Liberal Christianity, what's the point?

[Larry]

Greetings seebs!

I think I entered this discussion on a single comment (question) you made (asked) which may have been better suited to a discussion of its own thus avoiding the possible loss of focus of the core issue. Which frankly I forgot what that was. So, I'll briefly address your latest response; grab some ; and see if I may contribute more substance to the topic.

Sin is generally considered something which is immoral and/or against the commands of God. Morality deals with behavior and in thinking along that vein my thoughts were focused on this phrase "It is good for them if they abide even as I."

Sure. Although, to be picky, this is Paul, not God, writing... But!

Always a "but" with us liberal Christians, ain't there? That's true, that Paul wrote it, but he did so with permission. Remember?

If a thing is good then wouldn't its opposite be bad?

If there are really only two options, yes. Paul's contrast points out that there are at least three. What he does, burning with lust, and marrying. That's at least three.

That's interesting. But what exactly did Paul do? Abstain from having sex if you keep within the general scope (context) of the subject. In order to do so, it's necessary to control your urges. But if you can't (and "burn with passion") then Paul's advice is that it's better to marry. Why? Well, if it's a good thing to be able to control your sexual urges outside the parameters of marriage then it's a bad thing if you can't and the solution to that would be to marry in order to avoid doing that which is bad.

Perhaps I was wrong, in thinking, that the verse I cited seemed to address your question. I can't think of another that is clearer on the subject so I'll concede that your question remains unanswered.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Larry

Always a "but" with us liberal Christians, ain't there? That's true, that Paul wrote it, but he did so with permission. Remember?

Well, sure. But I don't think that means he's guaranteed to be correct, only to be sharing something he's come to believe.

If there are really only two options, yes. Paul's contrast points out that there are at least three. What he does, burning with lust, and marrying. That's at least three.

That's interesting. But what exactly did Paul do? Abstain from having sex if you keep within the general scope (context) of the subject.[/quote]

We think so, yes. Probably. Some people argue that he was gay.

In order to do so, it's necessary to control your urges. But if you can't (and "burn with passion") then Paul's advice is that it's better to marry. Why? Well, if it's a good thing to be able to control your sexual urges outside the parameters of marriage then it's a bad thing if you can't and the solution to that would be to marry in order to avoid doing that which is bad.

Right. But what if, say, you can control your desires, without abstaining?

There are some people for whom, say, alcohol, or gambling, are very dangerous temptations. There are others for whom they are idle amusements. I am a virtually guaranteed non-alcoholic; I have a low tolerance, but I hate being even tipsy, let alone drunk. For another person, alcohol might be more of a problem.

Different people struggle with different aspects of sexuality. Trying to find a way to reconcile moral principles in treatment of others is a challenge, but not everyone has the same exact requirements.

Perhaps I was wrong, in thinking, that the verse I cited seemed to address your question. I can't think of another that is clearer on the subject so I'll concede that your question remains unanswered.

That's sort of the point; I've been asking that one for a long time, and I've never found an answer to it that isn't a little circular.

My current view is that there are good reasons to avoid sex outside of "marriage", but that I don't accept legalism on the question of what marriage is. For instance, the first time I had sex with the person who is now my spouse, I looked her in the eyes and said "'til death do us part". If that sex was premarital, it was premarital by under an hour. (Well, depending on what we consider sex.) (There are other reasons for which I suspect that some of the things involved in the full version of the story were probably "sinful", but I don't think the "premarital" part is at issue.)

I tend to think that a lot of people, in their aggressive drive to rigorously avoid the sin of putting a penis in a vagina without a legal license to do so, end up commiting very serious sins. (For instance, I would consider "getting married to someone just so you can fuck them" to be sinful.)

(And yes, I do use words like "sin", I just use them in a very different way than many fundamentalists.)

(BTW, I am not only liberal in my faith, I am liberal in the use of parentheses.)

[Larry]

(BTW, I am not only liberal in my faith, I am liberal in the use of parentheses.)

Well, I can't say there's anything "bad" about that, but then I'm not a grammarist so I wouldn't know if you've incorrectly used them. But I suspect the last one might have been. Methinks I have the same problem with " ". Get "control" of yourself man!