Any other United Methodists here?

Eh. I wrote Christ fulfilled OT law. It was perfectly legitimate.

The answer you praised still didn't explain your point, of course, because your point is your point -which is that one can call anything into question and render it moot, based on one's perspective and how one learned that perspective, and how faith is not facts and etc, etc, etc. Now, I don't find that to be a particularly profound point, but it's been made, you've lectured us on the unknowingness of all this, on how even a response you appreciate doesn't explain the depths of this obvious point you've made, so, having done that, I can't imagine you'd want to spend another post in this thread, unless, next, you want to tell us words have no meaning except what we give them, or beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or you can't judge a book by its cover, unless the book is only one page and, even then, it's a little risky.

 

Oh succinctness, sweet music to my eyes.

 

It's like the feeling
at the end of a page
when you realize
you don't know what you've just read.

 

If my math is correct (and this schism is as large as expected), LDS becomes the third largest Christian denomination behind Catholicism and Southern Baptists. Church of God in Christ - which is primarily an African-American denomination - might pass the Methodists for fourth.

 

I praised that answer for being an honest attempt, which is more than you have provided on this thread. I also responded to it with more questions because there is a worthwhile discussion to be had. Sadly, you have no interest in that discussion. You want to make your little drive-by points, take a few cheap shots and run when there is a question you can't handle.

There are multiple points at play here. This is a complex topic. You clearly haven't bothered to even try to understand any of the points I've made. One point is that you have hypocrites citing Leviticus as support for the idea that G-d sees homosexuality as an abomination, yet ignoring other parts of Leviticus because they are inconvenient. That is the part I challenged you on. You claimed the New Testament dealt with that issue, but you haven't properly supported that assertion. At best, you offered up a sourced cited list without any content or analysis. You continue to cover that up by taking shots at me. Now you want to use the fact that I disagree with you as an excuse. That's the point, to try to convince someone who disagrees with you. Apparently, you don't have much faith in your point or in yourself.

The larger point is that people may be a bit misguided in using the Bible as if it was the perfectly-rendered word of G-d even though it was written by human beings, translated by human beings and interpreted by human beings before they ever interacted with it at all. To add to the problem, the human beings doing the interpreting can't even come close to a consensus on the meaning of the text.

 

The verses in Romans 1 is the dealing. My point all along was that Leviticus wasn't the last mention of it. (Nor is Leviticus the last mention in the OT...consider the soul-rattling passages of Judges 20, perhaps the depraved nadir of all behavior in the Bible.)

It'd be like me saying the Vikings beat the Saints, and you needing me to post a AP story as "support."

Your larger point is one of nullification. Once you make the "what can we really know about any of this?" argument, that's pretty much the last argument you can make on the topic. It's insincere to weigh in after that, because you've already suggested the whole process is flawed by human hands and human minds and that, in our imperfection, we've gotten some key parts of the story wrong and it's up to each individual person to decide for themselves what's true and not. That point, in itself, is not profound, IMO, - frankly it's elementary and obvious - but it's a perfectly fine point after which the person making it shows himself out, because the point is contained, we can't go beyond it, it's the tie in Tic-Tac-Toe.

So you, the adult in the room, should leave it to let us kids play pretend. That's what moral relativism earns you - the right to be above all of it. OK, you're above it. Having dispensed this wisdom, your services are no longer needed, for we are in a room that won't heed it. Hopefully we get what we deserve, which is your rejection of our small minds.

 

No, it isn't like that. Posting the names of the verses isn't good enough no matter how many times you repeat the lie that it is.

Because the Bible told me so is elementary and obvious, and that is really all you have.

If you think I'm wrong, convince me. Give me more than the Bible said so. Give me more than faith. If you can't do either of those things, stop saying it is okay to tell other people how to live and stop clinging to those ideas as justification for bigotry.

You also haven't come close to supporting your claim that it is insincere to weigh in after stating my opinion on the Bible. Just because I disagree with you, I don't belong in the conversation anymore? That is a ridiculous point. We don't have to come to a point of agreement to find value in the discussion, to learn from one another. Just because I question whether the Bible is a true rendition of the word of G-d doesn't mean understanding it better doesn't have value. It does because so much of our culture is based in those words. You don't get to exclude non-believers from the discussion no matter how much you would like to do exactly that. Christianity has too much influence on our culture to say non-believers can't speak on that topic. (By the way, in the spirit of fairness, feel free to comment on Judaism all you want.)

Once again, you are making an argument that shows you aren't really interested in having a reasonable discussion. You would rather avoid a challenge than rise to it.

 

Dear God don't know if you noticed but
Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book
And us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look

 

Jesus weeps.

Over OOP Bingo.

 

I was baptized at the age of 3 months in the Methodist Church. Went a UMC every place I ever lived. Then the congregation (or a powerful clique within it) ran off our pastor and his wife (who also was ordained ... they would split the duties, sermons, etc.) because they liked to have some wine with dinner and were unapologetic about it. They were never seen in any kind of intoxicated state. Folks just didn't like it. This clique, which was about 10 percent of the regular members, had been running the damn church for years and nothing got done without their approval. They dominated the board and lorded over everyone. Then they ran off two wonderful people and that was it for me. Church is supposed to be above this kind of eighth-grade lunch, mean girls bullshit.
That's when I realized I could worship God and hate organized religion. I go to churches for weddings, funerals, baptisms and confirmations for family and friends, when invited. That's it. I still believe and read the Bible but when I walked through the doors of a church and became a member, I didn't agree to relive the high school clique crowd again.

 

I realize I'm a bit late to this ecclesiastical discussions but I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who's not a Pentecostal in Starke, Fla., that very little of the Bible is the word of God in the literal sense and that laws prohibiting homosexuality in the Old Testament (and those allowing slavery, bigamy, stoning your neighbor for not observing the Sabbath, etc.) were written by men and based on the societal mores and beliefs of that time ... thousands of years ago. Just as we've evolved in science, technology and other forms of knowledge, I'd like to think we've evolved in the way we treat our fellow human beings but that's not always the case.
I absolutely think it's the height of hypocrisy to cling to an Old Testament law regarding homosexuals but forget about the one that says you can sell your daughter into slavery because she's disobedient (as an aside, anyone who is the parent of a teenage daughter, in a weak moment, might not think that's the worst idea).

 

Meh. The New Testament takes care of that concern. 'nuff said.