Any other United Methodists here?

You're welcome. You remain undefeated.

 

I don't think the lady he was addressing in this scene, or the evangelical he takes apart in the pilot in his first appearance on the show, were people who even acknowledge there is a NT. They were alt-right evangelicals.

 

Alt-right evangelicals know plenty about the NT - especially as it relates to that topic.

The whole scene is Sorkin’s liberal fantasy. Which, hey, he’s entitled to that.

Relying on the “look at all those laws in Leviticus” argument is either insincere or reflective of someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

 

So, which Bible verses matter, and which ones don't?

You can't quote Bible verses to support an anti-gay position (for example), but then conveniently discount other Bible verses that don't fit your narrative.

 

Don't try to hide behind making it personal. Support your point or genuinely admit you can't.

 

Bullshit. You had your opportunity to explain why it was wrong and you couldn't do it.

 

Dear (Dis)United Methodists,

Y'all will live.

Love,
The Episcopalians.

 

Christ fulfills OT law. You don’t need blood sacrifices any more, for example, because Jesus is the sacrifice.

You are right that you shouldn’t discard teachings about greed, for example. The smarter tack to take with Christians, if you want to critique them, is just that: Why does gay sex get you all worked up but remarkable, disgusting greed does not?

This is not the argument some critics make. Instead, it’s “well, if you don’t uphold all of Leviticus, your view on homosexuality is null and void.”

The problem with that argument is it ignores the fact that homosexuality is brought up in the NT - after Jesus fulfilled the law. It’s pretty clear, by Paul’s writings, that the matter is still a matter. Now, he addresses this in the book of Romans - and Rome, at the time, was permissive of a broad spectrum of sexual arrangements - so it’s pretty clear he understands the world at large being at odds with Christianity. (By Romans 13, he’s saying the Christians in Rome shouldn’t be insurrectionists in the culture but allow themselves to be subject to the government). It’s also clear what a Christian culture is to be. Romans 1 is so dark and unsettling in tone that it’s not easily read or forgotten, and there’s little mistake that it appears at the beginning of the book.

It’s more than fair to say a Christian is a hypocrite because he or she doesn’t live out all
of their beliefs, although such a thing feels more like liberal sport than sincere accountability. But, as it relates to this matter, the Bible is clear and consistent in both testaments.

 

Just to be clear:
Smoked sausage is ok, but smokin' sausage is bad.
Thank goodness I like eatin' oysters.

 

He provided you the relevant work, it’s up to you whether you want to not be lazy and read them.

 

No, it's up to him to support his claim, not assign research. He chose not to, which tells me he can't do it.

 

Typical.