[lliamander]

Respectfully, there are faith communities that hold any number of views without regard to their consistency with founding documents or traditions of teachings. I heartily recommend that for anyone who is genuinely seeking spiritual guidance to avoid religious establishments that do not challenge present cultural norms and mores.

However, it is very unlikely that a church is going to keep someone out, especially a non-believer, because of their views on abortion. Church attendance is generally open to everyone. It is participation in the sacraments (baptism, communion, etc.) and leadership that often requires doctrinal commitments.

[hprotagonist]

respectfully, that sounds like a fairly mealy-mouthed implicit endorsement of a very specific 19th century form of textual literalism to me. Speak plainly when you state a position, and I'll be happy to return the favor. If i'm reading you properly, you ought to know beforehand that we have probably very different hermeneutics.

I would be happy to start on this issue by pointing to any number of long-running (like, millenia-long) ideas on this and other complex moral issues that are littered throughout the many texts of abrahamic faiths. Claiming that there is exactly one intepretation that's valid (which you implicitly do) is a crabbed and limiting way of reading and living pretty much all of the time.

On this specific front, my church only recognizes two sacraments, and both are open to all. With regards to challenging present norms and mores, I am happy to agree, albeit in a way that you almost certainly don't mean. For instance: the more of the body of christ that locks themselves to concentration camp gates, the better!

[lliamander]

I had no intention of being less than candid. I was just trying to be concise. Let me see if I can put it more explicitly:

> Respectfully, there are faith communities that hold any number of views without regard to their consistency with founding documents or traditions of teachings

In the first part of my comment, regarding abortion (which was the subject brought up by astura) I am simply saying that the bulk of Christian teaching is against it (except perhaps where the life of the mother is in danger). This is not some parochial, evangelical fundamentalist position: the Catholic and Orthodox churches (and several different flavors of Protestantism) are in agreement on this. Theologians throughout history likewise concur. That is not to say that there has been no debate, but that debate has generally not been about whether abortion is generally wrong, only about what the exceptions are.

Any church that departs from such a strong and consistent tradition of teaching and embraces abortion without reservation is likely in all matters more influenced by the surrounding secular culture than by it's own scriptures and traditions.

> I heartily recommend that for anyone who is genuinely seeking spiritual guidance to avoid religious establishments that do not challenge present cultural norms and mores.

Here, I genuinely intend this to be more generic advice. The point of being a spiritual seeker is that you recognize there is something missing from the culture around you and you are looking for an alternative - something that is hopefully timeless.

> However, it is very unlikely that a church is going to keep someone out, especially a non-believer, because of their views on abortion. Church attendance is generally open to everyone. It is participation in the sacraments (baptism, communion, etc.) and leadership that often requires doctrinal commitments.

I hope this is clear enough.

Now to respond to your remarks:

> I would be happy to start on this issue by pointing to any number of long-running (like, millenia-long) ideas on this and other complex moral issues that are littered throughout the many texts of abrahamic faiths.

Please do.

> Claiming that there is exactly one intepretation that's valid (which you implicitly do) is a crabbed and limiting way of reading and living pretty much all of the time.

You are inferring something that I did not imply. There is not only one valid interpretation for many things. However, some interpretations cohere better and are better supported, and you can only stretch interpretations so far before it becomes dishonest.

> On this specific front, my church only recognizes two sacraments, and both are open to all.

Which ones? Does participation in these sacraments at least require an acknowledgment of the solemn purpose of those sacraments, or can you just do them for a laugh?

> With regards to challenging present norms and mores, I am happy to agree, albeit in a way that you almost certainly don't mean. For instance: the more of the body of christ that locks themselves to concentration camp gates, the better!

What events are you referencing?