Any other United Methodists here?

You taking a side of an argument just because I'm on the other side? Yes. That is typical.

 

You being to lazy to do your own digging is typical. He provide you the material. Do you need him to read it to you as well?

 

In your first post on this thread you said this to Alma:

And then you say he's the one "making it personal." Self awareness, thy name ain't oop.

 

It is his claim. That means it is on him to explain it. He chose not to because he can’t.

 

Now go back and read it all again and perhaps even you will figure out the difference. I will give you a hint. It isn’t about making it personal. It is about the purpose behind doing so. Think hard. You’ll get there!

 

While JC and stoney come up with some other way to continue to derail this thread, I will expand on why Alma can't support his claim. Before I even begin, I will say it is time to cue someone claiming I don't understand. Sorry, but that's crap. I do. Some of y'all just don't like it.

Alma's claim is based on faith, not fact. Most importantly, he knows that, which is why he won't try to support it properly. He knows he can't.

His claim is based on the book, the Bible, and his own personal faith. The latter is important, but it does not and cannot be considered valid evidence in this discussion. His belief is no more valid than mine. It is no more valid than the people in the United Methodist Church who disagree with him. It is no more valid than the people who attend any church who disagree him. I respect his relationship with G-d, but it doesn't convince me of anything.

So that leaves us with the book. Much of that book was written before the birth of Jesus Christ. It was written not by G-d, but by human beings with their own biases, ideas and motivations. Maybe they were guided by the divine. Maybe they thought homosexuality was icky. Maybe they worried that it was bad for the survival of the species. We don't really know what they thought. Sadly, they aren't around for us to ask them.

The rest of the book was written long after Christ died. It was written by more than one human being. As already mentioned, human beings have their own biases, ideas and motivations. In this case, one motivation might be converting other people to their belief. That means making it more palatable to some. Again, maybe some of you want to believe that they put aside such biases, ideas and motivations and simply stuck to The Word.

But that wasn't the end of the process. The Word was then translated multiple times before any of us read it. It was translated by more human beings with their own biases, ideas and motivations. At some point, the version of the word Alma and others have read stabilized into one collection of words, or at least versions with only very slight differences. But the process still wasn't over because we had groups of people choosing very different interpretations of The Word and passing it on. In this case, I'm mostly referring to different denominations. If The Word is irrefutable, why do we have Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians and other variations? Why do we still have Jews? Isn't their G-d the same one Christians worship?

Even then, the process wasn't over. I doubt Alma first picked up a Bible on his own and came up with his own interpretation. He was likely raised in a family and a church that gave him their interpretation. Yet again, it was The Word, but filtered through another set of human biases, ideas and motivations.

Now stop for a moment to consider those who see love differently than Alma. Consider those who don't just believe it a man can love another man or a woman can love another woman on an abstract level. They know it. They know it in their hearts, their minds and their bodies. Many of them are people of faith, too. They believe in the same G-d Alma does. They read the same Bible. They pray for the same salvation. They see how some rules changed along the way, through all the various interpretations, but others somehow do not. They are told they cannot be among the faithful because their minds, hearts and bodies are wrong. They are told that G-d made them as they are, in his image, but even if they deny the love that would make them whole, they are still wrong because they want it in their hearts. Doesn't Christianity teach that believers must be pure of intention as well as action? How can they be built to love differently than the way G-d commands? Wouldn't that mean G-d made a mistake?

Of course, there is a way around all this. That way is faith. That way is to believe that every interpretation of of the Bible was guided by G-d, ensuring that The Word was properly preserved and passed down in the way he intended. The thing is, you can't prove that. You can only believe in it. The way I know this is there are people who believe the Catholic version is the only true one. There are people who believe the Jewish version is the only true one. The same is true for all the other versions. Then you have Muslims and others who believe something very different. And the only way to know is in your own heart and your own faith.

That faith, it if it is real, is a beautiful thing. It just doesn't work as evidence. It is faith, not fact.

 

What is my claim?

 

If you genuinely had to ask that question, wouldn't it have made sense to do so before you refused to support it? I can only conclude that you aren't being serious and this is just your latest bit of trolling. I do think it is worth nothing that you responded to an honest, thoughtful post by trolling.

 

I'm being serious. What is it you think I'm claiming?

I'd chalk up your post to a defense of moral/religious relativism and our general inability to "truly know" God which...I mean, it is what it is, but you could do that with a lot of things.

My claim - narrow - is the Bible is pretty clear on this particular matter, whether I or anyone else likes it or not. Your retort was a West Wing clip about all the other laws in Leviticus that Christians don't keep. My response was to point to NT verses - not in Leviticus! - that address the matter at hand.

What is it you think I'm claiming beyond that?

 

He's not trolling, he is asking for a clarification.

And fairly. You've been repeatedly using words like "Alma's claim" and "his claim", when it's not entirely clear what specific claim you're referencing. If you can't articulate what the claim is, then how is he supposed to address it?

 

He refused repeatedly to support his claim before asking for clarification. If he didn't understand it then, he should have asked then. Instead, he has responded to my genuine attempts to discuss the discussion with his usual snide bullshit. But it's a chance to argue against me, so you'll take the troll's side.

 

You are claiming that those verses justify picking and choosing which laws to follow. By the way, can you explain to Stoney that you actually did make a claim? You wrote as much in this very post, but he doesn't seem to get it.

You still haven't actually supported your claim. Just citing verses without actually getting into what they say and how that explains away the issue is not supporting your claim.