United Methodist Church to split in two

[Gatorubet 30275]

On 1/10/2020 at 11:11 AM, 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.

OK dumb ass, quote one thing I said - and quote me, not your regard mental processing of what your think I meant  - and you tell me why I'm wrong.     I'll be happy to show you why you're clueless.  You go first.   My guess is you will crawfish out of this once you use the Google machine and realize  that you popped off without bothering to educate yourself. 

[Beau Vine 54328]

On 1/10/2020 at 10:01 AM, '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.  

That's an odd example to use, given that the concept of 7 deadly sins do not originate from the Bible and were pretty much invented by the Catholic Church; I have never heard about the 7DS in a Protestant church.  

[TwiceHorn 31515]

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

That's an odd example to use, given that the concept of 7 deadly sins do not originate from the Bible and were pretty much invented by the Catholic Church; I have never heard about the 7DS in a Protestant church.  

Yeah, that 7DS kind of harks to the transactional nature of Catholicism:  certain sins deserve certain penance.  Although I think confession is actually a terrific spiritual and psychological device/practice.

[conVINCEd 21469]

5 hours ago, tantric superman said:

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.

 

 

 

I’ve always thought of Methodists as folks who aren’t really buying what religion is selling, but see it is a relatively low-commitment insurance policy that has the added benefit of keeping up appearances.

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

I’ve always thought of Methodists as folks who aren’t really buying what religion is selling, but see it is a relatively low-commitment insurance policy that has the added benefit of keeping up appearances.

When our kids were younger we did the sunday school class thing and it was fun.  Our class was a good number of long time Methodists but also a bunch of folks who lived in the area from other denominations trying it out or, like me, who married into the Methodists.

We had one ex-Baptist who got infuriated with our class and the church and left, essentially telling us that there "weren't enough sins" in the Methodist Church.

Flip side, when I went to a Catholic Men's Retreat a few years back, I was stunned and the number of Mortal Sins they were talking about.  I went to Catholic school 1st-8th grade and I guess when you're that young you kind of assume if you keep your nose clean the Mortal Sins won't be a big deal.    But wow, they were looking at it pretty broadly.  I took advantage of confession at the retreat.

At the same retreat was when I finally thought that I was okay with the break from the Catholics.  The priest was very seriously explaining how if you wife was giving you a blow job and you came in her mouth or on the towel or in the flavored condom, you were going to hell.  But if you made the switch off and came in her front bottom, you were okay. 

OMG, LOL.

[F250 28804]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that 7DS kind of harks to the transactional nature of Catholicism:  certain sins deserve certain penance.  Although I think confession is actually a terrific spiritual and psychological device/practice.

I believe the concept of the 7 deadly sins was created by Aquinas who borrowed from Aristotelian ethics to formulate the concept. Aquinas and Aristotle both created a taxonomy of sin or vices in Aristotle's case. Both considered certain sins/vices to be a breeding ground for other behaviors that result in further additional sins/vices.

 

I find the concept of confession pretty fascinating. I used to work with a Catholic guy that would skip lunch so he could attend confession once a week. He said he always felt unburdened after confession and thought the Protestant practice of confession would make one feel lonely and unaccountable. I really do think there is a psychological benefit to confession and inquired about how a Non-Catholic would be able to drop into confession. LOL

 

[F250 28804]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

We had one ex-Baptist who got infuriated with our class and the church and left, essentially telling us that there "weren't enough sins" in the Methodist Church.

We had a transplanted Baptist that "strenuously objected" to the Apostles Creed being said during a service. It really triggered him because the creed wasn't in the bible. Initially it seemed like he was advocating for the Nicene Creed over the Apostles Creed because it was more theologically sound but then it became clear the guy just didn't like creeds and hated reading. It was such a weird thing to get upset about.

[fuggled 576]

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.
 
 
 

Oh shit...a Surly poster goes to my church.

[Gil Bang 25984]

When our kids were younger we did the sunday school class thing and it was fun.  Our class was a good number of long time Methodists but also a bunch of folks who lived in the area from other denominations trying it out or, like me, who married into the Methodists.
We had one ex-Baptist who got infuriated with our class and the church and left, essentially telling us that there "weren't enough sins" in the Methodist Church.
Flip side, when I went to a Catholic Men's Retreat a few years back, I was stunned and the number of Mortal Sins they were talking about.  I went to Catholic school 1st-8th grade and I guess when you're that young you kind of assume if you keep your nose clean the Mortal Sins won't be a big deal.    But wow, they were looking at it pretty broadly.  I took advantage of confession at the retreat.
At the same retreat was when I finally thought that I was okay with the break from the Catholics.  The priest was very seriously explaining how if you wife was giving you a blow job and you came in her mouth or on the towel or in the flavored condom, you were going to hell.  But if you made the switch off and came in her front bottom, you were okay. 
OMG, LOL.

Did anybody ask about blasting her tits?

[Beau Vine 54328]

My friend who is kind of a bigwig in Methodist administration dropped by the house last night.  A couple of things she told me that I hadn't heard:

1.  The church elections on which side of the split to join will not occur automatically.  For there to be an election, something like 20% of the church must request an  election.  No election = church will be progressive (gay-friendly).

2.  If there is an election, taking the traditional side of the split will require more than a simple majority -- she couldn't remember the exact number, but said it was something like 57%.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Beau Vine

[Gatorubet 30275]

On 1/4/2020 at 4:13 PM, Johnny Sack said:

You have free will to ignore the New Testament.  I won’t do that.  

Ever read a red-line Bible?  Jesus may have had opinions on both homosexuals and divorce, but he signified his own opinion on the two subjects by not mentioning one at all, and going all specific on the subject of divorce.     When it comes to laws, every court system says that specific language trumps general or no language in interpretation of importance.   It is common sense and life experience.  One mentions the things that are important.   Unless you are passive aggressive.  And our Lord was kinda not that. 

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery:

and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16-18
 

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:  
But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

 

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving

for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.  Matthew 5:32

You are going to have to explain why current Christianity is devoting all of their time to hating on gays when their churches are filled to the brim with adulterer whores.   And why they do not go ballistic when the state makes it easier to divorce.   And by ballistic, I mean  declaring that God is sending hurricanes because two guys can get married in church, but not sending natural disasters due to the adulterer invasion in our churches.   Let's look at GOP language.  Collect all of the verbiage in the GOP for the last 20 years and write down every sentence where homosexuality and the gay agenda is mentioned.    Now, do the same search and look for the same language for the adulterer whore invasion problem.    You'd find a 3 times married clerk of court mouth-breather in Kentucky getting praise for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses - and yet - none of the conservatives praising her are at all concerned about her issuing marriage licenses to adulterer men or the whore divorced women they marry, or calling the clerk out for her multiple marriages.    

Why is that?

If you picked homophobia, you'd be correct.   And until Christianity that treats gays like sinning scum while not giving the same theological shits about divorce, we know why that is.     Despite Jesus having a really really really hard time with divorce, that just does not make them nervous like da gays do. 

Secondly, did Jesus stutter??? Was he mealy-mouthed about divorce and exceptions????   Look at Paul in Corinthians"

7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

So how the hell does Paul get to revise Jesus' commandments?   Guess which quotes we like to use for justification for our marrying a second or third trophy wife and sitting in the front row of First Baptist Church of Wherever?    When Christians spend as much time on marriage laws as homosexuality, then we might stop looking at homophobia as the cause of their fixation.  That, and the more a Christian hates gays and think it a sin, studies say that the more likely that they are self hating gays. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Gatorubet

[Beau Vine 54328]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[F250 28804]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

The church elections on which side of the split to join will not occur automatically.  For there to be an election, something like 20% of the church must request an  election.  No election = church will be progressive (gay-friendly).

I like this, a lot of churches have already resolved this locally and this will allow them to keep it that way without having to do anything.

[TwiceHorn 31515]

18 hours ago, F250 said:

I believe the concept of the 7 deadly sins was created by Aquinas who borrowed from Aristotelian ethics to formulate the concept. Aquinas and Aristotle both created a taxonomy of sin or vices in Aristotle's case. Both considered certain sins/vices to be a breeding ground for other behaviors that result in further additional sins/vices.

 

I find the concept of confession pretty fascinating. I used to work with a Catholic guy that would skip lunch so he could attend confession once a week. He said he always felt unburdened after confession and thought the Protestant practice of confession would make one feel lonely and unaccountable. I really do think there is a psychological benefit to confession and inquired about how a Non-Catholic would be able to drop into confession. LOL

 

My "affection" for confession comes from AA, in which articulation of one's character defects, to God and to another person, figures heavily.

The founders of AA drew whatever psychologically beneficial points of religion (of which there are quite a number, many of which a lot of the world's religions share, no matter how otherwise different) they could to come up with the program.

Saying it out loud takes away most or all of its power over your psyche.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

On 1/11/2020 at 10:22 PM, F250 said:

We had a transplanted Baptist that "strenuously objected" to the Apostles Creed being said during a service. It really triggered him because the creed wasn't in the bible. Initially it seemed like he was advocating for the Nicene Creed over the Apostles Creed because it was more theologically sound but then it became clear the guy just didn't like creeds and hated reading. It was such a weird thing to get upset about.

Baptists traditionally were pretty anticreedal. While some baptists are Calvinistic in doctrines, some are more Armenian. And of course there is a spectrum involved. There are probably other minor discrepancies involved, but the idea is that while they can disagree on some of the finer points of their faith, they agree enough on the major points to band together and find missions. The church as a whole could probably benefit from this model, but too many folks are butthurt from centuries of adversity.

[workswithseed 2109]

Hey, @Gatorubet what study? I only saw one from 1996. With only 64 men used during the test.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

On 1/11/2020 at 11:11 PM, fuggled said:

On 1/11/2020 at 10:42 AM, tantric superman said:

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.
 
 
 

Read more  

Oh shit...a Surly poster goes to my church.

Reverend Clayton, National Champion, NCAA Football DIV III, Austin College, sometime in the 80s!

"First and Ten, 'Roos!"

[gsoda3 3276]

On 1/10/2020 at 4:17 PM, F250 said:

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.

 

 

 

sufficiency of scripture alone to come to salvation and an understanding of theology?  i ask b/c you seem familiar with wycliffe's history enough to presumably know about luther's contributions to lutheranism and the resulting doctrine of sufficiency vs scripture.  

['stache 21825]

On 1/11/2020 at 4:30 PM, Beau Vine said:

That's an odd example to use, given that the concept of 7 deadly sins do not originate from the Bible and were pretty much invented by the Catholic Church; I have never heard about the 7DS in a Protestant church.  

My point being that all theology is human interpretation. There was a a comment that the protestant reformers were reinterpreting scriptures comparing them to today's criticisms of the pro-gay Methodists. There was a response that the protestant reformers were in fact returning to an orthodox theology. My point is that anyone with a claim to "orthodoxy" is wrong, because all of it is human interpretation which has changed over time, including from the time of Christ's death and the compilation of the bible 300+ years later.

Edited January 13, 2020 by 'stache

['stache 21825]

20 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Ever read a red-line Bible?  Jesus may have had opinions on both homosexuals and divorce, but he signified his own opinion on the two subjects by not mentioning one at all, and going all specific on the subject of divorce.     When it comes to laws, every court system says that specific language trumps general or no language in interpretation of importance.   It is common sense and life experience.  One mentions the things that are important.   Unless you are passive aggressive.  And our Lord was kinda not that. 

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery:

and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16-18
 

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:  
But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

 

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving

for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.  Matthew 5:32

You are going to have to explain why current Christianity is devoting all of their time to hating on gays when their churches are filled to the brim with adulterer whores.   And why they do not go ballistic when the state makes it easier to divorce.   And by ballistic, I mean  declaring that God is sending hurricanes because two guys can get married in church, but not sending natural disasters due to the adulterer invasion in our churches.   Let's look at GOP language.  Collect all of the verbiage in the GOP for the last 20 years and write down every sentence where homosexuality and the gay agenda is mentioned.    Now, do the same search and look for the same language for the adulterer whore invasion problem.    You'd find a 3 times married clerk of court mouth-breather in Kentucky getting praise for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses - and yet - none of the conservatives praising her are at all concerned about her issuing marriage licenses to adulterer men or the whore divorced women they marry, or calling the clerk out for her multiple marriages.    

Why is that?

If you picked homophobia, you'd be correct.   And until Christianity that treats gays like sinning scum while not giving the same theological shits about divorce, we know why that is.     Despite Jesus having a really really really hard time with divorce, that just does not make them nervous like da gays do. 

Secondly, did Jesus stutter??? Was he mealy-mouthed about divorce and exceptions????   Look at Paul in Corinthians"

7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

So how the hell does Paul get to revise Jesus' commandments?   Guess which quotes we like to use for justification for our marrying a second or third trophy wife and sitting in the front row of First Baptist Church of Wherever?    When Christians spend as much time on marriage laws as homosexuality, then we might stop looking at homophobia as the cause of their fixation.  That, and the more a Christian hates gays and think it a sin, studies say that the more likely that they are self hating gays. 

The Catholics, as far as I can recall, still have some pretty strict laws on divorce on paper. But yeah, when a divorcee went up to take the host, it rarely drew any care from the audience. But if the "artistic" boy went up, the pearl-clutchers would go crazy. One of the dozens upon dozens of reasons catholicism never really worked for me.

[F250 28804]

42 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

sufficiency of scripture alone to come to salvation and an understanding of theology?  i ask b/c you seem familiar with wycliffe's history enough to presumably know about luther's contributions to lutheranism and the resulting doctrine of sufficiency vs scripture.  

Yes, that is what I was asking.

[F250 28804]

FYI,

Our Bishop is a Texas grad, hopefully not a Surly poster.

[formermav43 4606]

44 minutes ago, 'stache said:

My point being that all theology is human interpretation. There was a a comment that the protestant reformers were reinterpreting scriptures comparing them to today's criticisms of the pro-gay Methodists. There was a response that the protestant reformers were in fact returning to an orthodox theology. My point is that anyone with a claim to "orthodoxy" is wrong, because all of it is human interpretation which has changed over time, including from the time of Christ's death and the compilation of the bible 300+ years later.

This is nonsensical. Of course theology is human interpretation. by definition. Of course what is orthodox is “human interpretation”-it’s a matter of conforming to the historical consensus of what is correct interpretation.

You’re stating tautologies and acting like you’ve stumbled on something groundbreaking.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

On 1/3/2020 at 1:00 PM, Brisketexan said:

Previous American protestant church splits have been over issues like slavery (southern churches supported it and split off from northern churches), and the ordination of women.  Now, it's ordination and/or marriage of thuh gayz (side note -- generally, it's not even REQUIRED...it's typically just allowed, if a particular congregation wants to do so).

I gotta hand it to some congregations -- they are truly dedicated to being on the wrong side of things.  Sigh.

And then they wonder why the younger generations are abandoning the church. 

[TwiceHorn 31515]

7 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

And then they wonder why the younger generations are abandoning the church. 

The real reason the church began to decline was that boomers didn't like being told to behave themselves and stop being selfish.  So they came up with a bunch of rationalizations about the church and free love and blah blah blah.

[Brisketexan 105186]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The real reason the church began to decline was that boomers didn't like being told to behave themselves and stop being selfish.  So they came up with a bunch of rationalizations about the church and free love and blah blah blah.

Actually, a shorter summary, from the perspective of millennials, who have told us this time and time again, is this:

Christianity purports to be based on the foundational premise of "don't be a dick to others."

American Christianity has largely turned that on its head, making it not only OKAY to be a dick to others but actually proclaiming that it's the Christian thing to do.

 

 

Sure, there's details, but if you want to know why many millennials want nothing to do with organized churches, that's exactly what they'll tell you. My wife is a pastor ministering to that community.  They crave faith, and ethics, and pastoring....but they won't touch the hypocrisy of "American Christian churches" with a ten foot pole.

[TwiceHorn 31515]

According to my nascent theory, the fundagelicals were a reaction to the boomers' rejection.

In my theory, while many of the criticisms of religion that took hold in the 60s were and are legitimate, they took hold not because of their legitimacy, but because of boomers' fundamental selfishness:  church and religion don't fit with my lifestyle, so I am going to reject them.

Then that led to a bunch of idiots who weren't really churchgoers or religious people rejecting the hippie-boomers and seeking solace in their church.  Again, not out of a fundamental belief that religion is good or positive, but just as a place where they could find fellow hippie rejectors (and along with that comes a healthy dose of irrational fear of browns and immigrants, and stupid, prohibition-era attitudes toward drugs).

And that's how religion got to be politicized and part of the culture war (it probably does have a legitimate role in culture, but not in a culture war).

And all that kind of set the stage for what we've got right now.

[gsoda3 3276]

3 hours ago, F250 said:

Yes, that is what I was asking.

i don't know that there's any one singular point in time between when luther nailed his theses to the door and the day of his death you can point to and say ah ha that's the moment.  but luther, by way of the reformation, does steer the church back to viewing scripture as ultimately authoritative and complete.

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, a shorter summary, from the perspective of millennials, who have told us this time and time again, is this:

Christianity purports to be based on the foundational premise of "don't be a dick to others."

American Christianity has largely turned that on its head, making it not only OKAY to be a dick to others but actually proclaiming that it's the Christian thing to do.

 

 

Sure, there's details, but if you want to know why many millennials want nothing to do with organized churches, that's exactly what they'll tell you. My wife is a pastor ministering to that community.  They crave faith, and ethics, and pastoring....but they won't touch the hypocrisy of "American Christian churches" with a ten foot pole.

Yep.

And it's almost the entire fault of the evangelical (fucktard) community. 

Self-righteous, hypocritical, narrow-minded. They are little more than modern-day Pharisees. 

Fuck Franklin Graham and all his toadies. 

[Asithappens 974]

10 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

i don't know that there's any one singular point in time between when luther nailed his theses to the door and the day of his death you can point to and say ah ha that's the moment.  but luther, by way of the reformation, does steer the church back to viewing scripture as ultimately authoritative and complete.

Kinda, but Luther is way overrated when it comes to the idea of a "pure" interpretation of scripture. Imo.

Faith alone? Nah, Marty. Faith without works is dead. That's in the bible, dude. Marty was just a man.

[gsoda3 3276]

45 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Kinda, but Luther is way overrated when it comes to the idea of a "pure" interpretation of scripture. Imo.

why do you say that?

[Asithappens 974]

16 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

why do you say that?

I just gave an example.

[F250 28804]

2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

i don't know that there's any one singular point in time between when luther nailed his theses to the door and the day of his death you can point to and say ah ha that's the moment.  but luther, by way of the reformation, does steer the church back to viewing scripture as ultimately authoritative and complete.

You keep saying this as if it was a return to a previous practice, so I am asking you, when was this a practice prior to the Reformation?

 

[TwiceHorn 31515]

2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

Kinda, but Luther is way overrated when it comes to the idea of a "pure" interpretation of scripture. Imo.

Faith alone? Nah, Marty. Faith without works is dead. That's in the bible, dude. Marty was just a man.

John Wesley approves.

John Calvin would like a word.

 

[Asithappens 974]

3 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

i don't know that there's any one singular point in time between when luther nailed his theses to the door and the day of his death you can point to and say ah ha that's the moment.  but luther, by way of the reformation, does steer the church back to viewing scripture as ultimately authoritative and complete.

At least steered the church to convince the laity that scripture is ultimately authoritative and complete. Because it's not. 

It still depends on interpretation. By humans. That's kind of the fraud behind Luther. There is no text that is not open to differing interpretations. 

And look, it's not like god wrote the bible. It was written by men. Luther just tried to make the argument that his "team" (or rather, not the other team) were the ones who could correctly interpret the bible. Or that the other team was not capable of doing that. 

And if scripture is so authoritative and complete, then why did Luther need to conjure up his 3 solas? 

That's part of my point from before. Luther says "faith alone", but he's wrong. It's not faith alone. It's faith combined with works. That's in the bible. Faith without works is dead. 

[ruitxn 298]

I have really have enjoyed reading this thread.  I have been introduced to some new thinking or ideas concerning ancient religious concepts applied to today’s  church.  From time to time It is nice to see that others, like me, have chosen to give up bigoted, self-indulgent teachings from a childhood church denomination.  I love Surly because in our discussion you get everything from the high brow to the down and dirty.  Just the way it should be!

After all I have read here concerning the current Methodist possible split,  it just reinforces again one of my great disappointments of religion as we see it in real life...the hinderance or outright failure by the “Church” to establish congregations functioning according to the prayer of Jesus for his disciples.  He prayed for them to practice and rejoice in unity as He and The Holy Father are unified.

I think we all realize the Methodists are experiencing just another example of the pattern for the church dealing with discord among its members.  It started with discord over circumcision, later on to papal authority, Moroni, pacifism, slavery, on and on, and now primarily abortion and LGBTQ.  Who knows what controversies are ahead but they will certainly appear.

I’ll just close this longest reply I certainly have written to a Surly thread by giving a quote I just kept thinking about while I was reading.    It is by Richard Rohr a progressive (not political) Catholic priest in New Mexico.   “The job of religion is to help people act effectively and compassionately from an inner centeredness and connection with God. The need to be right is not love.“

Edited January 14, 2020 by ruitxn

[Gatorubet 30275]

15 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Hey, @Gatorubet what study? I only saw one from 1996. With only 64 men used during the test.

 

I have not researched the studies, but I recall one where the most virulently gay guys got erections when seeing naked males.   But I was on a roll.   Still waiting for Fondren.  I assume that he finally looked up Cathars and/or Gnostic theology and realized I was not referring to the post-Council of Nicaea Christian views when I mentioned the two different Gods.    But both Gods wanted LSU to win.

[gsoda3 3276]

15 hours ago, F250 said:

You keep saying this as if it was a return to a previous practice, so I am asking you, when was this a practice prior to the Reformation?

 

i answered this already in one of the first responses i made to you.  look i appreciate the back and forth but if you're trying to argue your position and purposefully ignoring answers i've given in the past i'm not interested in engaging.  you don't have to agree with what i'm saying.  my stance is hardly anything groundbreaking, many people smarter than myself have expounded on those arguments.  

[gsoda3 3276]

15 hours ago, Asithappens said:

At least steered the church to convince the laity that scripture is ultimately authoritative and complete. Because it's not. 

It still depends on interpretation. By humans. That's kind of the fraud behind Luther. There is no text that is not open to differing interpretations. 

And look, it's not like god wrote the bible. It was written by men. Luther just tried to make the argument that his "team" (or rather, not the other team) were the ones who could correctly interpret the bible. Or that the other team was not capable of doing that. 

And if scripture is so authoritative and complete, then why did Luther need to conjure up his 3 solas? 

completely disagree, but those arguments have been hashed and rehashed for centuries.  

 

Quote

That's part of my point from before. Luther says "faith alone", but he's wrong. It's not faith alone. It's faith combined with works. That's in the bible. Faith without works is dead. 

sure, nuance.

[HouTex 1887]

Which mainstream Christian denomination says that works are also required? JP II made it clear in the 90’s (or earlier?) that the Catholic view is that faith alone is required.

[Beau Vine 54328]

15 hours ago, Asithappens said:

That's part of my point from before. Luther says "faith alone", but he's wrong. It's not faith alone. It's faith combined with works. That's in the bible. Faith without works is dead. 

Really?  Try saying that in a Baptist church and they'll throw John 3:16 in your face all day.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21913]

This whole thing reminds me of a Mad magazine pictorial that has somehow stuck in my head all these years about Luther nailing his 95 feces to the door of the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg

[TwiceHorn 31515]

45 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Which mainstream Christian denomination says that works are also required? JP II made it clear in the 90’s (or earlier?) that the Catholic view is that faith alone is required.

The Methodists.  Although the point is subtle.  If one has faith, works will inevitably follow. Or so the argument goes.

Edited January 14, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[HouTex 1887]

The Methodists.  Although the point is subtle.  If one has faith, works will inevitably follow. Or so the argument goes.

As Johnny Carson famously said, “I did not know that.”

[workswithseed 2109]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Methodists.  Although the point is subtle.  If one has faith, works will inevitably follow. Or so the argument goes.

I argued with one of my gf's aunt that thiest are self absorbed and blame everything they do bad is be forgiven by God which isn't good. I asked her about charity, which she replied that it doesn't matter since God threatened them to do it.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater was used. It was fun to say it.

[Asithappens 974]

11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I have not researched the studies, but I recall one where the most virulently gay guys got erections when seeing naked males.   But I was on a roll.   Still waiting for Fondren.  I assume that he finally looked up Cathars and/or Gnostic theology and realized I was not referring to the post-Council of Nicaea Christian views when I mentioned the two different Gods.    But both Gods wanted LSU to win.

I've read similar things about viewing pics like that, but it had to do with how long the person viewed the image. That is, a gay person's gaze lingered longer on the homo pic, and the straight person's gaze lingered longer on the hot babe pic. 

Society is struggling to deal with the whole "accepting gays" thing, and so the church is, too. The church is little more than a reflection of (some segments) society. For the most part, it's a very good segment but it's not perfect. I hope that this will all come to a positive conclusion. 

Like some have said: don't be a dick to others. Maybe with the older crowd dying off we will achieve more acceptance of gays. 

[Asithappens 974]

2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

completely disagree, but those arguments have been hashed and rehashed for centuries.  

 

sure, nuance.

It's not fucking nuance. The bible itself states that faith without works is dead.

And "man" (could be some women) is interpreting this stuff. 

The bible/text is open (wide open in parts) to interpretation. You can't "nuance" your way out of this, imo.

[Asithappens 974]

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Really?  Try saying that in a Baptist church and they'll throw John 3:16 in your face all day.

Which makes my point. They quote one part of the bible, I quote another. 

Pick and choose. Interpret. 

And fuck the slavery loving, anti-dancing baptists. Maybe when they learn to read they can climb to the heights of being a Methodist....

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Methodists.  Although the point is subtle.  If one has faith, works will inevitably follow. Or so the argument goes.

To me, that is just a ham-handed, in-artful way of avoiding the scriptural conflicts. 

Works will not inevitably follow. See deathbed confessions.

[Brisketexan 105186]

The Methodists.  Although the point is subtle.  If one has faith, works will inevitably follow. Or so the argument goes.

The concept (states most clearly in James) is that faith is not merely “belief.” It is to be lived.
So, the rule is that “a LIVING faith” is all that’s necessary. A faith that isn’t lived by the holder is a faith that’s not truly or fully believed.