United Methodist Church to split in two

[Fondren & Main 6726]

Corinthians says you’re all fucked.

[troph 24900]

Corinthians says you’re all fucked.

Only we homos and trannies. The rest of it can be contextualized and explained away or even flat out ignored.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

10 hours ago, workswithseed said:

The nice thing is if the being asks why they don't listen, just show him the Bible and tell him how you have been dealing with thier disrespectful asses for all of time.

The funny thing is that, besides showing what a pain in the ass it was to atone for sin the Old Testament way, I always thought that Exodus/Leviticus portrayed a God something short of omnipotent.  

[Junior Miller 1502]

This is some convoluted shit. How many offshoots of this religion are there going to be? Is it a just make up your own rules as we go along because fuck you and I'm leaving type of party?

It's amazing people still believe this is more than just a social club at this point. 

[Firemans4Horn 18118]

5 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

This is some convoluted shit. How many offshoots of this religion are there going to be? Is it a just make up your own rules as we go along because fuck you and I'm leaving type of party?

It's amazing people still believe this is more than just a social club at this point. 

 

Wut? This didn’t just happen over night. Homosexuality and it’s (non) compatibility with the Book of Discipline has been the focus of the last two general conferences over the last 4+ years. Since last summer Methodist leaders from across the spectrum have been working to find a way forward. This was their solution. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Firemans4Horn

[gsoda3 3277]

12 hours ago, F250 said:

This sounds wrong. The idea of scripture being the sole source of authority as opposed to the tradition of the Church was invented with the Reformation. No one was returning to biblical teaching but rather deviating from the established practice of equally following Tradition and Scripture. Protestantism really is the result of reinterpreting the Scripture to break away from Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox are probably the closest to the Early Christian Church but they really don't differ that much from the Roman Catholic Church who seem to be slightly influenced by Greek philosophy thanks to Aquinas and Augustine. It's really interesting how concepts like original sin and free will are where the RCC and Orthodox differ,  more than likely due to the influence of Augustine a Platoist and how you see reactionary theology created by Calvin which then went on to spawn rival Protestant theologies like Calvinism and Arminianism.

Anyways, Protestantism is a deviation of Roman Catholicism not a return to anything that existed prior to the Reformation or Great Schism.

 

It's useful to distinguish the tradition of the first few centuries of the church vs the tradition at the time of the reformation. 

 

the scriptures as we know it now were handed down orally until being compiled in written form.  we call them scripture, but they called them traditions and teachings.  these were the traditions taught in the early church.  in 2 thess 2:15 paul instructs the church to "consider every new teaching against what they had been taught before- those teachings and traditions passed on to you by word or by letter", which over time were recorded as scripture.

at the time of the reformation the church had gone way off course.  the church justified all sorts of teachings based on tradition that couldn't be reconciled with scripture.  they got away with it for centuries.  luther's theses called in to question loads of church traditions and teachings that did not match the teaching of the old traditions - the scriptures. 

nominally yes the reformation is framed as a deviation to sola scriptura or even prima scriptura.  a divorce of tradition from scripture.  but in the early church tradition WAS the scripture.  Jesus never intended for the church to follow anything other than scripture.  time and time again he rebuked the pharisees and jews for following a religion interpreted and corrupted by tradition instead of scripture.    

 

 

[gsoda3 3277]

 

8 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

This is some convoluted shit. How many offshoots of this religion are there going to be? Is it a just make up your own rules as we go along because fuck you and I'm leaving type of party?

It's amazing people still believe this is more than just a social club at this point. 

 

3 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

Wut? This didn’t just happen over night. Homosexuality and it’s (non) compatibility with the Book of Discipline has been the focus of the last two general conferences over the last 4+ years. Since last summer Methodist leaders from across the spectrum have been working to find a way forward. This was their solution. 

junior has a good point.  ostensibly there's one guy the church revolves around and exists for (jesus, not the pope).  church unity is a huge deal and shouldn't be taken as lightly as it unfortunately is.  it's too easy to find something we don't agree with and keep looking for a "good fit" instead of working through what we should actually think.  

[TwiceHorn 31516]

On 1/7/2020 at 10:38 AM, Samson's Wig said:

Meh.  Africa has been home base for Christianity since just about the beginning.  Ethiopians laugh at westerners and all their crazy interpretations that have diverged from the true faith.

While that may be true with regard to Northern Africa, the Africans in question here are mostly sub-Saharan western Africans that have no tradition of Christianity other than what missions have brought them in the last couple of centuries.

[Junior Miller 1502]

Exactly. I understand how it's very difficult to reconcile old world thinking in the new science and technology driven world but if you're truly going to believe that book and those words are the actual words of God then how can you pick and choose which ones you want to follow? 

Personally I think that even if over 2000 years ago a creator being actually appeared and gave us these rules they have become completely bastardized beyond recognition by over 2000 years of human minds. Hundreds of those years where it didn't even exist in written word.

I mean we humans can't even have proper truth in events that happened yesterday without different political factions lying through their teeth to serve their own purpose. But if you truly believe it's more than just a social club you kind of have to follow the rules as written for it to be even remotely worth doing. 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

5 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

Exactly. I understand how it's very difficult to reconcile old world thinking in the new science and technology driven world but if you're truly going to believe that book and those words are the actual words of God then how can you pick and choose which ones you want to follow? 

Personally I think that even if over 2000 years ago a creator being actually appeared and gave us these rules they have become completely bastardized beyond recognition by over 2000 years of human minds. Hundreds of those years where it didn't even exist in written word.

I mean we humans can't even have proper truth in events that happened yesterday without different political factions lying through their teeth to serve their own purpose. But if you truly believe it's more than just a social club you kind of have to follow the rules as written for it to be even remotely worth doing. 

It is a conundrum.

Shit we have problems interpreting a document written in our language, without a prior oral tradition, two centuries ago.

Most people of faith are just trying to do as their Creator would have them do.

[MissingInAction 25140]

On 1/3/2020 at 12:45 PM, Neonmoon said:

So what will the new churches be called? United Methodists and Traditional Cunts?

Avatar checks out.

[F250 28806]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

It's useful to distinguish the tradition of the first few centuries of the church vs the tradition at the time of the reformation. 

There is no distinction, the Protestant Reformation eliminated "Apostolic Tradition" which is an actual thing not just traditional practices based on oral traditions. Apostolic Succession is what made/makes it different than simple traditions. However that was also eliminated by the Reformation too which is why so many Protestants don't understand the importance of Tradition prior to the Reformation.

Everything else you are alluding to is just a justification for the Reformation which is fine but in the end the Reformation was simply a deviation from Roman Catholicism and not a return to any form of Christianity that existed prior to the Reformation.

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Apostolic succession was useful at a time when communication was slow and regional quasi-Christian cults would spring up with questionable doctrines. Even then, it was not all that useful, in that most of those groups likely  had leadership that could be traced back to the apostles. And the whole Arianism thing...

So the Church's solution was to kick those people out and then claim that they no longer had apostolic succession? By the time Martin Luther came along popes had armies fighting for them and often courts full of concubines, which I'm sure you will agree was consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Martin Luther did not intend to split from the Church, he intended to reform it because the corruption, especially at the upper levels, had reached such ridiculous levels. The Church eventually did begin to reform itself, after many of those who were serious about trying to maintain some semblance to the teachings of Christ had already left.

[gsoda3 3277]

25 minutes ago, F250 said:

There is no distinction, the Protestant Reformation eliminated "Apostolic Tradition" which is an actual thing not just traditional practices based on oral traditions. Apostolic Succession is what made/makes it different than simple traditions. However that was also eliminated by the Reformation too which is why so many Protestants don't understand the importance of Tradition prior to the Reformation.

Everything else you are alluding to is just a justification for the Reformation which is fine but in the end the Reformation was simply a deviation from Roman Catholicism and not a return to any form of Christianity that existed prior to the Reformation.

 

reading your response it's quite clear you're viewing it through the prism of the catholic church and i from the protestant. 

 

in my prior post i wasn't speaking of the apostolic tradition you mentioned when i referenced teachings/traditions passed through word of mouth or letter.  i was speaking to the definition paul gives and the definition which is used in the NT which simply means any teaching that is taught.  and obviously a protestant is going to have a differing opinion on apostolic succession than a catholic, so i can see why you would think there isn't a distinction nor why the reformation was simply a deviation from roman catholicism. 

[gsoda3 3277]

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Apostolic succession was useful at a time when communication was slow and regional quasi-Christian cults would spring up with questionable doctrines. Even then, it was not all that useful, in that most of those groups likely  had leadership that could be traced back to the apostles. And the whole Arianism thing...

So the Church's solution was to kick those people out and then claim that they no longer had apostolic succession? By the time Martin Luther came along popes had armies fighting for them and often courts full of concubines, which I'm sure you will agree was consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Martin Luther did not intend to split from the Church, he intended to reform it because the corruption, especially at the upper levels, had reached such ridiculous levels. The Church eventually did begin to reform itself, after many of those who were serious about trying to maintain some semblance to the teachings of Christ had already left.

pretty much.  it took a while, but eventually people figured out apostolic succession wasn't a thing in the bible and that it was a tradition that had sprung up along the way.  

[hullabelew 3724]

We also quit going to our Methodist church over this issue.  Our Sunday School has essentially folded after 20 years together.  In Georgia, the "North Georgia Conference" voted for the 'traditional' and our church went along with it.  The Associate Pastor quit over it, they brought in another pastor to try to calm things, then ran her into retirement.  

It's a fucking mess.  A bunch of hypocrites.  

My very favorite episode from any TV series was a West Wing episode with a Dr. Laura type radio host who was trying to pressure the Pres. Barlett into something.  

“President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.”
― Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing Script Book“President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

[Samson's Wig 3194]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

While that may be true with regard to Northern Africa, the Africans in question here are mostly sub-Saharan western Africans that have no tradition of Christianity other than what missions have brought them in the last couple of centuries.

Everything I know on this topic I learned watching the History Channel.  So, basically, I'm the leading expert around here.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Samson's Wig

[ABSR 5321]

On 1/8/2020 at 12:35 PM, Bobby_Batronic said:

The Jewish people were mouthing off to Moses and the Lord while God’s presence was visibly in their camp or or before them every day, and Moses’ face was still glowing from having conversed with the Almighty according to the Old Testament. 

I’m sure they were being real dicks to the average jackwagon let alone the God that was in their presence and sending plagues upon them or having the ground swallow them up for a ticket straight to Hell when they continually rebelled about their situation.  

Hey, when the slaves forget the yeast and you have to eat crackers instead of leavened bread, someone's gotta pay.

[crash_davis 23114]

1 hour ago, hullabelew said:

We also quit going to our Methodist church over this issue.  Our Sunday School has essentially folded after 20 years together.  In Georgia, the "North Georgia Conference" voted for the 'traditional' and our church went along with it.  The Associate Pastor quit over it, they brought in another pastor to try to calm things, then ran her into retirement.  

It's a fucking mess.  A bunch of hypocrites.  

My very favorite episode from any TV series was a West Wing episode with a Dr. Laura type radio host who was trying to pressure the Pres. Barlett into something.  

 

 

This is why anyone who quotes the Bible as justification to do anything is a fucking idiot of the nth degree. Today's teachings of Christianity is nothing more than selecting a few convenient passages from the Bible to twist to whatever suits a person or church's agenda while wholly dismissing the rest as non-sense and parables.

Idiots, the whole lot of em.

[gsoda3 3277]

11 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Today's teachings of Christianity is nothing more than selecting a few convenient passages from the Bible to twist to whatever suits a person or church's agenda while wholly dismissing the rest as non-sense and parables.

 

i'd suggest you dig deeper then.  find people who seek to understand the entirety of the Bible and its context.  

[crash_davis 23114]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

i'd suggest you dig deeper then.  find people who seek to understand the entirety of the Bible and its context.  

I'm sure there are many who are Christians Jesus would glad to supper with. Unfortunately those people do not seem to be in leadership positions of these denominations or churches.

[gsoda3 3277]

Just now, crash_davis said:

I'm sure there are many who are Christians Jesus would glad to supper with. Unfortunately those people do not seem to be in leadership positions of these denominations or churches.

keep looking! especially for those who have a reputation for teaching the Bible AND living it.  they're out there, i promise.  

[F250 28806]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

reading your response it's quite clear you're viewing it through the prism of the catholic church and i from the protestant. 

 

in my prior post i wasn't speaking of the apostolic tradition you mentioned when i referenced teachings/traditions passed through word of mouth or letter.  i was speaking to the definition paul gives and the definition which is used in the NT which simply means any teaching that is taught.  and obviously a protestant is going to have a differing opinion on apostolic succession than a catholic, so i can see why you would think there isn't a distinction nor why the reformation was simply a deviation from roman catholicism. 

I am Methodist (Protestant) not a Catholic, a product of the English Reformation. I am addressing this based on the historical facts and not with a religious view.

Whether you accept Apostolic Succession or not is immaterial to the fact that it along with Tradition established authority in the Christian church prior to the Reformation. There are no differing opinions on the fact that this occurred, only on whether abandoning certain elements of Christian orthodoxy was justified.

You seem to be conflating belief with knowledge.

[Gatorubet 30277]

i'd suggest you dig deeper then.  find people who seek to understand the entirety of the Bible and its context.  

If someone quotes Leviticus as grounds against homosexuality, their wife and daughter better be in their menstruation tent.

[Gatorubet 30277]

The funny thing is that, besides showing what a pain in the ass it was to atone for sin the Old Testament way, I always thought that Exodus/Leviticus portrayed a God something short of omnipotent.  

The Gnostics and Cathars had a point. The Old Testament God was the Demi-urge, a different God than the God of love and salvation in the new testament, a punk ass entity that liked the smell of burning meat, sent bears to kill kids for calling his servant bald, and drowned the world because they acted like he made them.

 

‘Course, Rome just ethnically cleansed them. Its general sent to root out Cathars, when told the churches were filled with Cathars and Catholics, said “Kill them all- God will know His own. “

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

The Gnostics and Cathars had a point. The Old Testament God was the Demi-urge, a different God than the God of love and salvation in the new testament, a punk ass entity that liked the smell of burning meat, sent bears to kill kids for calling his servant bald, and drowned the world because they acted like he made them.

 

‘Course, Rome just ethnically cleansed them. Its general sent to root out Cathars, when told the churches were filled with Cathars and Catholics, said “Kill them all- God will know His own. “

It just struck me as interesting that the Lord would drop in to the tent of meeting, and act surprised by the actions of the Israelites before showering them with his wrath. As though an omnipotent being wouldn’t know exactly what they were going to do from the beginning. 

Or the fact that Moses would have to head in for consultations on what to do with legal/ethical situations as they arose as though an omnipotent being wouldn’t know what’s coming, and just go ahead and lay out the minutia before it became a problem. 

I think Genesis and the Flood is a very fast and loose retelling of “how we got to here” following what was probably a cataclysmic event like a comet strike or something. The story being familiar across continents and different  societies kinda points to the s*** hitting the fan and a general global reset taking place where oral tradition was about all that people had left as civilization rebooted. 

[troph 24900]

It's useful to distinguish the tradition of the first few centuries of the church vs the tradition at the time of the reformation. 

 

the scriptures as we know it now were handed down orally until being compiled in written form.  we call them scripture, but they called them traditions and teachings.  these were the traditions taught in the early church.  in 2 thess 2:15 paul instructs the church to "consider every new teaching against what they had been taught before- those teachings and traditions passed on to you by word or by letter", which over time were recorded as scripture.

at the time of the reformation the church had gone way off course.  the church justified all sorts of teachings based on tradition that couldn't be reconciled with scripture.  they got away with it for centuries.  luther's theses called in to question loads of church traditions and teachings that did not match the teaching of the old traditions - the scriptures. 

nominally yes the reformation is framed as a deviation to sola scriptura or even prima scriptura.  a divorce of tradition from scripture.  but in the early church tradition WAS the scripture.  Jesus never intended for the church to follow anything other than scripture.  time and time again he rebuked the pharisees and jews for following a religion interpreted and corrupted by tradition instead of scripture.    

 

 

 

You said above in the beginning of the church tradition was scripture and that what we know as scripture today was written down after oral tradition of at least a few decades for the first writings. Then you say Jesus wants us to follow scripture and not tradition. That doesn’t really make sense from the NT vantage point. Secondarily while he didn’t abolish the law his teachings of the parable of the Good Samaritan as recorded in scripture suggest that parable sums up all of the laws - love God, love your neighbor, in the inconvenient ways shown by the Samaritan (who for this discussion might very well be a gay man given the disdain heaped on his people by the ancient Hebrews). That may sound simple but those that take it seriously, dwell on it, think about it, meditate on it know it’s virtually impossible to achieve that standard even for moments let alone a constant state of being. At the same time the Pharisees are condemned for following or focusing on following the prescriptive rules of the OT and not on these broader and more difficult concepts Jesus taught.

 

The letters Paul writes have concepts wholly rejected even by Christians today with respect to women’s rights, civil discourse, the lack of criticism over slavery. And these letters were not intended to be read apart from their intended recipients. And while we assume Paul didn’t attack slavery because it was an institution of the ancient world, one that could not be attacked - so could we see being gay. A way of life that only represented with other sins like idolatry, rampant promiscuity, and generally not being like “us”. Instead of being an institution like slavery - one that could not be torn down - being gay was a way of life that was to be rejected summarily because of how society was at the time and how at least to early Christians and ancient Hebrews how being gay was represented.

 

There were no two dad families. Women weren’t barely humans so lesbians weren’t exactly a present thing either. Medical science didn’t exist for people like me. In the same way slavery was entrenched and above reproach so was being gay to the opposite and the only gay behavior visible to the early church involved prostitution, temple worship and orgies. That was being gay.

 

Today being gay is much much different or at least there is the ability for it to be identical in nearly every way to a straight relationship except how you have sex and believe me - I speak from very strong experience when I say “love is love” and there is no difference.

 

As someone who grew up in the church, values the red letter scripture sees the parable of the Good Samaritan for what it is, some of the most pointed and direct scripture from Jesus himself, and the hardest commandment to fulfill, I find the gay debate to frankly sound more like the Pharisees than Jesus. Gays are excommunicated and removed from congregations they have belonged too. Christians who are mired in greed, their own idolatry, gossip and dozens of much more insidious “sins” can continue their fellowship but the man who loves his husband is told to leave. That’s beyond backward. It’s wrong and as hypocritical as anything I’ve ever seen.

 

And it’s not hyperbole for me to say it’s infuriating to see witnesses of Christ behave as those gay or not gay is the end of the world and the pinnacle of fulfilling Christianity. It’s not, the Good Samaritan showed us the pinnacle.

 

Edit - this started as a one paragraph response really wanting to hear your thoughts and devolved into a bit of a rant. The rant isn’t directed at you. I’ve experienced you as a kind person on this board. So my rant is more of general applicability to the whole of evangelicals as I’ve experienced them.

[Fondren & Main 6726]

Lots of bullshit on this thread.  I have to question how many of you have read the Bible cover to cover.  Some of the claims made on this thread are patently false and highly ridiculous.  Somehow the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT.  Very interesting.  Please explain...

 

On a separate note, I think the Catholic Church is heading towards its own split.  Especially now that it is being led by a complete Charlatan.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

They should bring the Nazi guy back. 

[CooterBrown 18022]

 Somehow the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT.  Very interesting.  Please explain...

They were made up by two different groups of people in different eras.

[workswithseed 2109]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

They should bring the Nazi guy back. 

What? 

[HouTex 1887]

What? 

He means Benedict XVI. He was Cardinal Ratzinger, a German, before becoming pope. He was pretty much hand picked by John Paul II, who was Polish and a fierce anti-communist and anti-Nazi.

[Beau Vine 54336]

On 1/8/2020 at 9:57 AM, troph said:

I was listening to the debate on a sat radio channel....  did you know the Bible authorizes beating your slaves so long as they don’t die with in 24 hours? women cannot teach men either.

Talk about the south will rise again and holy crap how are we going to convince the men to take over the teaching profession? Our economy will be turned upside down!! 

[Fondren & Main 6726]

9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

What? 

He’s just doing his typical drive by e-Molotov cocktail.  Don’t take any of Hank’s posts seriously.

[workswithseed 2109]

13 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

He’s just doing his typical drive by e-Molotov cocktail.  Don’t take any of Hank’s posts seriously.

I figured that, just like to understand what in the world he's talking about. 

[Gatorubet 30277]

He means Benedict XVI. He was Cardinal Ratzinger, a German, before becoming pope. He was pretty much hand picked by John Paul II, who was Polish and a fierce anti-communist and anti-Nazi.

Don’t forget pedophile enablers- they shared that too.

['stache 21825]

On 1/5/2020 at 12:47 PM, gsoda3 said:

 

 

Actually it's the opposite. Protestantism was borne out of the discipline of going back to Biblical teaching. Your 1500 years of tradition was more like 500 years of abuse in a direction trending away from the first 1000 years of tradition. Protestantism brought everything back to the roots of the faith.

 

 

On 1/8/2020 at 9:53 PM, F250 said:

This sounds wrong. The idea of scripture being the sole source of authority as opposed to the tradition of the Church was invented with the Reformation. No one was returning to biblical teaching but rather deviating from the established practice of equally following Tradition and Scripture. Protestantism really is the result of reinterpreting the Scripture to break away from Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox are probably the closest to the Early Christian Church but they really don't differ that much from the Roman Catholic Church who seem to be slightly influenced by Greek philosophy thanks to Aquinas and Augustine. It's really interesting how concepts like original sin and free will are where the RCC and Orthodox differ,  more than likely due to the influence of Augustine a Platoist and how you see reactionary theology created by Calvin which then went on to spawn rival Protestant theologies like Calvinism and Arminianism.

Anyways, Protestantism is a deviation of Roman Catholicism not a return to anything that existed prior to the Reformation or Great Schism.

 

There is no such thing as the "roots of faith" or true "orthodoxy" if these terms means interpreting and practicing as the original Christians. Humans have interpreted and reinterpreted a these texts and ideas a million times over. The bible wasn't even compiled until hundreds of years after Jesus, and was done so selectively by humans. How anyone can claim that there was no human interpretation in this process is naive as fuck. At a minimum, today's average American is guilty of glottony and greed based on biblical era standards, and probably lust, sloth too. I think the average American lifestyle (and that for the vast majority of the world actually) probably violates all 7 "deadly" sins by bibilcal standards to be honest. Three meals a day and snacks? Three whole bedrooms? Water that comes straight into your home? Randy thoughts from young girls in yoga pants? Binge watching sports or Netflix on evenings and weekends? We're all going to hell by that standard.  

Edited January 10, 2020 by 'stache

[gsoda3 3277]

18 hours ago, F250 said:

I am Methodist (Protestant) not a Catholic, a product of the English Reformation. I am addressing this based on the historical facts and not with a religious view.

Whether you accept Apostolic Succession or not is immaterial to the fact that it along with Tradition established authority in the Christian church prior to the Reformation. There are no differing opinions on the fact that this occurred, only on whether abandoning certain elements of Christian orthodoxy was justified.

You seem to be conflating belief with knowledge.

i'm not disagreeing with you on that.  our point of disagreement is where the definition of teaching and tradition changed.  that's about as concise as i can get.  

 

[gsoda3 3277]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

 

There is no such thing as the "roots of faith" or true "orthodoxy" if these terms means interpreting and practicing as the original Christians. Humans have interpreted and reinterpreted a these texts and ideas a million times over. The bible wasn't even compiled until hundreds of years after Jesus, and was done so selectively by humans. How anyone can claim that there was no human interpretation in this process is naive as fuck. At a minimum, today's average American is guilty of glottony and greed based on biblical era standards, and probably lust, sloth too. I think the average American lifestyle (and that for the vast majority of the world actually) probably violates all 7 "deadly" sins by bibilcal standards to be honest. Three meals a day and snacks? Three whole bedrooms? Water that comes straight into your home? Randy thoughts from young girls in yoga pants? We're all going to hell by that standard. 

that's kind of the point.  

[workswithseed 2109]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

that's kind of the point.  

I can't rep, but yeah. Why go to church if you're perfect?

[Gatorubet 30277]

Lots of bullshit on this thread.  I have to question how many of you have read the Bible cover to cover.  Some of the claims made on this thread are patently false and highly ridiculous.  Somehow the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT.  Very interesting.  Please explain...

Your reading comprehension is as good as your knowledge of church history. Both are deficient in this instance.

[F250 28806]

14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

There is no such thing as the "roots of faith" or true "orthodoxy" if these terms means interpreting and practicing as the original Christians. Humans have interpreted and reinterpreted a these texts and ideas a million times over. The bible wasn't even compiled until hundreds of years after Jesus, and was done so selectively by humans. How anyone can claim that there was no human interpretation in this process is naive as fuck. At a minimum, today's average American is guilty of glottony and greed based on biblical era standards, and probably lust, sloth too. I think the average American lifestyle (and that for the vast majority of the world actually) probably violates all 7 "deadly" sins by bibilcal standards to be honest. Three meals a day and snacks? Three whole bedrooms? Water that comes straight into your home? Randy thoughts from young girls in yoga pants? Binge watching sports or Netflix on evenings and weekends? We're all going to hell by that standard.  

Cool story, bro.

[F250 28806]

15 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

i'm not disagreeing with you on that.  our point of disagreement is where the definition of teaching and tradition changed.  that's about as concise as i can get.  

 

Where the definition of teaching and tradition changed? Please explain.

[gsoda3 3277]

26 minutes ago, F250 said:

Where the definition of teaching and tradition changed? Please explain.

i've been trying to but apparently i am wholly unequipped to do so in my current attempt.  so let me try it from another angle. 

 

first, the tradition which established authority in the church, what tradition is that?  how do you define it?  take that definition and compare it to the definition of tradition used in the NT (a literal passing, teaching, or handing down of knowledge by written letter or word).  

 

second, on whose authority does it pass down from?  

 

that should suffice to delineate the change in definition.  obviously the merits of each can be argued but i don't think that's what you were asking, not on this forum anyway.

[Fondren & Main 6726]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Your reading comprehension is as good as your knowledge of church history. Both are deficient in this instance.

Lol, you’re the pseudo expert I’m referring to making inane bullshit claims on this thread.  You should sit this out because it is abundantly clear that you are talking out of your ass.

[Pescado_Rojo 19427]

3 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

Lol, you’re the pseudo expert I’m referring to making inane bullshit claims on this thread.  You should sit this out because it is abundantly clear that you are talking out of your ass.

Motto worthy. 

[F250 28806]

5 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

i've been trying to but apparently i am wholly unequipped to do so in my current attempt.  so let me try it from another angle. 

 

first, the tradition which established authority in the church, what tradition is that?  how do you define it?  take that definition and compare it to the definition of tradition used in the NT (a literal passing, teaching, or handing down of knowledge by written letter or word).  

 

second, on whose authority does it pass down from?  

 

that should suffice to delineate the change in definition.  obviously the merits of each can be argued but i don't think that's what you were asking, not on this forum anyway.

No not really what I was asking.

I was more curious about when the concept of the sufficiency of Scripture as opposed to Tradition started. I know the idea was kicked around for awhile in England after Wycliffe established the Lollard movement although Wycliffe himself never advocated for Scripture replacing Tradition as the sole authority for the church. I was looking for something along those lines.

 

 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

On 1/3/2020 at 1:30 PM, formermav43 said:

I find this odd. Regardless of your personal beliefs, you had to know the historic, orthodox position of Christianity on this issue. If it’s what drove you to quit going to church, it’s strange that you were there in the first place.

Ha ha. If most Roman Catholics ever seriously considered the nonsense that is considered a sin in that religion, they'd never go.

The whole religion is based on "don't ask, don't really give a fuck" as long as you make it to Church.

[tantric superman 4667]

My minister's letter regarding the issue.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/On-the-Way-from-Dr--Clayton-Oliphint.html?soid=1102382270075&aid=Osp09BxlTNM

Obviously and literally very "open tent".  My "spiritual journey" has been lapsed Roman Catholic to Methodist with some Episcopalian thrown in.

To me, the Episcopalians are the best mix of critical self doubt and doctrine.  The Roman Catholics are nuts but if you have a healthy (and potentially hell-bound) cynicism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and the coolest and most interesting.  The Methodists are just nice as hell, throw down some good music when they want to, and everyone's going to enter the Church Triumphant. 

Methodism is good for the blood pressure.

 

 

 

[F250 28806]

3 hours ago, tantric superman said:

To me, the Episcopalians are the best mix of critical self doubt and doctrine.  The Roman Catholics are nuts but if you have a healthy (and potentially hell-bound) cynicism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and the coolest and most interesting.  The Methodists are just nice as hell, throw down some good music when they want to, and everyone's going to enter the Church Triumphant. 

Methodism is good for the blood pressure.