Dealing with Liberal Christians

OK, how does Puritanism relate to the Reformed faith? It is my understanding that Puritans required evidence of the experience of regeneration before they allowed people to be members of their churches. I understand with Presbyterians, baptism makes you a member of a church.

How do you understand the relationship between Puritans and the Reformed?

Christ predicted many would preach falsehood in my name as we see many so called Christian scholars and preachers promoting the abomination called homosexualism. Abomination is a pretty strong word you might say but this is how the Bible describes this practice transgenderism is just as immoral and bad. Keep in mind these words do not mean I hate homosexuals and transgenders if I tell them the truth doesn't mean I hate them. If someone wants to be homosexual let him be but know that true Christians and Christianity will never condone such practices.

I think society in general has played a role in the confusion of transgenderism and the understanding of it. When my oldest son was in early elementary school, I spoke with a Christian clinical psychologist about him liking both male and female toys and clothes, liking makeup and nailpolish and football and fighting like a knight. Guess what, he hasn't changed. He still like makeup and he shaves most of his body, but lifts weights and has this protective-defender type mentality; he talks like a guy, but he wants pretty things.

The therapist said that femininity and masculinity are both on a spectrum. Every human is born with the capacity to have behavior traits of and interests in both, but to different degrees depending on the individual. Personality and psychological development is affected by nurturing, expectations, and societal pressure. When this isn't handled well, problems will arise. Psychology and emotions are not the same as biology. It's two very different topics. You can't base one on the other.

If a male child doesn't feel like it's ok to feel good about the color pink, he might aggressively turn against it, or might rebelliously cling to it. If society were less caught up on what is masculine and what is feminine, there might be less turmoil regarding the topic. I think for my son, a large part of his situation was driven by him feeling the need to test the love of others. It has been like him shouting, "Do you still love me?"

JAM2b said:

I think society in general has played a role in the confusion of transgenderism and the understanding of it. When my oldest son was in early elementary school, I spoke with a Christian clinical psychologist about him liking both male and female toys and clothes, liking makeup and nailpolish and football and fighting like a knight. Guess what, he hasn't changed. He still like makeup and he shaves most of his body, but lifts weights and has this protective-defender type mentality; he talks like a guy, but he wants pretty things.

The therapist said that femininity and masculinity are both on a spectrum. Every human is born with the capacity to have behavior traits of and interests in both, but to different degrees depending on the individual. Personality and psychological development is affected by nurturing, expectations, and societal pressure. When this isn't handled well, problems will arise. Psychology and emotions are not the same as biology. It's two very different topics. You can't base one on the other.

If a male child doesn't feel like it's ok to feel good about the color pink, he might aggressively turn against it, or might rebelliously cling to it. If society were less caught up on what is masculine and what is feminine, there might be less turmoil regarding the topic. I think for my son, a large part of his situation was driven by him feeling the need to test the love of others. It has been like him shouting, "Do you still love me?"

Click to expand...

The thing that's interesting about that is that I'd argue that it's the gender obsessed people/trans contingent that re-enforces those stereotypes.

When I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, there was a big push toward trying to eliminate those barriers. I remember things like the legos ads - where an EXTREMELY tomboyish girl was put forth as being no less feminine or beautiful than any other girl. I remember everyone talking about how it was okay for boys to like barbies, how it was ok for girls to like trucks, and how none of that had any bearing upon their being a "boy" or "girl". It was almost like there was a push for androgyny.

But then the whole gender obsessed thing came along - which the trans movement is a part of - and suddenly it was back to even MORE rigid definitions of roles. Suddenly there became a really clear distinction between boy toys/girl toys in toy stores...etc. Pink was a sign that you were feminine, and don't get in the way of a boy's expression of being feminine. Blue was a sign of masculinity, and don't you dare step in the way of your girl being masculine. It's okay. It might be an early expression of them being gay - and being gay is ok. Etc... That's how it morphed.

It's weird - because since the push was toward abandoning the idea of gender-specific-things was part of my early childhood - that's what I tend to believe is the right course to go. And it seems to stand very much against the current messaging of the gender-obsessed crowd.

Lybrah said:

inclusion

Click to expand...

This is the key word: "inclusion".

We know we are all sinners, not only those other people over there.

You and me also.

And all of us sinners, all, need Him, not only us, but those other people over there also.

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

As a Christian, you should trust Christ to save!

See? It's not your judgement that saves. It's Him.

So, we all should stop trying to guess at the sins of other people, and instead "Love one another, as I have loved you", as He told us to do, and trust Him.

JAM2b said:

I think society in general has played a role in the confusion of transgenderism and the understanding of it. When my oldest son was in early elementary school, I spoke with a Christian clinical psychologist about him liking both male and female toys and clothes, liking makeup and nailpolish and football and fighting like a knight. Guess what, he hasn't changed. He still like makeup and he shaves most of his body, but lifts weights and has this protective-defender type mentality; he talks like a guy, but he wants pretty things.

The therapist said that femininity and masculinity are both on a spectrum. Every human is born with the capacity to have behavior traits of and interests in both, but to different degrees depending on the individual. Personality and psychological development is affected by nurturing, expectations, and societal pressure. When this isn't handled well, problems will arise. Psychology and emotions are not the same as biology. It's two very different topics. You can't base one on the other.

If a male child doesn't feel like it's ok to feel good about the color pink, he might aggressively turn against it, or might rebelliously cling to it. If society were less caught up on what is masculine and what is feminine, there might be less turmoil regarding the topic. I think for my son, a large part of his situation was driven by him feeling the need to test the love of others. It has been like him shouting, "Do you still love me?"

Click to expand...

It’s definitely complex. While travelling and working abroad I’ve met some guys who were really camp and reminded me of gay guys who I’d worked with in the UK, but who were heterosexual. It did make me think, if they had grown up in the UK rather than a more family oriented and religious culture, they would have been encouraged to ‘explore their sexuality’ and all that crap, which might have led to them becoming convinced that they had in fact been born ‘gay’.

DZoolander said:

The thing that's interesting about that is that I'd argue that it's the gender obsessed people/trans contingent that re-enforces those stereotypes.

When I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, there was a big push toward trying to eliminate those barriers. I remember things like the legos ads - where an EXTREMELY tomboyish girl was put forth as being no less feminine or beautiful than any other girl. I remember everyone talking about how it was okay for boys to like barbies, how it was ok for girls to like trucks, and how none of that had any bearing upon their being a "boy" or "girl". It was almost like there was a push for androgyny.

But then the whole gender obsessed thing came along - which the trans movement is a part of - and suddenly it was back to even MORE rigid definitions of roles. Suddenly there became a really clear distinction between boy toys/girl toys in toy stores...etc. Pink was a sign that you were feminine, and don't get in the way of a boy's expression of being feminine. Blue was a sign of masculinity, and don't you dare step in the way of your girl being masculine. It's okay. It might be an early expression of them being gay - and being gay is ok. Etc... That's how it morphed.

It's weird - because since the push was toward abandoning the idea of gender-specific-things was part of my early childhood - that's what I tend to believe is the right course to go. And it seems to stand very much against the current messaging of the gender-obsessed crowd.

Click to expand...

Yeah, its like ever since they put labels on everything that you feel, then whatever action you do is automatically some underlying issue, like the example if a guy likes pink then society would push that yeah that boy is gay and cultivate their environment around that. Mine you once upon a time, pink was for boys and blue for girls. Its always two extremes, its either you push them to throw gender out the window, and then whatever random choice they pick more is what they are stuck with, or you put a tight leash early on on how masculinity and femininity should be accuracy express and punish them if they steer away from such ideology.

Hint: both of those cases NEVER work.

Monksailor said:

The Bible says to take a stand and expose evil.
Jesus told us that if we are a follower of His we WILL have enemies; people who hate us..
Romans ch 1 about vs 19 and later expounds upon sexual perversion and describes it.
I do not think that anyone can change their DNA and I believe it either male or female unless some LGHT in a research lab has found some way to mess that all up.

Click to expand...

Ok. Let's see what scripture says about 'gay marriage'.

Here's the scripture, Leviticus chapter 18, on the various sexual immoralities, and I'll quote 2 verses, since the following verse uses the same verb, and will thus illustrate the accurate interpretation of that verb.

ESV--22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

Young's Literal Translation -- 22 ‘And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].23 ‘And with any beast thou dost not give thy copulation, for uncleanness with it; and a woman doth not stand before a beast to lie down with it; confusion it [is].

-----
Is that "gay marriage"?

It is definitely and absolutely what we call intercourse sodomy, as the same verb in verse 23 shows -- intercourse.

Not kissing or any of various other romantic or sexual acts, but actual intercourse.

It's referring to an exact action, intercourse sodomy, a wrong thing to do, which in fact sometimes traditional marriage man/woman couples have done, too (Romans 1:26).

But should we just add in 'gay marriage' anyway?

Let's see what scripture says about adding in stuff --

"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you."

Well, that settles it for me. I cannot add "gay marriage" into the list of sexual sins in Leviticus chapter 18 (the chapter listing sexual sins), because it is not in there at all, not even indirectly.

Now, all have sinned. All of us.
All sin and all fall short, and all can be forgiven if they confess and repent.

If anyone needs to confess and repent to God for adding to scripture, He is just and faithful to forgive.

.

Lybrah said:

Thanks for your replies. But what happens is that I get treated like I said something really mean and rude, and people tell me how bigoted and hateful I am. Then I feel bad and question, am I wrong? Am I NOT being godly? What if I am wrong, and God would not approve of me thinking this way? I get accused of being crazy and then wonder if I am indeed wrong. What if I am really being hateful?

Click to expand...

keep in mind, persecution is the indication of doing right. Think about the apostles, Jesus, the prophets, heck even lot was criticized. Jeremiah was even considered a false prophet because all the other prophets of his day were saying "peace!, everything is ok!". Sin always false comforts, it makes the sting of conviction easier to deal with. It's pure selfishness without concern for anyone or anything outside of itself. Also, when asked about marriage, Jesus quoted from genesis as the source of authority on relationships so if He thought Genesis was fine to use, then I say it's fine to use. He made them Male and Female-their issue is not with you, but God. You shouldn't feel responsible, you are just trying to follow God, you can't control the way they react to truth, thats their problem. its a Romans 8 thing, spirit and flesh constantly at war with each other.

Lybrah said:

I don't want to judge at all and say they are not Christians...

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but you have every right to judge for yourself what is Christian, and that means determining what is or isn't a Christian idea. If you don't at least do that, then you don't even have a doctrine to stand upon.

Lybrah said:

people tell me how bigoted and hateful I am.

Click to expand...

Such people can't tell the difference between being nice and being loving or good. I've known plenty of nice people who were evil to the core. It's a distinction worth making.

Also, the only people I've ever known to call someone a bigot, are bigots, themselves. It takes someone with a strong opinion to get mad at someone else with a strong opinion. It takes a special blindness to think that having a strong opinion is a fault, and then not recognize it in themselves.

GirdYourLoins said:

does anyone else think the fires in California could be God's judgement on there stance on this sort of thing?

Click to expand...

No. The time will come when natural disasters are a punishment from God, but I don't think we're there, yet. When you see California get hit with a hurricane and Florida get shaken by an earthquake, then it'll be time to take notice.

The bible says God made them male and female. The bible also says that for male to lie with female, only. Science tells us that the male has XY chromosomes. The male determines the gender of a child. Girl = X; Guy equals XY.

Transgender is man made and God has nothing to do with it. As a Christian, I believe all of this.

Lybrah said:

Sorry, but I need advice and opinions here. What does it say in the bible about transgenderism? I ask this because I have seen many Christians embrace this transgenderism thing, as well as inclusion for LGBTQ people and acceptance. Please do not interpret this is gay bashing or hate, I just feel perplexed because I know that God made humans both man and woman, and that there is no such thing as "cisgender" and such. But now everyone seems to believe that there can be male brains in female bodies and vice versa. If its mental illness, how are we supposed to gracefully dialogue with Christians who seem to think "love is love" and that picking your gender is normal? I don't want to judge at all and say they are not Christians, because I know I suck at being a Christian sometimes. I don't want to make enemies. But I actually get angry seeing people I respect embrace this madness and even tolerate abortion and gay marriage. How can I react? How do I know I am not doing the devil's work by rejecting that behavior?

Click to expand...

A few things:

The word evil really means "bad". And bad can be a perception. This is why the bible says that God did "evil" to some people, similar to how a jailer does an "evil" to a man when he locks him up.

So, Transgenderism is a mental defect, by definition. You can love a person with a mental defect, but the defect should not be encouraged. If you have a brother that thinks he's Napoleon, you don't buy him Napoleon outfits and call him General. You seek professional help.

Transgenerism is "bad" in that it hurts the person suffering from it. The suicide rate for them is roughly 40%, and this is not because somebody is out there bullying them all. Rather, it is because of the depression that is part and parcel to the condition.

jmldn2 said:

The bible also says that for male to lie with female, only.

Click to expand...

Could you please give us that precise verse? There is definitely a verse in Leviticus chapter 18 about intercourse sodomy we know (verse 22 and also confirmed in the verb in verse 23, see post #88 just above), a specific sexual sin, for a man to have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman, and that also this same sin is sometimes does by traditional male/female couples (Romans 1:26). But where is the verse you have in mind for that precise thing you say, or do you mean to 'lie' with to be sexual intercourse, just like in Lev 18:22?

Halbhh said:

Could you please give us that precise verse? There is definitely a verse in Leviticus chapter 18 about intercourse sodomy we know (verse 22 and also confirmed in the verb in verse 23, see post #88 just above), a specific sexual sin, for a man to have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman, and that also this same sin is sometimes does by traditional male/female couples (Romans 1:26). But where is the verse you have in mind for that precise thing you say?

Click to expand...

In genesis, where it talks of Adam and Eve and their relationship.

Almost there said:

In genesis, where it talks of Adam and Eve and their relationship.

Click to expand...

The wonderful verses telling us about the true essence of marriage! I love those.

But the question we are trying to discuss is what is the precise sin(s) proscribed in Leviticus chapter 18 vis a vis homosexuality (or heterosexuality also of course), so that we do not add to scripture what is not there. Let me illustrate to help make it clear -- if two men live together in love and have zero sexual intercourse (some people would label this "celibacy"), then is that a sin? The Bible does not say that is a sin. See? We are trying to discuss precisely what is sin and what is not.

Halbhh said:

The wonderful verses telling us about the true essence of marriage! I love those.

But the question we are trying to discuss is what is the precise sin proscribed, in Leviticus chapter 18, so that we do not add to scripture what is not there. Let me illustrate to help make it clear -- if two men live together in love and have zero sexual intercourse (some people would label this "celibacy"), then is that a sin. The Bible does not say that is a sin. See? We are trying to discuss precisely what is sin and what is not.

Click to expand...

I don't believe being a homosexual is a sin. I do believe homosexual activity is a sin.

All human beings have mental and physical defects. It's just that some are more obvious and difficult to deal with than others. A large birth mark on your thigh brings different difficulties than missing your legs. Having a short temper is different than thinking you are really Napoleon. One gets you in a mental institution, the other just makes you hard to be around.

Being homosexual can be very hard on a person. you could call it their "thorn in the flesh". However, I firmly believe it is learned activity and a mental defect as opposed to a natural trait. There is zero proof for the latter and gobs of proof for the former. It is a sin insomuch as heterosexuality is a sin in the ways Jesus described (e.g. looking at a woman with lust in your heart).

Almost there said:

I don't believe being a homosexual is a sin. I do believe homosexual activity is a sin.

All human beings have mental and physical defects. It's just that some are more obvious and difficult to deal with than others. A large birth mark on your thigh brings different difficulties than missing your legs. Having a short temper is different than thinking you are really Napoleon. One gets you in a mental institution, the other just makes you hard to be around.

Being homosexual can be very hard on a person. you could call it their "thorn in the flesh". However, I firmly believe it is learned activity and a mental defect as opposed to a natural trait. There is zero proof for the latter and gobs of proof for the former. It is a sin insomuch as heterosexuality is a sin in the ways Jesus described (e.g. looking at a woman with lust in your heart).

Click to expand...

Actually, the scripture says not "homosexual activity" but instead tells us about intercourse sodomy as the actual sin. Read and see for yourself the precise wording above in post #88. This matters enormously, because too many sinners are staying lost due to false preaching that is contrary to scripture, keeping these lost from seeking God and finding Christ.

Halbhh said:

This is the key word: "inclusion".

We know we are all sinners, not only those other people over there.

You and me also.

And all of us sinners, all, need Him, not only us, but those other people over there also.

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

As a Christian, you should trust Christ to save!

See? It's not your judgement that saves. It's Him.

So, we all should stop trying to guess at the sins of other people, and instead "Love one another, as I have loved you", as He told us to do, and trust Him.

Click to expand...

I dislike this QUOTE reply thing. It embedded my response in the middle of the quote which I was responding. What follows in quotes is my seemingly absent response as it was embedded in the quote above:

"You should keep in focus that the woman caught in adultery, "ye who have not sinned cast the first stone" story, was admonished by Christ after everyone had left with, "Go and sin no more." There is forgiveness but what most in the liberal perspective disregard is that in the wake of that forgiveness, Christ demands that one change their life and cease that sin."

After the Apostle Paul has spent several chapters expounding upon God's merciful grace we find the conversation CONTINUING (CONTEXT) in ch 6 with the transitional phrase, "What shall we say then? (This is why context is essential when handling the Word of God. Anything in the few ch before ch 6 in expounding upon God's grace is dependent upon what we find in ch 6.) To be a Christian you can't have one (GRACE)w/o the other (post ch 5: REPENTANCE-agreeing with God that our behavior was sinful and changing our behavior.) Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?"" the Apostle Paul moves immediately into his answer and elaboration beginning with the exclamation of, "Certainly not!" (GNT) or "By no means!" (NIV; LNT) or "God forbid. (KJ)" In several of the posts here I see an attitude that changing one's sinful behavior is not called for by Christ and an attitude that since we all sin after conversion we should excuse sin. That is in no way what the Holy Word of God says, regardless how many verses on may take out of context. We all need the help of the other keeping us inline with admonitions not to sin and provisions and facilitations thereof. NOT acceptance of sin.

Halbhh said:

Actually, the scripture says not "homosexual activity" but instead tells us about intercourse sodomy as the actual sin. Read and see for yourself the precise wording above in post #88. This matters enormously, because too many sinners are staying lost due to false preaching that is contrary to scripture, keeping these lost from seeking God and finding Christ.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking about scripture such as this: Homosexuality in the New Testament - Wikipedia

hedrick said:

There's been lots of talk in this thread about the ethics, but I think we need a response to this. Fortunately, salvation doesn't depend upon being right about all issues of theology and ethics. If you're wrong, you're wrong, but Christ still died for you.

Click to expand...

Your statements is too broad and lacks the necessary (to your argument) distinguishing specificity. Salvation doesn't depend upon being right about all issues of theology and ethics, but that does not mean salvation doesn't depend upon being right about some issues of theology and ethics. One who never comes to the Lord Jesus with a poor and contrite spirit/heart will not be converted, nor one who partly trusts in his own merits and or that of others or his church for acceptance with God, or who denies the atonement and resurrection, or otherwise trusts in a Christ that is not the Lord of Scripture.

Nor who in effect deny faith by knowingly, willfully impenitently not walking in obedience to the Lord Jesus (which includes repentance when convicted of not doing so).

However, since "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit" (Psalms 34:18) as the 3k+ souls in Acts 2 were, and all those converted afterwards, and trusted in the risen Lord Jesus to save them on His account, then many who are mistaken to some degree in areas within the land of theology can be saved. Even some oneness Pentecostals i think.

In my view the devil's work isn't so much people being wrong, but the animosity within the Christian community. However that's hard to avoid. Conservatives honestly believe that they can't maintain fellowship with those who disagree.

Click to expand...

Another statement that is too broad, while Catholics accuse us of the opposite, of being an amalgam of diverse beliefs, while in reality those who most strongly hold to Scripture being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God testify to being most unified major religious group in core beliefs (in contrast to Caths overall).

But which does not mean they cannot maintain fellowship with those who disagree with them on issues outside core issues. Parachurch ministries abound with evangelicals from various denominations working together (thus liberals - such as HuffPo and Salon.com types - overall attack them more than any other religious group, even Islam) , and often involved worship, along with evangelical radio and media, even to a fault as regards too low a standard.

Paul is an interesting example, because he was involved in a number of controversies. The best known, of course, is about circumcision of Gentile Christians. He was pretty hard-core, and in Gal 5:12 was pretty blunt. But to my knowledge he didn't actually recommend throwing the people he disagreed with out of the community.

Click to expand...

What? Paul damns those who preach a different gospels, and thus condemns those who preached justification as under the Law (which what the circumcision issue was about) and wished they would be cut off (some think this means castrated, but in the OT it could mean death or maybe cast out); and
commands heretics to be rejected, (Titus 3:2) and
to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them," (Romans 16:17)
and the putting away of such who were called a brother if they be a fornicator, extortioner etc. (1 Corinthians 5:11);

yet "he didn't actually recommend throwing the people he disagreed with out of the community"?

Once again your assertion is too ambiguous and "didn't actually recommend" are weasel words at best.

Another issue was sacrificing meat to idols. There he very clearly tried to promote mutual toleration.

Click to expand...

Paul clearly forbids taking part in the dedicatory feasts of pagans, lest they have fellowship with devils, (1 Corinthians 10:20) while sanctioning eating whatever is sold in their markets, (v. 1 Corinthians 10:25) but forbids doing if it would offend a brother whose conscience thinks it is wrong, (1 Corinthians 10:29) lest one who is convicted that it is wrong be induced to go against his conscience and sin (1 Corinthians 8:9-13; cf. Romans 14:14,15)

However, you are sloppily mixing categories here, that of false doctrine and misuse of personal liberty, which censure is based on doctrine. And Paul

Similarly with arguments over the sabbath and other celebrations.

Click to expand...

But this is always easier on the liberal side. The conservative side on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols is visible in Rev 2:14.

Click to expand...

It is the idolatry that this signifies that is condemned. Do you think this was conservative intolerance and or overreaction?

But speaking to my own liberal community, I advocate that we not resort to the "bigot" business for people who are, after all, just trying to be true to the faith in which they grew up. I acknowledge that it's harder on the other side, where the tradition demands that homosexuality not be tolerated.

Click to expand...

I think you may be writing like a bigot with your sloppy or misleading descriptions even here. What do you mean by "homosexuality not be tolerated." That they must reject those with that condition, or who impenitent practice the lifestyle or otherwise justify it, which liberal "Christians" do not? What evangelical denomination does not profess we are to "hate the sin but love the sinner,: which includes having compassion on homosexuals and thus toward their condition of homosexuality, and seek their salvation and deliverance or victory over it, while censoring the practice of it as being contrary to obedient saving faith, along with that of others?

How aware are you of what major evangelical preachers preach? Name some (neither Benny Hinn or Westboro Baptist)? I have listened to Christian radio for years and the only thing i can recall about homosexuality is the response to "Love won out" by Focus on the Family and some messages of conversion there or on the 700 club, and a local pastor taking a homosexual out to dinner in ministering to him for salvation.