Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

[ActRaiser]

However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!

Pointing fingers at rival denominations is not quite conductive to good behavior within the Church. The entire Church is to blame, and there are some things that we evidently won't be repentant for even when Jesus receives us in New Zion. That doesn't mean that we will die and be condemned to Hell.

Some of us believe in the Rapture... When Jesus takes us home. Won't it be ashamed, that if when Jesus comes, he finds men in bed together?

They wouldn't go, but they wouldn't go to Hell either. There is a lot of negative consequences from sin. Hell is only one, although it is the worst.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

Pointing fingers at rival denominations is not quite conductive to good behavior within the Church. The entire Church is to blame, and there are some things that we evidently won't be repentant for even when Jesus receives us in New Zion. That doesn't mean that we will die and be condemned to Hell.

Some of us believe in the Rapture... When Jesus takes us home. Won't it be ashamed, that if when Jesus comes, he finds men in bed together?

They wouldn't go, but they wouldn't go to Hell either. There is a lot of negative consequences from sin. Hell is only one, although it is the worst.

ActRaiser, I am only speaking the truth that there are welcoming and affirming churches of the ****sexual lifestyle. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Church do not affirm it. The ECUSA affirms it, I was once an Episcopalian. It affected me very much, and I still pray for the Anglican crisis. It certainly does not help out the mainstream responsible Protestant, like the Southern Baptists, or the numerous independent churches either. So how is it "bad behavior?" Are we to make the same ***umption of Jesus for calling people names or driving out the money changers? There is a time to call out sin for what it is. I can be sympathetic for ****sexuals that want to find Christ, but don't expect me to affirm the lifestyle. Affiliating with the lifestyle at this present time is a source of "gay pride" and Christians, the repentent former ****sexual, better wise up and stop calling themselves ****sexuals. It is misconstrued by others that God made them such and approves of it. It is a perversion of the flesh, a defect from the sin nature. James states the obvious:

Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin when it is completed, begetteth death. James 1.13-15.

[ActRaiser]

Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin when it is completed, begetteth death. James 1.13-15

This is a good way to prove a ****sexual isn't made gay by God.

But, you could also argue that Jesus healed the blind man because he wanted to prove his power of good over evil.

The same could be true with Jesus and ****sexuality.

Protestant Churches do tend to support the gay life style. Some clergy in the Vatican don't think Jesus is the Son of God.

The entire Church is weird, bizarre, and a zombified creature compared to what it was centuries ago.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

This is a good way to prove a ****sexual isn't made gay by God.

But, you could also argue that Jesus healed the blind man because he wanted to prove his power of good over evil.

The same could be true with Jesus and ****sexuality.

Protestant Churches do tend to support the gay life style. Some clergy in the Vatican don't think Jesus is the Son of God.

Clergy are also human and can error big time both morally and doctrinally. It is the Holy Spirit acting in the living Magesterium that is important. It is the Church historically declaring the moral and doctrinal truth in its authoritative manner that is important. I am unaware of any clergy by name in the Vatican that supports your statement. So firstly, be specific in citing whom you are refering.

As far as your first statement, I believe ****sexuality is derived from an injured psyche. No scientist has yet been able to identify a child as ****sexual in the womb. A deformity, as the transgender might have, is rare, but does not affect what I am here talking about. (I bring it up only because it is an obvious distraction that somebody is going to throw in for the red-herring). Test conducted on ****sexuals that was released in the Times magazine a long time ago in the 90s had some confounding variables. It still remains unknown by scientists who test such hypothesis as a baby being born gay is viable.
Your second statement I would not argue from. Firstly, such deformity as blindness or deafness have no moral implications. You might on the transgender, but since these are rare and obvious deformities... it lacks the same catagory as the ****sexual. You could argue what ifs about each and every case involving the transgender, but you would go nowhere in terms of the ****sexual.

[Jet]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The question now is... what is your thoughts on experience in relation to ****sexuality?

I'm sorry I've taken so long to answer your question. Here I go. I'll relate my own experiences in relation to ****sexuality.

I grew up as anti-****sexual. My church tradition told me ****sexuality was a sin, and so that's what I believed. Unfortunately for my church, ****sexuality had a stigma of being "weird" and "gross". I inherited this at***ude of gays also. I remember abhorring a certain boy in high school because he was gay.

I grew closer to Christ as I got older and as my commitment to him became stronger, and I gained from him comp***ion enough to treat gays civilly, as humans. Once I was open to friendship with gays, I found that they weren't as gross and weird as I had previously thought. In fact, they were quite like normal humans.

I'll also include that I did not believe ****sexual orientation to be natural. I believed that it was some self-induced perversion (perhaps available to those who were really sinful). But as I began to listen to ****sexuals and their stories, I changed my belief to include room for "being born gay". (By the way, Columcille, you said earlier that "No scientist has yet been able to identify a child as ****sexual in the womb." Can scientists identify children as heterosexual in the womb?)

Anyway, eventually I met gay Christians. And like before, they seemed a lot like normal people. They seemed to be devout and full of spiritual fruit. In fact, I talked to one gay about his relationship with God, and how God speaks to him, and he described God's voice and spoken content suspiciously similar to my own experiences with God's communication with me.

In any case, my intuition did not present "red flags" concerning the character of this particular gay person. Often with other lifestyles of sin, bad fruit manifests after a period of time. Eventually I began to question the beliefs I had been brought up with.

---------

Now, on to the pillar of Reason.

Often it's easy to ascertain why the Bible forbids certain actions. It is easy to see the damage that unforgiveness deals to relationships, for instance. Living a life of unforgiveness undermines the ability one has to effectively live as a blessing as a member of the kingdom of God.

It is not so clear why the Bible would forbid practicing ****sexuality. If two gays lived in union with one another in a monogamous, emotionally-healthy, mutually-lifting, committed, respectful relationship, what (logically) will keep them from being united to God, able to be used for his purposes?

--------

Originally Posted by Columcille

Jet, a foundation that is laid does not need balancing-out. We need to fix our reasoning and experiences to the foundation. Consistency is a hallmark of truth. It is easy to point to Scripture and we can point to Tradition, though it can be more difficult finding those ecumenical canon laws and solid ex cathedra statements or looking through the numerous Church father writings, papal encyclicals, and writings of the doctors of the Church.

Columcille, I don't understand what you've said. I don't know what you were referring to in my post (if you were referring to something), or what your point is. Will you clarify? Since you directed this at me, I thought I might ask for clarification. However, I understand that the conversation has moved beyond this, so it's alright with me if you refuse.

Originally Posted by Columcille

I partly agree with your ***essment, so far as Trinity has already mentioned. However, you have failed to tie this in with the subject of ****sexuality.

Ah, forgive me if it seemed completely off topic. I suppose I was merely defining terms, laying some groundwork for communicating different forms of thought...

Originally Posted by Columcille

Please provide the text proof.
...
I was hoping for a pro-God position for ****sexuality, not a negation.
...
It is the Church historically declaring the moral and doctrinal truth in its authoritative manner that is important. I am unaware of any clergy by name in the Vatican that supports your statement.

Forgive me if I'm reading into things, but I pick up from your posture, Columcille, that you expect a pro-gay thesis to be made on your terms, within your ruleset, one that fits into your perspective.

This is partly why I had my tangent on bias. There exists other ways of seeing the world than yours. But you seem to expect that other ways are not as valid.

On another note, Columcille, I admire that you're trying to keep the thread on original topic, even if I do feel like I'm treading on eggshells.

Originally Posted by Columcille

As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using.

Again, I don't think I understand. It would help if you used proper grammar and readable sentence structure. Do you mean that Tradition, according to Wesley's Quadrilateral, consists of doctrinal statements only? If so, I urge you to reconsider your criteria.

[Columcille]

Jet, there were certain things that you said which I think Trinity did not pick up. The Catholic position is quite comp***ionate, but does not affirm the lifestyle as authentically Christian. Perhaps Trinity's eyes are open now that you have stated your position.

But let us make clear by Scripture what is its purpose... 2 Tim. 3.16 states the following:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for trainin in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Now, if you hold to a quadrilateral support of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience to determine what God has to say on the subject of ****sexuality... then by all means... use the Scripture for its purpose to teach what you say is true. So far, it seems only experience and reasoning are your true source of affirming ****sexual acts for Christians. What ever you use for "Tradition," please start citing these sources. You haven't once used Scripture to support your position, neither have you quoted any works of your "Tradition."

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Rightly so. If unrepentant, with no desire to change... you bet, I'd bar them also. However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!

I'm glad I don't have to live in fear of Columcille as my judge, then - for I'm certain there are areas of my life about which I will be ashamed when I stand before my Maker.

Thankfully, I'm not afraid that [he] would deny me [his] presence based on the things I don't see about myself.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

I'm glad I don't have to live in fear of Columcille as my judge, then - for I'm certain there are areas of my life about which I will be ashamed when I stand before my Maker.

Thankfully, I'm not afraid that [he] would deny me [his] presence based on the things I don't see about myself.

People choose their lifestyle. I am only presenting what the Scripture has to say. Your reinterpretation of it has yet to be made to the rest of us. Scripture is suppose to be one of your quadrilaterals... I suggest you use it.

[ActRaiser]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle? It is not a defense, it is an an***hesis. If God if for ****sexual marriages, is allowable for Christians to participate in it... then present a thesis, not an an***hesis. Use your quadrilateral.

God is not for gay marriage. I do not justify the gay life style. I justify people who identify themselves as gay. It may seem contradictory, but I have read from the scriptures certain talking points which seem to point out that even murderers and tyrants go there. (See Nebuchednezzar) Nebuchadnezzar might not have been gay, but he was much worse than that. He even persecuted God's people, the Israelites, and demanded idolatry.

That somewhat answers your question regarding Solomon, since Nebuchedezzar was infinitely worse.

[Trinity]

"****sexuality is a sustained condition or adaptation in which erotic fantasy, attraction and arousal is predominately directed toward one’s own sex. The term ‘‘sustained’’ is used because confusion about one’s sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Although the Catholic Church recognizes that ****sexual attraction is not chosen, and therefore the orientation in itself is not a sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358), it has been the constant tradition in Church teaching, based on Scripture and natural law, that ****sexual activity is morally wrong. This article expounds the basis for this judgment in terms of the Church’s teaching on marriage, and its proper, virtuous expression of sexuality.

Scripture. Traditionally, six texts in Scripture have been accepted in Christian Churches as condemnations of ****sexual behavior. Genesis (19.1–29) contains the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed by God for wickedness which included ****sexual demands on Lot’s guests. Leviticus forbids practices such as adultery and bestiality, and includes the prohibition: ‘‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination’’ (18.20–23), a condemnation repeated in Lv 20.13. In the New Testament, St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans cites indulgence in same-sex lust and the perverse actions of men with men, women with women, as deserving penalty (1.26ff). In the First Letter to the Corinthians Paul includes ****sexual activity as one of the sins that bars inheritance of God’s kingdom (6.9-11). The First Letter to Timothy also lists ****sexual activity as an offense of the wicked and godless (1.8,11). Finally, the author of the Letter of Jude refers to Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding towns which indulged in unnatural vice, with the admonition that their punishment is meant to dissuade us (1.6-8).

Beginning with Anglican author D. Sherwin Baily’s 1955 book ****sexuality and Western Christian Tradition, a number of scholars and pro-gay apologists have reinterpreted the standard scriptural texts, thereby encouraging a revisionist theology which accepts ****sexual activity as morally acceptable for ****sexual persons. This interpretation stands against the constant teaching of the Church, dating from the Fathers of the early Christian centuries, affirmed by the major theological Doctors of the Middle Ages, and reaffirmed in current Catholic magisterial pronouncements.

These revisionist views take various forms, generally proposing that the scriptural texts were written in the setting of a different culture, and in times when the notion of differing sexual orientations was not known. Some maintain that the sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality rather than ****sexual activity, or, while admitting that the Genesis story concerns ****sexual activity, see its condemnation aimed at the violence of threatened ****sexual rape. Others maintain that the text in Romans refers to ****sexual actions by heterosexual persons, and that the strictures were against ****sexual pros***ution in a setting of orgiastic idolatry.

A simple reply to these views would be to note that nowhere in Scripture is ****sexual genital behavior mentioned in a positive manner. More striking, in both Testaments one finds the over-arching affirmation of heterosexual marriage as a symbol of God’s covenant relationship with his people and of the union of Christ with his spouse, the Church. The 1986 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Pastoral Care of ****sexual Persons, notes that God fashions mankind male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings therefore are nothing less than the work of God Himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with Him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of self to the other (6).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, does not see ambiguity in the Scripture references to ****sexual behavior. Citing four of the cl***ic texts, it states: ‘‘Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ . . . contrary to the natural law . . . (and) under no circumstances can they be approved’’ (2357). The first chapter of Genesis contains the nucleus of the theology of marriage. ‘‘God created man in his image . . . male and female he created them, and blessed them saying ‘be fertile and multiply’’’ (1.27). ‘‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one’’ (2.24)."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition
Thompson and Gale,
2003, vol. 7, [pages 66-67]
http://www.gale.cengage.com/servlet/...pe=1&id=113827

Trinity

[asdf]

Prologue

Again, thanks to Columcille for starting this thread. I'm hopeful about this opportunity to articulate and refine my thoughts. I'm always glad for the occasion to learn and to teach. (I try to always be open to both.)

Before I really dig in to the worldview ***umptions that have led me to full support of ****sexuality, I wanted to make a couple preliminary observations.

It's clear that we're not even starting on the same foot with regard to the sources of divine authority. I wanted to ask you about this statement:

Originally Posted by Columcille

If we are to ***ume each has equal authority in determining what God has to say as asdf has stated, I myself only adher to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; reasoning and experience without God's revelation is only man's reasoning and man's experience.

There's a lot of discussion in epistemological foundations that we'd need to delve into to really get to the bottom of where we disagree, but I'll try to shortcut that for now in the effort to get to the point. It seems to me that Experience and Reason are necessary for claiming to know anything about Scripture or Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted, right? We use the filters of Experience and Reason when we practice hermeneutics, when we research the culture, language, literary genres, etc, used by the biblical writers. Likewise, we temper our understanding of Tradition by the knowledge that even the greatest saint is a mere human, and to some degree a product of his/her time. Because they were a fallible human being, they inevitably had some areas of doctrine or praxis that failed to live up to perfection.

This does not negate the reliability of Scripture or Tradition as sources of authority, but simply to say that they don't come as simple, pre-packaged soundbytes of Truth-with-a-capital-T. They must be interpreted.

Now, I understand that at this point we could easily devolve into a Catholic-vs-Protestant debate, but I believe I can make my point without having to go there. I forsee the counterargument that for a Catholic, individuals do not have to make interpretive decisions - that the Church is the arbiter of Truth, thus the Church herself makes decisions about meaning and interpretation. However, that doesn't eliminate the "problem" of interpretation, it simply shifts it to the heirarchy of the Church instead of to the individual. Interpretive decisions still need to be made, and they are still subject to revision and clarification based on new evidence and new cultural understandings - in other words, fallible humans, of which the Church Universal is composed, still must employ Reason and Experience as valid sources of authority - if not on a primary level (what has God said?), then on a secondary level (how do we make sense of what God has said?).

William James speaks about the mystical experience being nontransferable. To say that I experienced God in a ****sexual act or to say I experienced God in a heterosexual act is mere opinion based on a perception of the individual. However, I believe life is an act of God, so in a heterosexual act where a baby is born... I believe such experience as shared by other parents attests to the miracle of life and from God...

This is odd to me, as it appears that you self-refute. Where you say "I believe...", is that not mere opinion based on your own perception?

****sexual couples do not get this from their unions. Hence experientially, they are defunct in this act.

Again, that is an argument based on your perception, which you just claimed was unreliable.

It is also defunct, because Tradition in the Catholic and Orthodox Church, view marriage as a Sacrament. ****sexuals have always been denied marriage in the Christian Tradition until some Protestant sects deny Tradition, deny Scripture (or reinterpret it).

Yes, well, we'll get there. Eventually.

[Columcille]

Asdf, In regards to quadrilateral position that you are affirming as opposed to my own position as a Catholic, what needs to be understood is the nature of Tradition. Tradition is not a contradictor of Scripture. Scripture, of course in my view, is both inspired by the Holy Spirit and affirmed by the Christian Tradition. The erosion of Tradition has lead to the denial of certain canonical books found in the O.T. and as such also eroded some doctrinal support that is wholesome. I consider mainstream Protestants to be my seperate brother and sister in Christ only when the core moral and doctrinal positions are the same. Hence, if a Protestant is against abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality and affirms the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, his Resurrection, and those things that unite the common Christological and theological positions of the Church, I welcome them even when they may deny me the same courtesy.

As Scripture was written over four thousand years and compiled into one binding or collection, so Tradition remains until today and into tomorrow. Scripture does not refute Scripture and Tradition does not refute Tradition; and together they only compliment each other without contradiction. Since you listed Scripture and Tradition as two parts of your quadrilateral, each must be equally inerrent for the foundation to be solid. Reason and experience can be found in both the writings of Scripture, just as we see the teleological argument about a designer in the Psalms and Prophets and the cosmological argument found in Romans 1 and even supported by reasoning in Tradition as many Christian apologists throughout history and Popes have demonstrated. St. Thomas Aquinas has done this using Scripture and quoting doctors of the Church and attempting to use the prominent reasoning of his age... subverting the Muslim philosophers who were themselves Aristotelian. I have a rich Tradition from which to back up my claims against ****sexuality and I am not sure what sort of Tradition you can back up yours.

In short, to answer your objection regarding Tradition, there is a guiding principle that does not change, regardless of the science or of popular opinion. The ecumenical council's decisions in regards to morality and doctrine have never refutiated earlier ecumenical councils, policies however can change, how we structure the details of the M*** in regards to how the priest is positioned, what sort of texts used in the reading, what kinds of clothes or vestiments are used... these change. I would think it a mistake of you to deny a position of the Church held for two milliniums in regards to the shared morality just to embrace today's media talking points and ****sexual lobbyist's playbook.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The erosion of Tradition has lead to the denial of certain canonical books found in the O.T. and as such also eroded some doctrinal support that is wholesome.

I've got no beef with you over the Apocrypha.

I consider mainstream Protestants to be my seperate brother and sister in Christ only when the core moral and doctrinal positions are the same. Hence, if a Protestant is against abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality and affirms the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, his Resurrection, and those things that unite the common Christological and theological positions of the Church, I welcome them even when they may deny me the same courtesy.

I'm glad you're able to recognize that the family of God is bigger than your own tribe.

I would, however, question your list of "core moral and doctrinal positions". Where does your list come from? The focus on "abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality" reads more like a list of hot-****on issues of the Religious Right than something that has been the traditional standards of Christian morality through the centuries. It would have been more credulous for you to cite sexual fidelity/chas***y, nonviolence (or committment to Just War theory, or something of the sort)...

As for your "Christological and theological positions" which you view as necessary, they are indeed the majority report of Christian doctrine over the centuries, but it's an interesting study to see the various formulations that were "required" as orthodox Christian faith over time - both within Scripture and in the first few hundred years of Church history, with the Ecumenical Councils. (See: the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Pauline formulations, the Didache, the Councils...)

It appears to me, for example, that within the Bible itself, there is much more support for saying that the "essentials" of the faith are the Lordship of Jesus and the Resurrection. There is some support for such doctrines as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, etc, but their prominence as the bedrock of Christian doctrine was not present until much later.

As Scripture was written over four thousand years and compiled into one binding or collection, so Tradition remains until today and into tomorrow. Scripture does not refute Scripture and Tradition does not refute Tradition; and together they only compliment each other without contradiction.

I disagree. Scripture does refute, or at least supersede, itself in points. More on that soon.

Since you listed Scripture and Tradition as two parts of your quadrilateral, each must be equally inerrent for the foundation to be solid.

I don't hold inerrancy to be a requisite to consider something authoritative. My parents were not inerrant, infallible individuals, but they were my "authority" in my formative years. They provided me a guiding framework that enabled me to grow and learn, and ultimately to make decisions for myself. Nowhere in there was their "foundation" unsolid due to the fact that their guiding framework was fallible.

Reason and experience can be found in both the writings of Scripture, just as we see the teleological argument about a designer in the Psalms and Prophets and the cosmological argument found in Romans 1 and even supported by reasoning in Tradition as many Christian apologists throughout history and Popes have demonstrated. St. Thomas Aquinas has done this using Scripture and quoting doctors of the Church and attempting to use the prominent reasoning of his age... subverting the Muslim philosophers who were themselves Aristotelian. I have a rich Tradition from which to back up my claims against ****sexuality and I am not sure what sort of Tradition you can back up yours.

Yes, but we also have a rich Tradition of resisting change to our presuppositions until our denial is no longer tenable. See: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin...

I would think it a mistake of you to deny a position of the Church held for two milliniums in regards to the shared morality just to embrace today's media talking points and ****sexual lobbyist's playbook.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

I've got no beef with you over the Apocrypha.



I'm glad you're able to recognize that the family of God is bigger than your own tribe.

I would, however, question your list of "core moral and doctrinal positions". Where does your list come from? The focus on "abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality" reads more like a list of hot-****on issues of the Religious Right than something that has been the traditional standards of Christian morality through the centuries. It would have been more credulous for you to cite sexual fidelity/chas***y, nonviolence (or committment to Just War theory, or something of the sort)...

As for your "Christological and theological positions" which you view as necessary, they are indeed the majority report of Christian doctrine over the centuries, but it's an interesting study to see the various formulations that were "required" as orthodox Christian faith over time - both within Scripture and in the first few hundred years of Church history, with the Ecumenical Councils. (See: the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Pauline formulations, the Didache, the Councils...)

It appears to me, for example, that within the Bible itself, there is much more support for saying that the "essentials" of the faith are the Lordship of Jesus and the Resurrection. There is some support for such doctrines as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, etc, but their prominence as the bedrock of Christian doctrine was not present until much later.



I disagree. Scripture does refute, or at least supersede, itself in points. More on that soon.



I don't hold inerrancy to be a requisite to consider something authoritative. My parents were not inerrant, infallible individuals, but they were my "authority" in my formative years. They provided me a guiding framework that enabled me to grow and learn, and ultimately to make decisions for myself. Nowhere in there was their "foundation" unsolid due to the fact that their guiding framework was fallible.



Yes, but we also have a rich Tradition of resisting change to our presuppositions until our denial is no longer tenable. See: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin...

Asdf, so your pillar of Scripture is lacking a solid foundation. As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using. I already gave such an example with St. Aquinas being an Aristotelian using such resources to combat the Muslim Aristotelians of his age. So as far as Galileo and the others you mentioned, it is not applicable to the Tradition. Its main concern is only as far as the moral and doctrinal position of the Church as it is maintained. As far as my supposed Rubric of calling fellow Protestants Christian, I think it pretty obvious that the Scriptures endorse a moral lifestyle and equally important is that they have the right God. Periphial doctrines aside, professing Christians in an active ****sexual lifestyle is prohibited. It is one thing to have fleshly hormonal desires, its another to affirm these as wholesome. Trinity's excepts of the Catechism of 2538 is only one except. 2357 and 2359 also state something about ****sexuality. In fact the last sentence of 2357 states in no uncertain terms:

"Under no circumstance can they (****sexual acts) be approved."

Trinity is absolutely right in his references.

[ActRaiser]

"Under no circumstance can they (****sexual acts) be approved."

This is true, but why must the negative consequence of sin for someone who accepts Jesus'es death on the Cross and Ressurection be Hell?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using...So as far as Galileo and the others you mentioned, it is not applicable to the Tradition. Its main concern is only as far as the moral and doctrinal position of the Church as it is maintained.

You're making an artificial distinction between "moral and doctrinal" positions and "scientific" positions.

[Jet]

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum, and hope that I'm able to articulate my words adequately.

I'd like to focus on the pillar of Experience, since it's apparently the least popular...

We cannot exist outside of our experiences. The way we see the world is tinted by the experiences we've had (this is called bias). When we swear our allegiance to Christ, he does not magically take away our biases. Through intentional practice, we can lessen our biases, but we'll never completely be free of them.

Therefore we ascribe to some sort of Christian lifestyle because we've experienced it to be good and true. Hopefully none of us are Christians merely because our father and his father were Christians, but because we've experienced God directly or indirectly.

I'm claiming that experience is the beginning of our faith, and continues to build our faith.

Sometimes how we interpret scripture does not match our experience of life, of reality. This is where most of us would chime in to say, "we must regard scripture's version as more authoritative, and submit our experience."

But it is not that simple. It is common practice to confuse "what God said" with how we interpret "what God said." And we interpret "what God said" using the lens of our experiences. That is, we're biased in how we read scripture. So those of us who say, "well I just believe what the Bible says," seem to be in denial that they have the propensity to read their own biases into scripture. ...in fact, it would take an act of God for them to be mistaken ("The ONLY way that you can have legitimate authority to mitigate what God stated is to find a direct statement when [God] said 'Oopsie! I really did not mean that.'".

Back to Experience not matching Interpretation of Scripture... luckily we have Tradition to help us. Often our experience does not match our interpretation of scripture until we see how this person or that church lived out the scripture, and then our experiences allow for the interpretation. But this is a beautiful picture of the Quadrilateral balancing itself.

Without a balance, people will claim the Bible means something it doesn't, and then even if it defies our experiences, there's no check for the claim. It is common throughout history for widely-accepted interpretation of scripture to change because so many's experience with reality did not match the interpretation (for instance, the issue of slavery).

Another reason I hold Experience so dear is that Biblical characters commonly base their lifestyles of faith on it. From Abraham to John, it is their experience of the living God that shapes their life (and no doubt their interpretation of scripture). Jesus says, "blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God." A heart is purified through experiences of conviction, practice, patience, repentance, earnestness, sincerity, diligence... If closeness to God is closeness to truth, we cannot discount the pillar of Experience, for it is a vital means of pursuing truth.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Jet

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum, and hope that I'm able to articulate my words adequately.

I'd like to focus on the pillar of Experience, since it's apparently the least popular...

We cannot exist outside of our experiences. The way we see the world is tinted by the experiences we've had (this is called bias). When we swear our allegiance to Christ, he does not magically take away our biases. Through intentional practice, we can lessen our biases, but we'll never completely be free of them.

Therefore we ascribe to some sort of Christian lifestyle because we've experienced it to be good and true. Hopefully none of us are Christians merely because our father and his father were Christians, but because we've experienced God directly or indirectly.

I'm claiming that experience is the beginning of our faith, and continues to build our faith.

Sometimes how we interpret scripture does not match our experience of life, of reality. This is where most of us would chime in to say, "we must regard scripture's version as more authoritative, and submit our experience."

But it is not that simple. It is common practice to confuse "what God said" with how we interpret "what God said." And we interpret "what God said" using the lens of our experiences. That is, we're biased in how we read scripture. So those of us who say, "well I just believe what the Bible says," seem to be in denial that they have the propensity to read their own biases into scripture. ...in fact, it would take an act of God for them to be mistaken ("The ONLY way that you can have legitimate authority to mitigate what God stated is to find a direct statement when [God] said 'Oopsie! I really did not mean that.'".

Back to Experience not matching Interpretation of Scripture... luckily we have Tradition to help us. Often our experience does not match our interpretation of scripture until we see how this person or that church lived out the scripture, and then our experiences allow for the interpretation. But this is a beautiful picture of the Quadrilateral balancing itself.

Without a balance, people will claim the Bible means something it doesn't, and then even if it defies our experiences, there's no check for the claim. It is common throughout history for widely-accepted interpretation of scripture to change because so many's experience with reality did not match the interpretation (for instance, the issue of slavery).

Another reason I hold Experience so dear is that Biblical characters commonly base their lifestyles of faith on it. From Abraham to John, it is their experience of the living God that shapes their life (and no doubt their interpretation of scripture). Jesus says, "blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God." A heart is purified through experiences of conviction, practice, patience, repentance, earnestness, sincerity, diligence... If closeness to God is closeness to truth, we cannot discount the pillar of Experience, for it is a vital means of pursuing truth.

This is a very interesting post. There is some gems.

I agree with you that the cognitive experience, the culture, nationality, ethnicity, genealogy, political and sociological environment, and our own structured philosophy of life can distort our perception.

Truly, Christians living in United States, or in Canada, or in India, or in China, or in Japan, or in Ethiopia are not the same. Christians living in the modern time are not even alike to those who were living in the Middle Ages, or during the Renaissance. There is even generational distinctions throughout the centuries.

Trinity

[Trinity]

Addendum

Even the perceptions of the Christ or about the Virgin Mary have moved throughout the centuries. If Martin Luther could come back on earth today, he would have been rejected by the modern evangelical churches. He would have been too much Catholic for them.

Ex:
Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture
by Jaroslav Pelikan
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Through-...8020010&sr=1-7
Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture
by Jaroslav Pelikan
http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Through-C...8020010&sr=1-9

Trinity

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Trinity

This is a very interesting post. There is some gems.

I agree with you that the cognitive experience, the culture, nationality, ethnicity, genealogy, political and sociological environment, and our own structured philosophy of life can distort our perception.

Truly, Christians living in United States, or in Canada, or in India, or in China, or in Japan, or in Ethiopia are not the same. Christians living in the modern time are not even alike to those who were living in the Middle Ages, or during the Renaissance. There is even generational distinctions throughout the centuries.

Trinity

You're exactly right, Trinity. If we're going to claim Tradition as a source of authority (and this goes for the other sources as well), we're going to have to have the intellectual honesty to admit the vast and sometimes contradictory range of interpretations over the entire span of Christian history and geography.

I think that the bond of faith that unites the Church Universal is not conformity and uniformity on doctrinal (or even praxis) issues. Rather, it is inclusion, membership in a family. In my opinion, this diversity which may seem at first glance to undermine the validity of Christianity is actually one of its greatest strengths.

We read that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female [may I add: gay nor straight, 'liberal' nor 'conservative', western nor eastern, Protestant nor Catholic...], for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I don't believe that Paul was intending to undermine cultural, socioeconomic or gender differences between people, but rather to highlight the unity that is found within that diversity existing within the family of God.

[Columcille]

Jet, a foundation that is laid does not need balancing-out. We need to fix our reasoning and experiences to the foundation. Consistency is a hallmark of truth. It is easy to point to Scripture and we can point to Tradition, though it can be more difficult finding those ecumenical canon laws and solid ex cathedra statements or looking through the numerous Church father writings, papal encyclicals, and writings of the doctors of the Church.
I partly agree with your ***essment, so far as Trinity has already mentioned. However, you have failed to tie this in with the subject of ****sexuality. Now Trinity has been following the tangent with unrelated subjects of Mary. Perhaps if Luther thought she was a lesbian might tie the subject together, but I know that is not his position. The question now is... what is your thoughts on experience in relation to ****sexuality?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Asdf has stated the following:

One question to ask is - how do we determine "what does God have to say" about a given thing. For me, I subscribe to something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - that the source of authority has to be balanced between the factors of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience, with each mutually informing the others.

I believe we should discuss ****sexuality in each category to determine exactly what God has to say.

This only works "if' the following is true.

IF - the Scripture quoted is truly what God placed that into the bible to teach us, and is not just a verse taken out of it's correct context.

IF - the Tradition is a correct history of doing things the way God wants.

IF - the human ability to Reason is correctly trained and led by the Lord, and not just a bunch of conclusions that a person can fall into on their own or under the sway of a false teacher.

IF - the Experience you record is in-line with what God has truly taught... and that you are not just basing a false idea on a history of believing other false ideas.

[brisbenea]

And how do we judge, those "IF's" are true or no?

[alanmolstad]

with care.....each day