Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You can't exclude God from a Christian worldview. But that doesn't mean that a religious and a secular viewpoint cannot align. But you'll need facts, evidence and reason with which to align them. They are available to a Christian just as they are to an atheist.
But God's Word has real effects on human culture and they make a difference in the world. The West happen to use Gods Word in the early formation and for 100s of years and it formed our identity. Its not just Gods Word but also the Truths we derived from applying Gods Word.
Like I said these Truths should cohere with reality. A basic difference I see in worldviews is that Christains believe that God is the God of nature so we have a fixed nature and designed for a purpose. The secular worldview believes there is no fixed nature and we are not designed for any purpose.
I don't dismiss an entire Association of Professionals based on hearsay. Dr Hilary Cass who headed the review for the NHS was the Head of American College of Pediatricians so she seems good enough to be chosen. Her findeings and the findings of other reports were the same as the American College of Pediatricians so dismissing evdience by association can miss important info. They happen to be the very Association that would understaned these issues. If stating facts is classed as being bigoted then we are in trouble.
Its not a case of seeing whos in and whose out but that we decern what is Gods will. The Bible tells us not to be conformed to this world so that we may decern Gods Will. It also tells us we can be decieved by the world by people pretendeing to represent Christ and that we must test to see if others represent Gods Truth. We cannot avoid being decieved unless we understand how the decievers work.
www.ocpathink.org
dailycaller.com
What? I am asking you to prove what you say is historically debated in the church? Now you are getting that from somewhere.
How about being pastorally sensative to all of us? That is what is being asked of you. And you won't even provide what you say is historically known. How do you know this from history?
Ok, now we are getting closer. It would be no. What is sketchy is the language, "poorly educated", "misguided", etc. Where are you getting that from? What does that mean? who are the "educators" etc. And when you say "it won't be enough for them to say" ...Are you saying they concluded this, or you are today? You are not being clear and if you know this why can't you just direct me to the historical discussions where of you speak this knowledge.
Even the capitalised 'truths' is something I reject. If your beliefs align with reality then it's up to you to show me. And not by using circular reasoning and further references to 'the Truth'.
They are not a professional body representing medical experts in their field. They are a selection of just a few hundred doctors acting as an advocacy group. From here: Anti-Trans Doctor Group Leaks 10,000 Confidential Files
What I'm trying to suggest is that rather than focus on anxiously trying to define truth (or Truth) in ever-increasing minutiae, focussing on the big picture of proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and so on, will allow the small matters to fall into place. Our focus isn't meant to be on trying to make distinctions between groups of people.
My claim is that, historically, having different views on sexuality wasn't something that meant others thought you were not a real Christian. It would therefore be very unlikely to find a quote from a church father saying "If you are wrong about this, you're still a Christian." If you can find a quote that says the opposite, I'll take it on board.
I am. It's why, for example, when one member of my congregation wanted to put a rainbow flag in the church, I said no. She wanted it to signal to LGBTIQA+ folks that this was a safe place, and I'd be happy with that message; but I knew others would take it as something else, and it would be too much for them.
I'm well read in church history (it was a significant aspect of my masters). I know a fair bit about the debates, the issues, and the way different things were thought and written about. I have not ever seen "not a real Christian" rhetoric around these issues earlier than the late 20th century. If you think I'm wrong, provide a counter-example.
Exactly. That was the point I was making in answer to @Bradskii.
That's a summary of pretty typical responses I've seen from members of traditional churches in this kind of discussion.
I'm saying that this is the typical approach in these churches to disagreement on moral matters. I've seen it play out on all kinds of issues. They might talk about being a poorly catechised person, a cafeteria Catholic, or what have you; they won't say they're "not a real Christian."
Because my point is this discussion wasn't happening prior to the late twentieth century! It wasn't a question. What made someone not-a-real-Christian was doctrinal, not moral.
Not agreeing doesn't necessarily harm people. But the way that disagreement is expressed certainly can. That's something we all need to recognise, and take responsibility for the power we have to do harm. It might be uncomfortable, but that's not harming us. It's perhaps the growing pains of maturity.
So Morals are not doctrine? As far as your masters, what different ways are you talking about. I could get a hint by asking what was the sin of Sodom and gomorrah? Will you say it was a lack of hospitality?
Morals are doctrine, and these various views where can I find them? The Jesus seminar? Someplace similar? As you say your point wasn;t prior to the late twentieth century. Yet this discussion really began in the context of the early church councils. So this is things not so historical, but modern to even your particular Church.
Positions in moral theology are not considered core to Christian identity in the way that, say, the statements in the Creed are.
I'm talking about the breadth of church history.
I would say that a reception history of the Sodom passages in Genesis will give you a diversity of views throughout three millennia or so of Jewish and Christian thought. That's the point of looking at history; realising that people in different times and cultures don't think alike, even when reading the same passage of Scripture.
A bit of basic education in church history would probably be a helpful start. Reading Augustine's City of God might be a useful way to look at how someone 1500 years ago or so, thought about colliding worldviews.
You have already stated your position is late twentieth century. It seems to me, you are reaching back it seems to Judge the validity of their teachings, as not addressing things complete enough, to convince you of the outcomes. Because you have not given me one example of what you are saying. Lets start with Augustine, can you at least point to where you are finding this?
Proclaiming the Gospel is proclaiming the Truth which means exposing falsehoods and sin where this can lead to harming people. Paul said in Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. Its also about protecting people from harm especially children even if done as a practical matter in applying Gods Word in our daily lives. If you see harm being done by someone then I think its wrong to not speak up to expose the wrong because you become implicit in allowing that wrong.
OK drop the support link and forget about it. That still leaves ample support that there is little evidence for the Trans Care model enough so that its being stopped by the NHS and others.
You presented these people as being experts in the matter. They are not. Perhaps you thought that a fancy official-sounding name gave them some credence. It didn't. They are not interested in facts. They are not interested in the physical and psychological health of gay and trans people. They simply want to push what they actually describe as Christian morality into areas where science, not religious ideas of morality, is required.
The reason I capitalize Truth is that today there are many claimed truths. So there has to be a destinction because the idea of many truths is self defeating. Those Truths can represent Gods Word and laws or objective facts in this world or from our history which shows how certain ideas have been tested aned lived out and have proven themselves over time.
