurdum.

If you knew anything about responsible medical care you wouldn't be writing such nonsense. Pregnancy is the result of intercourse between a man and a woman, most of the time voluntary but sometimes not. It is clear that both men and women are responsible for pregnancies, and sometimes these are not consented to by the woman. Why should she be held responsible for rape or incest and be forced to give birth as the result of sex against her will?

Additionally, there are many cases where the mother's life is endangered and/or the fetus has no chance of surviving more than a short time after birth, dying an agonizing death. Is that what you want? I challenge you to witness such an event and then see if you think you still hold to your unrealistic idealism.

pescador said:

"If you want to render this a case of free choice, of which the Church and community is in no place to judge, how does the Church or community operate at all? Why have standards? Why have rules? What is the end of your standard? Pure individual autonomy, free from any constraint."

Reductio ad absurdum.

If you knew anything about responsible medical care you wouldn't be writing such nonsense. Pregnancy is the result of intercourse between a man and a woman, most of the time voluntary but sometimes not. It is clear that both men and women are responsible for pregnancies, and sometimes these are not consented to by the woman. Why should she be held responsible for rape or incest and be forced to give birth as the result of sex against her will?

Additionally, there are many cases where the mother's life is endangered and/or the fetus has no chance of surviving more than a short time after birth, dying an agonizing death. Is that what you want? I challenge you to witness such an event and then see if you think you still hold to your unrealistic idealism.

Click to expand...

If it comes down to the principle of protecting life I have to side with the life in the womb, because I see in your principle the same principle that leads to abortion on demand. That is, you are not concerned to prohibit abortion up until a point, but to permit it in all cases and for any reason the individual woman desires. In that case, I think your complaint about men walking away holds no merit. If the woman in your view is free to terminate her children at any point of the pregnancy then how does the man have any duty to that child?

Rape and the conception of life is tragic and I am for punishing the rapist with the utmost severity. Castrate him and make him a slave financially to the woman and the child for most of his life. I'm not idealistic, but neither am I capricious towards life in the womb to allow abortion on demand and regard the child in the womb as akin to punishment or a parasite.

I would ask you, do agree with outlawing abortion on demand or abortion beyond the first trimester?

Also, I'm not arguing absurdly. If the principle we are going to espouse both politically and theologically that it is permissible for a woman to get an abortion for any reason and the core justification is the individual choice of the mother to do with her body whatever she wants. I think many of the core teachings of Christianity fall apart. That might be a fine enlightenment liberal position to hold, but Christianity has never valued the individual to the exclusion of all other concerns. There is a long history of the Church holding her members accountable for their sins and if abortion is a sin we may casually not hold members to account for what else might the Church not hold their members to account for?

Lukaris said:

It is still a likely outcome to the inspiration from Song of Solomon.

Click to expand...

Unlikely. Only three children are noted. The entire chapter doesn't mention reproduction.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Why does the woman who intentionally aborts a child in order to live a more convenient life deserve forgiveness?

Click to expand...

I don't know why. That's why only Jesus is only qualified to judge others.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

1 ) To desire abortion on demand despite knowing the action itself is immoral and evil is strange position to hold.

Click to expand...

We can only judge ourselves, not others.

SkyWriting said:

I don't know why. That's why only Jesus is only qualified to judge others.

Click to expand...

Only Jesus is qualified to judge others? Is this only in the religious realm or does it include the secular realm?

SkyWriting said:

We can only judge ourselves, not others.

Click to expand...

Then the Church should be abolished and the Apostles and Saint Paul branded apostates.