As a liberal Christian I am frustrated and spitting angry at some of the comments on this thread. Some posters have set up a liberal straw man to knock down --- a straw man that has precious little to do with reality. Time after time I am told "this what you believe, this what you do, this is why you are wrong". Sadly, it is not what I believe or do. I get so angry at this that I do not respond instantly for fear of being just as insulting as those that hate liberals so much. I really do not know if there is any point in responding at all.
So let's you and I talk instead. Conservatives accuse me of being a socialist, even a Communist. I respond that no, I'm a Catholic.
Liberals call me a homophobe and a disrespecter of women's rights. If I respond, I respond that no, I'm a Catholic.
I know what God said. It's clear what he meant. I think that what we ought to be doing is executing the required actions, and that if we did, most of our worldly problems would be dramatically reduced (not eliminated: there's still a Devil, and he's still going to stick his baton into our spokes - we're going to get thrown off the bike from time to time, but we can get back on and be better for it).
What I observing each side of the debate doing is holding very strong, maximal positions on the aspects of God's message they agree with, while soft-peddling, ignoring, or willfully misinterpreting the parts they don't like.
In this, I find them really to be much worse in moral aspect than scientific atheists and seculars. The atheists and seculars TELL YOU that they don't believe in God, or that Jesus was God, or that the Bible is law, and that they believe in humanism or science. They don't pretend that they believe that morality comes from a God, but assert that it comes from human opinion. So, what they support is their opinion, and that all concepts of good and evil are just that: their opinion. They believe their opinions are right, and so they seek to enforce them. Atheists and seculars are generally not hypocrites, because they don't claim to believe in a God as a source of morality, which they then disregard or defy where they don't want to obey.
Christians do just exactly that, and they get mad at you if you point it out.
My solution is to be a Catholic, and to take what I see God plainly said, and say "Ok, that's the rule, I acknowledge it."
Then on everything where I agree with God, and follow what he said, I assert that that ought to be the law, and I criticize Christians who won't face up to what God said and who try to worm out of acknowledging it.
Then, when I come to the places where I myself sin, I acknowledge what God said, and that my actions are sinful. I ascribe this to my human weakness, and I recognize, because of that weakness, that we must be merciful. I note that God was merciful also, and calls us to be. This does not mean that I claim that the sin isn't a sin, it's that I recognize that, with some sins, I at least am in no position to throw any stones. I don't justify the sin either.
Where the sins and the condition of sin could be lessened by doing other parts of God's law better (there would be far fewer abortions if we had far greater social support) I call for the social support. I'm not interested in crucifying the sinner - I'm a sinner - I'm interested in harnessing up such power and wealth as we have to make the occasion for sin less.
I recognize that it will not be perfect, but it will be BETTER.
I think my approach is common sense, and answers all of the questions. But I think that people don't like to admit they are sinners, pretty bad sinners, and that the nature of many sins is that they can't simply be stopped. Superman might, but we can't, and Jesus gave a "Seventy-times seven" forgiveness standard, and a "Forgive everything, and everything will be forgiven you" standard.
I note that THIS aspect of Jesus' law is the part that most law-minded people hate the most. "But what about people who keep sinning! THEY haven't really repented!" Etc.
And I think: yes, masturbators. Masturbation is a mortal sin - it is sexual immorality. How much abstention is there, really? How much "backsliding"? The old manage chastity, not because they've mastered themselves, but because the desire has weakened.
We all know this - and I know we all know this. But the dishonesty of Christians, the unwillingness to admit to sin - and the frank acknowledgment that virtually the entire population is in prison to this sin and will not cease it - which means that FORGIVENESS is the only answer to habitual sin, because it will not stop, not for good.
Instead, I get lectures - by masturbators, about other people's sins and how habitual sins are not forgiven. Or "That's not a sin!" lies.
In truth, the seculars are more moral, because they are not hypocrites (condemning what they themselves do), and they are not liars (claiming that God didn't say what he said, claiming that it doesn't apply, claiming that God said what he didn't say, etc., etc., etc.)
To find a Christian willing to legislate on the basis of God's law, including God's law of mercy, tempered by humility and the recognition that some sins are just not going to abolished, and that it would be hypocritical to punish them - that Christian would make a good ally. I haven't found one yet.
Maybe you?
