How to get through to Conservatives?

Albion · Oct 7, 2015

the

hedrick said:
There certainly is a basis. Churches have said that gays are morally inferior for years.

Ah. You've qualified the claim to be that they are "MORALLY" inferior, I see.

So that means that they are not inferior "just because of who they are." You are now saying that their behavior is deemed by someone or other to be wrong (or shall we say "inferior?").

This is a small bit of progress perhaps.

Albion · Oct 7, 2015

hedrick said:
You can argue that there's a Biblical basis, but you can't argue that you weren't saying that gays are inferior.

I've explained why that isn't accurate, so I won't repeat it now.

Albion · Oct 7, 2015

Marius27 said:
Yes there is. Most people on this board say SSM marriage isn't a real marriage, whether it's legal or not because only man and woman is legitimate. That's viewing gays as inferior

No it's isn't...and I've already explained why it isn't.

Marius27 · Oct 7, 2015

Albion said:
This kind of incessant focus upon Conservatives as though gay issues are the be-all and end-all of traditional theology is IMHO unfair and inaccurate.

If conservatives stopped making it the be-all end-all issue and acting like it's the worst "sin" one can commit, it might not be the main focus. I think the obsession most conservatives have with gays is a deeper psychological issue, and not just a Biblical one.

hedrick · Oct 7, 2015

Albion said:
They'd be similarly unwilling to be in a church that changed ANY of the historic doctrines and practices of Presbyterian Christianity, isn't that so?

The PCA and OPC weren't formed by former members of your church because of what it chose to do at this summer's convention! Or because of SSM. The departures from the PCUSA over its decision, several generations back, to distance itself from the Westminster Confession led to other members' departures. The church has been losing Conservative members for decades...and not because of gays.

This kind of incessant focus upon Conservatives as though gay issues are the be-all and end-all of traditional theology is IMHO unfair and inaccurate.

You're now trying to justify why conservatives are unwilling to remain in a church where gays are ordained or married. You have not raised any objections to what I said.

Furthermore, I think it's a bit suspicious that all of the departures happened after changes involving gays. The denominations that have done this have generally been theologically broad. As you point out, the PCUSA hasn't adhered completely to Westminster for decades. It's a bit hard to believe that the current departures aren't primarily because of the gay issue. Indeed many of the recent departures are to a denomination (the ECO) which has exactly the same standards as the PCUSA, including the Confession of 1967.

Marius27 · Oct 7, 2015

Albion said:
That doesn't mean that the persons involved in such arrangements are inferior, let alone inferior
"just because of who they are."

Of course it does. The only distinction between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage is the gender of the partners, which means the only reason it would be viewed as not legitimate is 2 men or 2 women forming a relationship is inferior to a man and woman forming a relationship.

Interracial marriages used to be viewed by the whole country as inferior to white only marriages. And that was strictly based on race.

If SSM were not viewed as inferior, they would carry equal weight to opposite-sex marriages among conservatives.

"It's not a real marriage" is calling it inferior, and that's how conservatives view it.

Gregory Thompson · Oct 8, 2015

I think the issue is that heterosexuals don't get the treatment that every conversation is about their heterosexuality, but homosexuals do .. and you know .. perhaps other issues like covetousness, and greed, and other issues may be more important to talk about .. but it just becomes a fixation of conservatives .. to be like jehovah witnesses the second they find out you're not like them . that covetous need to change others is a sin ... because only God can change the hearts, and God doesn't make people sinless according to the bible standard, that's a false doctrine of sinless perfection .. so why is this standard being placed on one group of people? this is just plain wrong.

Gregory Thompson · Oct 8, 2015

I think the issue with marriage is putting ssm in another category is implying that one marriage is approved by God and another is not. To expect people to not notice this is insulting to their intelligence.

Albion · Oct 8, 2015

hedrick said:
You're now trying to justify why conservatives are unwilling to remain in a church where gays are ordained or married. You have not raised any objections to what I said.

Of course I have explained myself adequately. I know it and you know it. But this comment above is not only insulting to traditional Christians but ridiculous on its face. Your church, having changed hundreds of years of belief via the vote in a church convention only months ago, now has the victorious side grumping that the orthodox members who might, by conscience, seek another denomination, are not staying around in order to be lorded over by the winning faction. They're supposed to take their medicine now. What a nonsensical argument.

It also indicates to me that a major issue in this is your de facto admission that the change was made mainly for practical reasons--that eternal swansong which says "If we go with the way of the secular world, people will start liking us and we won't continue to lose members as we've been doing for decades."

hedrick · Oct 8, 2015

Albion said:
Of course I have explained myself adequately. I know it and you know it. But this comment above is not only insulting to traditional Christians but ridiculous on its face. Your church, having changed hundreds of years of belief via the vote in a church convention only months ago, now has the victorious side grumping that the orthodox members who might, by conscience, seek another denomination, are not staying around in order to be lorded over by the winning faction. They're supposed to take their medicine now. What a nonsensical argument.

It also indicates to me that a major issue in this is your de facto admission that the change was made mainly for practical reasons--that eternal swansong which says "If we go with the way of the secular world, people will start liking us and we won't continue to lose members as we've been doing for decades."

You have still not provided any evidence against my assertion that conservatives are unwilling to remain within a church that ordains gays. (Actually I should say "many conservatives," since of course this is not universal.) Instead you're explaining why you won't. I understand why conservatives don't want to accept gays. The discussion wasn't about that. Everyone agrees that we have a disagreement, and I think we all understand why. This was about the supposed intolerance of liberals.

To my knowledge our liberals aren't "lording it over" anyone. We're doing out best to accommodate people who disagree. If you think that it's lording it over you for us to act as we think Christ wants us to, you're using non-standard definitions of terms. It's not intolerance for people to carry out their beliefs, as long as they're not trying to force others to violate theirs. We are not trying to force anyone to accept gay leaders in their church or to conduct gay weddings. Was it "lording it over us" when conservatives modified our constitution to prohibit gay ordination at the last moment they had enough people to get a bare majority? This isn't the kind of argument that's worthy of Christians. There just no purpose served, other than creating unnecessary conflict, by figuring out ways to represent the situation so we can claim we've been wronged.

I point out again that your second paragraph is ad hominem. No liberal that I know thinks that the way for a Church to get members is to accept gays. It's been quite clear for decades that this is not the case. The PCUSA was well aware that we would pay a significant price in membership (and budget) for ordaining gays. We do it because we think it's right. Can you really not imagine that people might have actual Christian motivations for doing this? Do you really think we're so silly that we don't realize what the impact of our action is going to be?

Albion · Oct 8, 2015

I asked politely that this be taken to a more appropriate forum if it is to continue to involve me. I will read your post if and when you do that.

hedrick said:
You have still not provided any evidence against my assertion that conservatives are unwilling to remain within a church that ordains gays. (Actually I should say "many conservatives," since of course this is not universal.) Instead you're explaining why you won't. I understand why conservatives don't want to accept gays. The discussion wasn't about that. Everyone agrees that we have a disagreement, and I think we all understand why. This was about the supposed intolerance of liberals.

To my knowledge our liberals aren't "lording it over" anyone. We're doing out best to accommodate people who disagree. If you think that it's lording it over you for us to act as we think Christ wants us to, you're using non-standard definitions of terms. It's not intolerance for people to carry out their beliefs, as long as they're not trying to force others to violate theirs. We are not trying to force anyone to accept gay leaders in their church or to conduct gay weddings. Was it "lording it over us" when conservatives modified our constitution to prohibit gay ordination at the last moment they had enough people to get a bare majority? This isn't the kind of argument that's worthy of Christians. There just no purpose served, other than creating unnecessary conflict, by figuring out ways to represent the situation so we can claim we've been wronged.

I point out again that your second paragraph is ad hominem. No liberal that I know thinks that the way for a Church to get members is to accept gays. It's been quite clear for decades that this is not the case. The PCUSA was well aware that we would pay a significant price in membership (and budget) for ordaining gays. We do it because we think it's right. Can you really not imagine that people might have actual Christian motivations for doing this? Do you really think we're so silly that we don't realize what the impact of our action is going to be?

seashale76 · Oct 8, 2015

Well, the biggest question I've ever had regarding this forum has been answered. Conservative and liberal must only refer to theology here. It absolutely can't refer to politics. For example, people all across the political spectrum are Orthodox Christians. However, no matter our politics we qualify as theologically traditional (i.e. which must be what is referred to as conservative around here).

hedrick · Oct 8, 2015

If you're talking to me, I'm using conservative for theologically, because that was the context of the discussion. This forum was created at least as much for political liberals as theological ones.

Marius27 · Oct 9, 2015

Albion said:
I asked politely that this be taken to a more appropriate forum if it is to continue to involve me. I will read your post if and when you do that.

I posted it in this forum since discussion of homosexuality is allowed here. If it's moved, this discussion will be closed, so no I want it to stay here.

Marius27 · Oct 9, 2015

hedrick said:
We do it because we think it's right. Can you really not imagine that people might have actual Christian motivations for doing this? Do you really think we're so silly that we don't realize what the impact of our action is going to be?

Well that's really the crux of the issue isn't it? They can't imagine anyone having Christian motivations for doing it, because they believe it's a grave sin and violation of Christian doctrine to support gays. Thus they only believe the motivations are based in liberalism, secularism, humanism, Satanism, anti-God, whatever other so called "Anti-Christian" term is popular today.

Nemo Neem · Oct 10, 2015

Marius27 said:
Well that's really the crux of the issue isn't it? They can't imagine anyone having Christian motivations for doing it, because they believe it's a grave sin and violation of Christian doctrine to support gays. Thus they only believe the motivations are based in liberalism, secularism, humanism, Satanism, anti-God, whatever other so called "Anti-Christian" term is popular today.

First, being gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender is NOT a sin. I'm a moderate conservative, and even I know this.

Secondly, there are far worse sins—such as a complete rejection of Jesus—that will separate you from God.

Thirdly, liberals need to lay off conservatives, and conservatives need to lay off liberals, and need to forgive and love one another just as Christ commanded.

Wolftone · Oct 10, 2015

Marius27 said:
Well, this is the liberal forum so we do not interpret those verses the way you do and if you were to actually study those verses carefully and not just superficially read the English text, you would learn they are not referring to modern day gay people. Homosexual wasn't even added to Corinthians or Timothy until the mid-20th Century, and it doesn't refer to homosexual women. And Leviticus deals with ritual prohibitions among the Israelites and pagan prostitution.

I think the Bible is perfectly clear on the subject of homosexuality as it is on other behaviourṣ such as drunkenness adultery etc. I don't think that 1 Corinthians 6 can be interpreted in any other ways other than it's specific listing of sins abhorrent to God.

The danger is that we make the word if God fit our own lifestyle rather than changing our lifestyle to fit the word of God.

Wolftone · Oct 10, 2015

GillDouglas said:
It is your stance that everyone should follow their heart and have all that they desire then? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart." (Proverbs 4:23)

All are born in sin and fall short. "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5) "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) Those who know God's law and yet disobey Him, live in sin. "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." (James 4:17) Sin only brings death unless one turns away and repents. "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

This is just ridiculous. How was the homosexual of those days any different from today? Are they somehow more sophisticated today than the gays of antiquity, and that makes them unique or exempt from God's word? No homosexual who lives in their sin will go to heaven, unless they turn away from it in repentance.

Sometimes the truth does hurt, and it can be devastating for families who deal with this. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

You'd be mistaken in your assumption of my character. I am first to admit wrong, and often I am. Of the many sins I struggle with pride is not often one of them. Many Christians and the 'Church' have been wrong many times for many years, and continue to do so. You are assuming that my understanding of the word comes from the 'Church' or somewhere else. I was not raised in the church, and I spent most of my life an Atheist. My understanding comes from years of study since I came to know the Lord four years ago. It is my belief that a true Christian does not use the Bible as a weapon of hate to hurt, humiliate or destroy the lives of sinful people. A true Christian loves God first and his neighbor second, regardless of any distinguishing characteristic of that person. We are all sinners, and struggle with it. We can certainly sympathize with those who struggle in the same areas we have. We did not have a self-righteous Savior who didn't suffer as we do, in fact quite the opposite, wouldn't we attempt to be like Him if we are truly His?

If we did not care for a persons salvation, we wouldn't bother saying anything at all to those we believe are living in sin. Not one can truly and fully understand the workings of our Creator, and for anyone to claim they do is both prideful and wrong. It is He who decides who shall enter Heaven, and who does not. He wrote the story and He has the absolute right to decide how the story unfolds.

I agree with you in this.

Truthfrees · Oct 11, 2015

GillDouglas said:
It is your stance that everyone should follow their heart and have all that they desire then? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart." (Proverbs 4:23)

All are born in sin and fall short. "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5) "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) Those who know God's law and yet disobey Him, live in sin. "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." (James 4:17) Sin only brings death unless one turns away and repents. "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

This is just ridiculous. How was the homosexual of those days any different from today? Are they somehow more sophisticated today than the gays of antiquity, and that makes them unique or exempt from God's word? No homosexual who lives in their sin will go to heaven, unless they turn away from it in repentance.

Sometimes the truth does hurt, and it can be devastating for families who deal with this. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

You'd be mistaken in your assumption of my character. I am first to admit wrong, and often I am. Of the many sins I struggle with pride is not often one of them. Many Christians and the 'Church' have been wrong many times for many years, and continue to do so. You are assuming that my understanding of the word comes from the 'Church' or somewhere else. I was not raised in the church, and I spent most of my life an Atheist. My understanding comes from years of study since I came to know the Lord four years ago. It is my belief that a true Christian does not use the Bible as a weapon of hate to hurt, humiliate or destroy the lives of sinful people. A true Christian loves God first and his neighbor second, regardless of any distinguishing characteristic of that person. We are all sinners, and struggle with it. We can certainly sympathize with those who struggle in the same areas we have. We did not have a self-righteous Savior who didn't suffer as we do, in fact quite the opposite, wouldn't we attempt to be like Him if we are truly His?

If we did not care for a persons salvation, we wouldn't bother saying anything at all to those we believe are living in sin. Not one can truly and fully understand the workings of our Creator, and for anyone to claim they do is both prideful and wrong. It is He who decides who shall enter Heaven, and who does not. He wrote the story and He has the absolute right to decide how the story unfolds.

Wolftone said:
I agree with you in this.

Agreed. Gill's post perfectly sums up the Conservative "go-and-sin-no-more" position.

He addresses the issues of love and grace toward the person, and opposing sin.

Love and grace alone denies God's truth.

Truth without love and grace is cruel, abusive, oppressive. IOW, a hater.

Well done GillDouglas.

Truthfrees · Oct 11, 2015

Marius27 said:
If conservatives stopped making it the be-all end-all issue and acting like it's the worst "sin" one can commit, it might not be the main focus. I think the obsession most conservatives have with gays is a deeper psychological issue, and not just a Biblical one.

Your statement may be accurate in the case of haters, but most Christians who're opposed to sin aren't haters.

The problem we have with the gay issue is that it's being aggressively promoted as OK, not sin, the way God made you. We know from our own lives and resisting our own sin, that it's not as you say.

IOW, we can't aggressively resist OUR sin and work so hard on doing what Jesus said (go and sin no more - John 8:11) on one hand, and then tell you your sins are ok. We'd be hypocrites to do that.

To us all sin is sin, yours, ours, everyone's.

To tell the truth we don't see the glbt lifestyle as the greatest of all sins.

Killing babies, rape, and peodophilia (harming the inocent and helpless) are considered worse than sexual sins between consenting partners (adultery, glbt lifestyle, immorality, promiscuity, sex outside of marriage).

If anyone aggressively promoted any of the other sexual sins, they'd be told the same thing you're being told.

Those lifestyles are equally not allowed to be promoted on CF.

How to get through to Conservatives?

Facilitator

Facilitator

Facilitator

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

Unapologetic Iconodule

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

1 John 4:7-12

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency