By that you mean that
liberals believe that Jesus abolished the law?
I’ve run into this before, as well. But mostly, they just discount the authority of the Bible as a whole.
When I said “ostensibly” I meant that not everyone realizes that the laws laid out for the Jews in the wilderness do apply to all people, though some are more applicable than others (most Christians do not maintain a Kosher diet, nor do they seem to be required to, as evidenced by Peter’s dream of the great net).
Yes, liberals in general discount the authority of the Bible, but in this case, I’m wondering (mostly rhetorically) how a gay “church” can legitimately claim to teach the Bible. They can’t outright discount the authority of the Bible, or they wouldn’t bother showing up. They must, then, discount only some sections. But how to determine which ones? If some parts don’t apply, might other parts also not apply, and if so, where is the line drawn? Just as God created people with homosexual tendencies, He also created people with sociopathic tendencies. Are we then to permit those people to exercise their proclivities because who are we to judge their lifestyles?
Liberals confuse scripture concerning the "old law" (covenant) with scripture concerning the "new law" (covenant) In that sense, yes, Christ abolished the "old law" which was Mosaic law, the old covenant which condemned everyone to death. There is also Gods laws, which were the ten commandments, which were sealed in the ark, Moses's Oral laws, which were not. It is those Mosaic laws that were meant to pass away