Media/Hollywood's anti-Christian campaign

[ndawg 1,242]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, except Jesus kind of had some special authority, y'know.  Yeah he did do a bit of trashing of the bad guys, but it was mostly subtle and among his adherents as an example of what not to be, not among the general public.

Presumably, as the Son of God, he could have gotten exceeding wroth and smitten those Pharoahs, and Pharisees, and Prefects, but he did not.

Hm. I can't believe that Christians believe they are supposed to sit by and allow Christianity to be usurped by a cult, so the only conclusion that I can reach is that I don't understand this religion particularly well.

[TwiceHorn 31,510]

22 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Hm. I can't believe that Christians believe they are supposed to sit by and allow Christianity to be usurped by a cult, so the only conclusion that I can reach is that I don't understand this religion particularly well.

Well, first of all, Christianity is about the person, more than the church or the movement.  The first concern of an individual Christian as concerns others is their well-being, and secondarily their coming to Christianity themselves.  But a Christian doesn't reject an unbeliever or a different believer out of hand, and certainly doesn't declare some kind of war on them.  A Christian is bound to reserve any judgment and preach by example and by words when appropriate.

That type of philosophy doesn't lend itself to militaristic action against other faiths or non-faiths, even false prophets.  If you ask a Methodist. Presbyterian, or Lutheran minister what he thinks of Fred Phelps or John Jeffers**, he might give you an earful couched in the gentlest possible terms and more in terms of what you can learn about being a Christian from their poor example, but he would never or rarely say it in public.

Real Christianity teaches to love your neighbor, no matter how big an asshole he is.

**Actually, he might say good things about the deceased attorney, but he probably wouldn't about Robert Jeffress.

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Scooter Monzingo 821]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Why do you choose to be a Christian?

First by my parents beliefs. Both who survived the Second World War on the losing side. Then when my oldest brother was killed while seeing the sites in Southeast Asia in 1967 it led to a period of reflection. I was a scared kid, and I didn’t want my life to end that way. 

As I got older I became suspicious of many of those who sat in the power positions of organized religion. First as a Catholic, then as a Methodist. But, I saw first hand as an elected member of a pastor parish relations committee how money was “distributed” for church expenditures. The decisions often seemed unfair. And didn’t really help those that needed the very faith the church claimed to be providing. So I separated from those organizations.

By my early 30’s I decided to hitchhike  from Damascus to Jerusalem. Believing that because I didn’t do enough for others i was being punished. And that such an experience to the holiest of places perhaps I could find my way. It was this experience that caused me to believe my god had abandoned me. Simply because my continued failure or inability if you will, to reach out and help those who could not help themselves. Because I cared more about what I owned, as opposed to how I acted. But I was overcome by how much suffering I saw. I returned a cynic, and fell into despair.

Yet, I continued to read the Bible and pray every day. But I do it privately. And I changed my lifestyle. I decided that if I could just follow the Ten Commandments I would have at least accomplished something. The result was that I harbor no ill feelings for anyone. I will share whatever I have, whenever I see someone in need. I believe that people are good. And I also understand that not everyone gets the same opportunity, and never will. And how an act of kindness, no matter how small. Could potentially change someone’s life. Especially when you are honest with yourself and believe that you will receive  absolutely nothing in return. Those simple acts are the most important things I have done with my life. And I don’t like anyone telling me that I’m wrong who has not walked a similar path.

[elfenix 34,329]

I don't know, man. The people bringing food, clean water, medicine and care to those in need see pretty likable. 

Sure about that?

https://snowfly.nl/en/doing-bad-things-after-doing-good/

[elfenix 34,329]

It's like you've never gotten drunk with a bunch of bros around a fire at 3 am or something, you freak.

So it was 3 am where you were when you posted that, comrade?

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, first of all, Christianity is about the person, more than the church or the movement.  The first concern of an individual Christian as concerns others is their well-being, and secondarily their coming to Christianity themselves.  But a Christian doesn't reject an unbeliever or a different believer out of hand, and certainly doesn't declare some kind of war on them.  A Christian is bound to reserve any judgment and preach by example and by words when appropriate.

That type of philosophy doesn't lend itself to militaristic action against other faiths or non-faiths, even false prophets.  If you ask a Methodist. Presbyterian, or Lutheran minister what he thinks of Fred Phelps or John Jeffers**, he might give you an earful couched in the gentlest possible terms and more in terms of what you can learn about being a Christian from their poor example, but he would never or rarely say it in public.

Real Christianity teaches to love your neighbor, no matter how big an asshole he is.

**Actually, he might say good things about the deceased attorney, but he probably wouldn't about Robert Jeffress.

 

Look, I get it. But just know this looks awfully like Republicans preaching the true values of the GOP in the age of Trump. At some point you have to realize that the idealized view of how you see Christianity, doesn't match the modern reality. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by SmokeyTheBear

[F250 28,789]

2 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Timely post, as this just happened...

United Methodists tighten ban on same sex marriage and gay clergy

This could lead to a split in the largest non-fundamentalist protestant church in the world. The vote was largely US congregations vs the African and Eastern European churches. I'm a life-long Methodist, and the long tenured and much beloved pastor of the church I've attended for the past 14 years decided to retire last year when this conference was announced. He said at the time he didn't think he had the stomach to stick around to see the church he'd given his live to torn apart.  

I am a Methodist myself and I am aware of the problems that are happening with this issue. I've followed William H. Willimon who was mentioned in the article for awhile on his blog, podcasts and books. He has been trying to prepare people for this eventual crisis for a number of years now. I remember when this was happening with the Episcopal church about a decade ago and was grateful the UMC wasn't involved. Well it is happening in our backyard now too. The same divide between U.S. and non-U.S. churches occurred with the Episcopal church as is happening with the UMC. I'm hoping the church remains united, as a denomination we have been supportive of the LBGT community for a long time and hopefully everyone on both sides of the issues will see that before any drastic measures are taken.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,504]

Sure about that?

https://snowfly.nl/en/doing-bad-things-after-doing-good/

Oh, I guess people shouldn’t ever do good things and put themselves at risk of moral licensing.

[F250 28,789]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

Thanks! You piqued my interest quite a bit. If you had a book to recommend, I would be interested to explore it in more depth.

Christianity’s Dangerous Idea - This book covers the evolution of Protestantism and it's mutations that resulted from Luther's idea of Solo Scriptura.

White Protestant Nation - is a good follow up as it ties political movements with the religious movements throughout the 20th century and into the 21st.

 

[Mole 4,333]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 Besides, once the Methodists declare war on Osteen, where do they stop, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Presbyterians or those dirty Lutherans?

I’d say that the Epistles make a clear case for the church to keep itself in line in terms of doctrine and actions. In Old Testament terms, we are our brother’s keeper. It’s a very Christian but unAmerican sentiment. There’s also quite a bit of wiggle room given in the Epistles so I don’t think doctrinal purity is the point either, but judgement and calling each other out (in accordance with the model Jesus taught) is wholly appropriate.

And since everything already seems to come back to Trump these days, since he professes to be a Christian and judging from his publicly unrepentant life, it’s a bit of a problem. If his church hasn’t rebuked him and since cast him out, they don’t appear to be doing the job of the church. I’m not sure though if he’s a member of any church though. 

Judgement within the church is not only biblical and healthy (when done well), it is probably the best way to return to a healthy American church.

 

[F250 28,789]

20 minutes ago, Mole said:

I’d say that the Epistles make a clear case for the church to keep itself in line in terms of doctrine and actions. In Old Testament terms, we are our brother’s keeper. It’s a very Christian but unAmerican sentiment. There’s also quite a bit of wiggle room given in the Epistles so I don’t think doctrinal purity is the point either, but judgement and calling each other out (in accordance with the model Jesus taught) is wholly appropriate.

And since everything already seems to come back to Trump these days, since he professes to be a Christian and judging from his publicly unrepentant life, it’s a bit of a problem. If his church hasn’t rebuked him and since cast him out, they don’t appear to be doing the job of the church. I’m not sure though if he’s a member of any church though. 

Judgement within the church is not only biblical and healthy (when done well), it is probably the best way to return to a healthy American church.

 

It's done within a specific church organization. For instance the United Methodists called out Jeff Sessions but this isn't something any church does outside of it's own organization. Any authority a church has is due to voluntary association, it's only real authority is to cast out members or remove authority figures within it's own organization which is what was done in the early Christian church in the reference you made. It's not like the Roman Catholic Church can enforce it's judgement on the Lutheran's or the Anglican's issuing judgements on the Catholics without the arm of the state. The last time that happened people were burned alive.

[Gil Bang 25,980]

According to court documents, Castañeda Serna touched the men, who were “unconscious of the nature of the act because the defendant fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose.”

Dyer said the priest convinced his followers that they had sinned or were cursed, and that they could only be cured by being rubbed with a “sacred oil.”

Castañeda Serna told his victims that this was a special ritual he learned while in India and that their semen needed to be examined before they could be healed, Dyer said.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Gil Bang

[TwiceHorn 31,510]

1 hour ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Look, I get it. But just know this looks awfully like Republicans preaching the true values of the GOP in the age of Trump. At some point you have to realize that the idealized view of how you see Christianity, doesn't match the modern reality. 

Or, perhaps your views of Christianity are unduly negative.  It has been stated many times that the noisy, obnoxious ones are really the minority.  And they are.  It is fairly apparent that the only ones you know are the ones you see on TV.

And no, nothing I said in that post resembles anything the GOP or Trump has said in any way shape or form.

There's nothing "idealized" about what I said.  That is what Christianity is all about. although all Christians fall short.  It is, in no way about forcing views on people through government, or being used as an excuse for intolerance or treating people badly for any reason. Or, as Brisket likes to say "being a dick." 

Edited February 27, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,510]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

I’d say that the Epistles make a clear case for the church to keep itself in line in terms of doctrine and actions. In Old Testament terms, we are our brother’s keeper. It’s a very Christian but unAmerican sentiment. There’s also quite a bit of wiggle room given in the Epistles so I don’t think doctrinal purity is the point either, but judgement and calling each other out (in accordance with the model Jesus taught) is wholly appropriate.

And since everything already seems to come back to Trump these days, since he professes to be a Christian and judging from his publicly unrepentant life, it’s a bit of a problem. If his church hasn’t rebuked him and since cast him out, they don’t appear to be doing the job of the church. I’m not sure though if he’s a member of any church though. 

Judgement within the church is not only biblical and healthy (when done well), it is probably the best way to return to a healthy American church.

 

You can make a case, sure, particularly for localized or one-on-one "judgment."  But I think the modern reality is that sectarian warfare is counterproductive to an individual church.  In the final analysis it turns into a cage death match between Arminian and Calvinist Protestants and Catholics.

I mean, I'm criticizing and talking shit on other sects right here, but I am surprisingly uncomfortable doing it.

And Trump claims to be Presbyterian, but is not a member of any church. https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/index.html

In that article, he declares that he has never sought divine forgiveness, which is possibly the most Trumpian and least Christian thing anyone could possibly say.

Edited February 27, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Mole 4,333]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

The last time that happened people were burned alive.

I’m going on the record as against this. 

I still think there’s a New Testament model for church leaders speaking out against what we see today. This doesn’t seem that different than what Paul did when he called churches out for sexing up family members. He gave some harsh rebukes to entire churches.

Maybe given history the current dysfunction is better than the alternative, but maybe there’s a way to handle this without all the killing and lighting people on fire. The current state of the collective church, particularly in America is unhealthy. 

Then again, my Facebook feed has its share of evangelicals and Catholics calling each other the devil.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Mole

[Gil Bang 25,980]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can make a case, sure, particularly for localized or one-on-one "judgment."  But I think the modern reality is that sectarian warfare is counterproductive to an individual church.  In the final analysis it turns into a cage death match between Arminian and Calvinist Protestants and Catholics.

I mean, I'm criticizing and talking shit on other sects right here, but I am surprisingly uncomfortable doing it.

And Trump claims to be Presbyterian, but is not a member of any church. https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/index.html

on the other hand, he'd probably like to have his mushroom cock and balls rubbed with sacred oil 

[TwiceHorn 31,510]

18 minutes ago, Mole said:

I’m going on the record as against this. 

I still think there’s a New Testament model for church leaders speaking out against what we see today. This doesn’t seem that different than what Paul did when he called churches out for sexing up family members. He gave some harsh rebukes to entire churches.

Maybe given history the current dysfunction is better than the alternative, but maybe there’s a way to handle this without all the killing and lighting people on fire. The current state of the collective church, particularly in America is unhealthy. 

Then again, my Facebook feed has its share of evangelicals and Catholics calling each other the devil.

I hereby rebuke you for having a facebook feed, brother.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

First by my parents beliefs. Both who survived the Second World War on the losing side. Then when my oldest brother was killed while seeing the sites in Southeast Asia in 1967 it led to a period of reflection. I was a scared kid, and I didn’t want my life to end that way. 
As I got older I became suspicious of many of those who sat in the power positions of organized religion. First as a Catholic, then as a Methodist. But, I saw first hand as an elected member of a pastor parish relations committee how money was “distributed” for church expenditures. The decisions often seemed unfair. And didn’t really help those that needed the very faith the church claimed to be providing. So I separated from those organizations.
By my early 30’s I decided to hitchhike  from Damascus to Jerusalem. Believing that because I didn’t do enough for others i was being punished. And that such an experience to the holiest of places perhaps I could find my way. It was this experience that caused me to believe my god had abandoned me. Simply because my continued failure or inability if you will, to reach out and help those who could not help themselves. Because I cared more about what I owned, as opposed to how I acted. But I was overcome by how much suffering I saw. I returned a cynic, and fell into despair.
Yet, I continued to read the Bible and pray every day. But I do it privately. And I changed my lifestyle. I decided that if I could just follow the Ten Commandments I would have at least accomplished something. The result was that I harbor no ill feelings for anyone. I will share whatever I have, whenever I see someone in need. I believe that people are good. And I also understand that not everyone gets the same opportunity, and never will. And how an act of kindness, no matter how small. Could potentially change someone’s life. Especially when you are honest with yourself and believe that you will receive  absolutely nothing in return. Those simple acts are the most important things I have done with my life. And I don’t like anyone telling me that I’m wrong who has not walked a similar path.

I really like this post.
Christianity is a way and a path, not a destination. Nobody gets it right, nobody gets to the top of the mountain. That’s the point.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I really like this post.
Christianity is a way and a path, not a destination. Nobody gets it right, nobody gets to the top of the mountain. That’s the point.

Exactamundo. Religion, whether Christianity, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu or whatever is a path, not an end. 

It’s like Steve Martin’s dad said in the movie parenthood, you never get to spike the ball and declare victory. The pain never ends.

You just keep striving for goodness. Someday it will all end. And at that point, you can only hope you tried your best to reach a good ending point. 

[Fondren & Main 6,726]

6 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Why do you choose to be a Christian?

I think you ought to be banned for trolling.  It would make this board more tolerable.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

Exactamundo. Religion, whether Christianity, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu or whatever is a path, not an end. 
It’s like Steve Martin’s dad said in the movie parenthood, you never get to spike the ball and declare victory. The pain never ends.
You just keep striving for goodness. Someday it will all end. And at that point, you can only hope you tried your best to reach a good ending point. 

And pay attention to the folks following the path around you. Help them out whenever you can. Walk the path, realize that we walk it together. Journey, not the destination, all that stuff.

[longhorndude 146]

Holy shit, this topic has ballooned like a signing day thread. But it’s fun reading as a drunken atheist.

[Newdoc 3,448]

Op

[ndawg 1,242]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, first of all, Christianity is about the person, more than the church or the movement.  The first concern of an individual Christian as concerns others is their well-being, and secondarily their coming to Christianity themselves.  But a Christian doesn't reject an unbeliever or a different believer out of hand, and certainly doesn't declare some kind of war on them.  A Christian is bound to reserve any judgment and preach by example and by words when appropriate.

That type of philosophy doesn't lend itself to militaristic action against other faiths or non-faiths, even false prophets.  If you ask a Methodist. Presbyterian, or Lutheran minister what he thinks of Fred Phelps or John Jeffers**, he might give you an earful couched in the gentlest possible terms and more in terms of what you can learn about being a Christian from their poor example, but he would never or rarely say it in public.

Real Christianity teaches to love your neighbor, no matter how big an asshole he is.

**Actually, he might say good things about the deceased attorney, but he probably wouldn't about Robert Jeffress.

 

Okay, but thermodynamics is a concept that 1. doesn't conflict with the Bible and 2. humans discovered it on their own. Humans have also discovered how to create and destroy cults and other dangerous radical movements. I would expect a Christian who is also an equal and active member of the secular society to understand their unique role they can play whenever Christianity is radicalized.

11 hours ago, F250 said:

Christianity’s Dangerous Idea - This book covers the evolution of Protestantism and it's mutations that resulted from Luther's idea of Solo Scriptura. 

White Protestant Nation - is a good follow up as it ties political movements with the religious movements throughout the 20th century and into the 21st.

Thanks so much for this. I have them both added to a queue I've started organizing.

One of the reasons I like this board is that I'm interacting with professionals across many different walks of life. Has anyone here ever tried starting a thread for discussing political non-fiction books? I've been particularly interested to books from non-batshit conservatives or religious people because I think bringing their voices back to the public discussion would be a Good Thing for everyone. Especially if we can start having conversations exclusively between people that have ponied up the certain amount of time it takes to read a "boring" non-fiction book.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

Thanks so much for this. I have them both added to a queue I've started organizing.
One of the reasons I like this board is that I'm interacting with professionals across many different walks of life. Has anyone here ever tried starting a thread for discussing political non-fiction books? I've been particularly interested to books from non-batshit conservatives or religious people because I think bringing their voices back to the public discussion would be a Good Thing for everyone. Especially if we can start having conversations exclusively between people that have ponied up the certain amount of time it takes to read a "boring" non-fiction book.

[2019 Murica] Books are for fags. [/2019 Murica]

[Huckleberry 33,037]

14 hours ago, F250 said:

I am a Methodist myself and I am aware of the problems that are happening with this issue. I've followed William H. Willimon who was mentioned in the article for awhile on his blog, podcasts and books. He has been trying to prepare people for this eventual crisis for a number of years now. I remember when this was happening with the Episcopal church about a decade ago and was grateful the UMC wasn't involved. Well it is happening in our backyard now too. The same divide between U.S. and non-U.S. churches occurred with the Episcopal church as is happening with the UMC. I'm hoping the church remains united, as a denomination we have been supportive of the LBGT community for a long time and hopefully everyone on both sides of the issues will see that before any drastic measures are taken.

They literally just voted to say that LGBTQ people are not equal in their Church. That is not supportive.

You are hoping for your denomination not to split because it's part of you, not for the benefit of LGBTQ people. There are a shitload of raw feelings right now and for good reason.

[gsoda3 3,265]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

They literally just voted to say that LGBTQ people are not equal in their Church. That is not supportive.

You are hoping for your denomination not to split because it's part of you, not for the benefit of LGBTQ people. There are a shitload of raw feelings right now and for good reason.

actually the vote was to affirm the traditional view of marriage/sexuality and that any continuing actions outside of that view are unrepentant sin.  

20 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm curious what you are referring to. Only one Christian church ever sent people to my front porch to tell my parents I was going to hell if they didn't change my name, and it wasn't the Methodists. 

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, maybe my FAVORITE fundagelical play -- tolerance is only important to the extent that it can be used to attack those who criticize people for being cruelly intolerant.

"The Liberty University crowd not only tolerates the seven deadly sins in their false idols, they celebrate them if the idol can be sufficiently cold and cruel to brown people -- but the REAL issue here is how y'all are not treating the Liberty University crowd with respect and kindness!"

Waving around "tolerance!" and "respect and kindness!" as a shield against criticism of their own acts of cruelty and intolerance.....well, that may be PEAK modern American Christianity.  It's one of my favorite things to watch.

 

Jesus and Paul both emphasized the unity of the catholic church body as one of utmost importance.  division in the church is to be avoided at all cost.  when there are problems they're to be approached with grace, kindness, and humility, the same way that all things are to be approached after you've been redeemed.  

 

20 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Anyone who would argue "if you truly believe in tolerance you must be tolerant of intolerance" should be punched in the face, repeatedly.

 

they did.  then they crucified him, but not before he forgave them.  

 

 

[Huckleberry 33,037]

12 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

actually the vote was to affirm the traditional view of marriage/sexuality and that any continuing actions outside of that view are unrepentant sin.  

You just repeated what I said using words that make you feel better about it.

[David Dennison 18,938]

11 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

I think you ought to be banned for trolling.  It would make this board more tolerable.

Cool.

Why are you a Christian?

[gsoda3 3,265]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You just repeated what I said using words that make you feel better about it.

have you considered maybe you're the one repeating what the UMC said using words that make you feel better about yourself?  that's how the thinking goes after all, if our sins aren't sins but just a part of who we are, we're ok and have no need of a savior right?  not casting aspersions at you.  simply pointing out the other side of your post.

[TwiceHorn 31,510]

57 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You are hoping for your denomination not to split because it's part of you, not for the benefit of LGBTQ people.

I'm not sure you can say that.  One good reason to hope against a split is that the more tolerant wing can prevail upon the less tolerant wing to a united tolerance (or acceptance).  If there's a split, the two denominations will just double down and have little influence on each other.  E.g. the PCA and PCUSA.

Plus, to some extent the US UMC, having essentially created the European and African churches through its mission, has a vested interest in keeping those churches "in the fold."

And, as the Mole discussion indicates, it is easier to "wage war" within a denomination than between denominations.

Edited February 27, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Huckleberry 33,037]

I have no need to make myself feel better about...uh...myself. I'm not LGBTQ and I'm not a member of the UMC, although my wife used to be and we were married in a UMC church.

The only people whose perspective matters in terms of how this vote makes them feel are LGBTQ members of the UMC. They have been told they are unequal in the eyes of the UMC because of whom they love.

[relapse98 634]

17 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

The vote was largely US congregations vs the African and Eastern European churches.

To be fair, it was most US jurisdictions vs Africa and the Southeastern Jurisdiction.
 

Thanks, Africa.

[relapse98 634]

15 hours ago, F250 said:

as a denomination we have been supportive of the LBGT community for a long time and hopefully everyone on both sides of the issues will see that

<soapbox>
"Supportive" except they cannot be married in our churches or by our preachers.

"Supportive" except they cannot be ordained.

"Supportive" except we cannot use funds to any group that 'promotes the acceptance of homosexuality'

 

Forgive me if I find our support to have been a bit... lacking. That whole 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is a slap in the face of people who do not choose to love they way they do.

And it's even more aggravating when scripture is used to defend it but we just whistle on by Matthew 19:9 without nary a word.

[WhatTheBuck 28,791]

Shit. Wrong thread. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by WhatTheBuck

[F250 28,789]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

They literally just voted to say that LGBTQ people are not equal in their Church. That is not supportive.

You are hoping for your denomination not to split because it's part of you, not for the benefit of LGBTQ people. There are a shitload of raw feelings right now and for good reason.

It's a lot more complicated than that.

My point, is the effort is being made to maintain inclusiveness as it has been done for years. The headlines make it look like the church is expelling the gays but that isn't what is happening. There is also a divide between the Bishops and delegates regarding the matter.

It's a really big complicated mess and disingenuous to claim the church isn't supportive when the church is going through this in order keep everyone involved united.

I don't want the denomination to split because it's a family, if I didn't care then I would take a GTFO attitude.

 

[Huckleberry 33,037]

I understand that perspective, but being told "nope, still can't be full members" is absolutely hurtful. Having people officially vote that yes you will remain second class citizens is the same as voting the first time to make them second class citizens as far as their perception goes.

And the international nature of the Church makes it a far more difficult prospect to effect change from within.

[F250 28,789]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I understand that perspective, but being told "nope, still can't be full members" is absolutely hurtful. Having people officially vote that yes you will remain second class citizens is the same as voting the first time to make them second class citizens as far as their perception goes.

And the international nature of the Church makes it a far more difficult prospect to effect change from within.

Oh I understand. About 15 years ago,  I introduced a lesbian couple to the UMC. They were actually attending an SBC church while maintaining a secret identity. In the Methodist church they were welcomed as a married couple. The current situation saddens me because I remember the happiness they experienced with acceptance.

 

 

[Asithappens 974]

On 2/26/2019 at 6:07 AM, TornACL said:

The main TV show vilifying Christians is the evening news. You know, when they cover the Catholic child molestation scandal which never seems to end and which only seems to grow in scale. 

Yep. One may even say the main manifestation of Christian vilification is reality (as perceived through the USofA lens).

Is the OP trolling? Give me a fucking break.

[relapse98 634]

19 minutes ago, F250 said:

Oh I understand. About 15 years ago,  I introduced a lesbian couple to the UMC. They were actually attending an SBC church while maintaining a secret identity. In the Methodist church they were welcomed as a married couple. The current situation saddens me because I remember the happiness they experienced with acceptance.

 

 

And if they now wanted to get married, assuming they are still members, they could not get married in that church.

 

Good job, Methodists. Nailed it.

 

[Asithappens 974]

On 2/26/2019 at 5:55 AM, Monster said:

I used to laugh at my Christian friends when they talked about being ridiculed.  "Maybe in other countries, but not here."  Or if I was in a mood, "Maybe you deserve it."  Well, after watching far too many movies and tv shows and reading too many message board/social media posts/news articles over the last two years, I'm not laughing at them anymore. 

Since a somewhat notable election, there would appear to be a coordinated and sustained effort to shame and vilify people of the Christian faith.  I submit the following examples for your consideration and look forward to your rebuttals...

 

What a fuckstick this guy is.

What's next? Lashing out at those who accept science?

To wit: https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/jun/08/jesse-kremer/republican-wisconsin-lawmaker-wrongly-states-its-f/

Fuck this douchebag op.

[Asithappens 974]

On 2/26/2019 at 7:48 AM, Js1 said:

Young people inherently see through the bullshit that is religion. 

Pretty much.

At least those with an iq above room temp.

This is why brainwashing/inculcation/indoctrination is so important to the imparting of (some) religious convictions. Look at the Mormons (not a necessarily bad organization but basically a cult) and how they shun those who leave the church. 

 

Again, fuck this troll dipshit op.

[Asithappens 974]

On 2/26/2019 at 9:39 AM, Js1 said:

Remember, there's 2 Jesuses -

 

Two Jesus is my favorite book in the bible.

[TwiceHorn 31,510]

29 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

And if they now wanted to get married, assuming they are still members, they could not get married in that church.

 

Good job, Methodists. Nailed it.

 

Well, actually, there have been quite a few ministers that would have married them, relying on some gray area in the doctrine.  That probably just went away by 53%-47% vote.  But, certainly on the local level, the UMC has been pretty supportive and welcoming.

[relapse98 634]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, actually, there have been quite a few ministers that would have married them, relying on some gray area in the doctrine.

And those ministers would have had charges filed on them, even before GC2019.

I can count on 2 hands the number of same sex marriages that have happened in the UMC.

Val Rosenquish performed 1 wedding. Was brought up on charges, the resolution was sealed so we don't know the punishment but we know she was not defrocked.

Frank Schaefer officiated at the wedding of his son to another man and was defrocked.

Retired  minister (when he did it) Larry Sonner was not sanctioned.

Bishop Melvin Talbert (amazing man who I got to hear at UUMC in Austin) was sanctioned after he performed a wedding.

 

I'd love to hear of these 'quite a few ministers that would have married them' because we've already seen that there are very few. And half of the ones documented above were retired when they did it, meaning they won't have a loss of employment, and Bishop Talbert sort of had the power of being a Bishop - the bishops are very wary about doing anything to another bishop.

 

Quote

certainly on the local level, the UMC has been pretty supportive and welcoming.

Yeah, we'll gladly allow you to come in, take your money, but you want to maybe dedicate your life in service to the denomination as an ordiained minister? Slow your roll. Want to marry the person you love that happens to be the same sex as you? Woah.

 

Supportive and welcoming - not. Gays are treated as second class citizens in the UMC. It's really amazing how many have stuck around this long.

 

Edit:

Quote

relying on some gray area in the doctrine

What gray area is that? The only possible gray area was the punishments.
 

Quote

6. Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not
be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our
churches. 35

That's pretty black and white.

Edited February 27, 2019 by relapse98

[workswithseed 2,112]

I mean are they forced to give tithes? I don't know actually, cause being a member CoC we give what we can.

[Guest Lobo]

Maybe keeping gay parishioners out of your church will prevent the children from getting raped.

oh wait, 

[Asithappens 974]

Methodists are just Baptists who can read.

[Asithappens 974]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 But, certainly on the local level, the UMC has been pretty supportive and welcoming.

Just what local level are we talking about? 

[TwiceHorn 31,510]

43 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Just what local level are we talking about? 

I have been a member of a Methodist church for 50 years.  That same church has had known gay members that entire time, through three pastors, and at least a couple rather prominently involved as lay leaders. I am not aware that any of them asked to be married or sought to become clergy, which would involve something beyond the local level.

At the local level means within a congregation where issues do not have to be addressed by the Conference, the Bishops, the General Conference or the Judicial Conference.  My congregation tends sort of conservative, but just down the street there is another congregation that is renowned as pretty liberal.  It is pastored by a childhood friend..  I don't know for an absolute fact, but I am reasonably sure that same-sex marriages have occurred with some frequency at that church.  That may well have involved some subterfuge with the Conference and the higher-ups.  It is my sense, but it is unverified by me, that there are a number of Methodist pastors willing, one way or another, to conduct same-sex marriages.  Granted, they would be at risk of discipline and that sucks.

That's just my sense of things.

 

And if you think 47% of the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other Baptist entity, would vote to conduct same-sex marriages church-wide or ordain LGBTQ clergy, you are insane.

Edited February 27, 2019 by TwiceHorn