Search results

Petrarch is considered the father of Renaissance humanism. He was a Christian. Erasmus is considered a major figure in the humanist movement. He, also, was a Christian. You are mistakingly assuming that humanism refers to 'secular humanism.' There is a difference. Context is all important...

Because we have been wrong about calling things sins (or neglecting to call things sins) in the past. Because it seems reasonable to suppose that we would also have reasons outside of Scripture to suppose that something denounced by Scripture is wrong. You've never been involved with...

That a few people today in the Church have their knee-jerk hate affirmed by a mis-interpretation of Scripture is hardly confirmation of the validity of that interpretation.

Her point is that 'fornication' did not mean what it does today. inappropriate contenteia is a terribly complicated word.

I was kinda hoping for something a bit more in-depth and thematic, rather than rote quotation of Scripture.

It is not self-evident, in the form of Scripture, how it is meant to be interpreted. I accept what the Bible says; I reject your method of interpretation.

Just a heads-up; you're assuming a VERY particular methodology on this matter. One that I, and others, reject.

Different paradigms unfortunately lead to non-parallel halves of a discussion. Although, in this case, Al is incorrect in his usage of the word 'universalism.'

Sorry. When it comes to determining empirical facts about the world around me, I go to science.

I'm not certain we're speaking the same language any more. Please tell me, in your own words, what 'universalism' means in the context of UU.

Christian Humanism is the recognition of the ideals of humanism within the context of Christian principles. Kierkegaard is considered one of its main figures, and he was one of the most orthodox and pious figures in Christian literature (go look him up; I honestly think you'd like him). You...

You mean to tell me you entirely understand everything in Romans 1 and 2 at face-value, without any reference to historical context? That's ludicrous. Romans, though systematic, is incredibly ambiguous.

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Check the relevant citations.

You know, I'm the one that has presented historical facts in this matter. You might do well to actually offer an explanation for the irrelevance of those facts, instead of simply assuming it. In the process, perhaps you'll do some research.

I'm not going to make a blanket statement on an entire religion. Christian orthodoxy is quite capacious.

“Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it, which are sometimes referred to as ‘reparative therapy.’ No scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe. Moreover, because...

Morally wrong, or improper, or unjustified.

Religious humanism =/= Christian Humanism. Christian humanism =/= religious humanism. Humanism =/= Christian Humanism. Christian Humanism =/= humanism. Perhaps some UU's are Christian Humanists. But Christian Humanism in no way implies UU.

Wow. UU =/= Christian Humanism. Christian Humanism =/= UU. Go check wikipedia.

Is premarital sex wrong? Explain.