Let me ask you how can any doctrine be valid that can be (mis)construed to result in the celebration of homosexual “marriage”, and the blessing of abortion. As for trolling, YOU are the one that responded to me, I did not seek you out to confront you on a false doctrine. Don’t let stubborn pride get in the way of walking away.
Now you are describing what is presently going on in the Synod presently being held in Rome, more than that being near summation of some silly female Episcopalian priestess, and a Methodist or two who has departed to a very large (noticeably large) degree from truly allowing what is written to be authority to which they themselves must submit to, and look towards as foremost authority.
You've been provided links to more than a few FR threads, for discussion pertaining to the presently unfolding Synod. More threads along those similar lines have been posted here on this forum since.
The liberal wing from within the RCC is operating under doctrines which are they are possibly misconstruing? Or are they?. They are taking part in RC church Synod, having been invited to do so from Vatican officials...
In comparison, the humanists in pseudo-preistly attire at the heading of this thread, are not misconstruing a thing or methodology which they are presently still using, as much as having entirely abandoned a key principle (not necessarily a 'doctrine') while simultaneously also having a lot in common with the bishops taking part in the RC Synod who are worrisome to the more conservative RC bishops for what the former (the liberals) are proposing.
As I pointed out to you previously also, the conservatives who are in opposition to acceptance of homosexuality as something conceptually normal and acceptable, are those whose own positions, although arguably strongly supported by church traditions, the traditions themselves (to the extent which they are unarguably correct enough) are based upon and ultimately, most originally derived from Scripture itself, showing the Holy Writ to be highest authority, if but residing in this instance somewhat remotely from within church tradition. This too is how we can know that the conservative wing of the bishops participating in this RC Synod on the family are correct. Not only does church tradition stronly back them, but the Scriptures do also, a great deal.
It could be interesting to note that outside of Christian tradition more entirely, it is Scripture itself which is attacked by the radical liberals of the sort who are adamantly pro-abortion, and positively homosexual. In Canada, they have had some success in putting some degree of legal label upon the Bible itself, if or when any dare openly stand upon what is written there, as being 'hate speech'.
We see there that the perceived enemy of those who most zealously press for 'sin is in', new & replacement cultural paradigm (seeking to nullify & overturn bible-based cultural morality itself) is fundamentally the written Word of God, and respect for that same among individuals, and groups of persons...
Without the written Word recognized as ultimate guide and buttress, from which all doctrine must be derived and based upon (sola scriptura in action) church councils, including those within the RCC, although to an extent held in check by traditions, may or may not introduce some novelty.
I originally pointed at one particular contention of your own that you made, and made on a virtually open forum, which contention/assertion was highly erroneous.
That same contention has been continually repeated, no matter what else (at times slightly restated) to which you then began adding notes of personal insult, along with attempts (now continuing) to impose conditions upon myself which would lead towards silencing me, provided I were to allow myself to be bullied.
Oh really?
You pointed towards one sola in particular as allegedly a 'false' doctrine, going so far as to blame that one Reformation era principle itself for particular sins and errors. We all know what the score for that is ---- sola scriptura must be denied validity in order to better clear path for sola ecclesia (whatever we say) with the Latin Church that one and Solo.
That is the overall aim, even if there be some amount of validity as for precautionary advisement against relying upon scripture alone, while an individual themselves is also fully alone, too entirely adrift and apart from all traditional understandings of Scripture.
From within the RCC, even on level of Archbishop, the same family (as it were) of error, as are apparently going from being merely tolerated to now seemingly embraced by a handful of Methodist and Episcopalians, are presently being cosied up to some extent by the liberal wing of high-level RCC hierarchy.
Simultaneously, the presently presiding bishop of Rome is being accused by his own people of allowing the Synod to be rigged in favor of the liberals and their modernist, humanist agendas.
Should we blame the papal system itself for that latest set of revolting developments?
We should, and must, provided if we were to apply the same reasoning which you yourself applied to reach place of blaming sola scriptura as fundamental cause and reason for a few Methodist and Episcopalian clergy allegedly "praying blessing" over an abortion clinic.
In fact, that reasoning is yet more deadly when turned back upon the ecclesiastical organization to which (I gather) that you self-identify with.
Fair is fair. Do not use unequal measures, employing one scale when buying, and yet another when selling. There is very little of which it is written, that God "hates". Unequal measures is one of those, of which it is written that He does...
You began this latest comment to myself with;
That appears to include request for answer.
Yet --- you write to me about "pride" not allowing me to walk away?
Which of these two conditions which you would impose upon myself (to provide answer, or else to simply walk away) am I to fulfill? It would be impossible to do both, yet that is what you now seemingly would require.
Does the one who in debate, goes first, also get the last word?
Not in formal debate. You started this when you blamed sola scriptura for leading to support of abortion and homosexuality.
Yet it appears to me that is what you are seeking, while also trying to get in the last strokes against an opponent personally themselves, rather than those aimed at whatever issues there are otherwise at hand, while continuing to pound the table with the initial assertion that you had made...
Are there any mirrors in your house?
You need not answer that one, but may if you so decide -- that was strictly rhetorical question, a statement as it were.
Feel free to read between the lines.