BaylorFTW said:

---

Baylor University was mentioned by Megan Basham as a university that has been compromised by large secular left donor institutions.

---

It all depends on whether these things get caught publicly or not. Appearances are literally everything.

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

She was talking about a lot of schools and organizations....so she misspoke about it being a secular organzation...it is by its own description a foundation that supports progressive nonprofit organizations

[THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE...NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

She was talking about a lot of schools and organizations....so she misspoke about it being a secular organzation...it is by its own description a foundation that supports progressive nonprofit organizations

[THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE...NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS]

---

Which is why I said "progressive, yes."

whitetrash said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

It does the work of a secular hard left NGO, but slathered with an extra serving of Jesus juice on top.

---

There is something wrong with Jesus juice?

What is that the Baugh Foundation does that you find to be un-Christian, if anything?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

She was talking about a lot of schools and organizations....so she misspoke about it being a secular organzation...it is by its own description a foundation that supports progressive nonprofit organizations

[THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE...NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS]

---

Which is why I said "progressive, yes."

---

In a more than hour long conversation that touched on many colleges and groups (government and private)....she misspoke and called the Baugh Foundation a progressive secular group instead of a progressive religious group

Glad you made sure to jump in and correct that part.....now that we have established that... would you like to connect on main part of the long informative interview?

Groups (secular and religious) using their money/big pockets to push universities to take progressive social and cultural stances and specifically the far Left trend at Baylor's school of social work and the administrations support for these kinds of beliefs and views.

---

If the idea of making people feel welcome in church is "far left" then I am all for Baylor being "far left."

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time. The options that were on the table were for congregations decide for themselves same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, the entire church allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, or no congregation allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit. For the life of me, I don't understand what is so awful about the first option.

But conservatives would not hear it, they had to make it clear that not only was there no room for gays and lesbians to be welcome in their congregations, they should not be welcome in any Methodist congregation. In other words, conservatives were bent on enforcing thier view everywhere.

If you are that concerned about the sexuality of someone you don't know in a congregation thousand of miles from you, you are preoccupied with the issue.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

She was talking about a lot of schools and organizations....so she misspoke about it being a secular organzation...it is by its own description a foundation that supports progressive nonprofit organizations

[THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE...NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS]

---

Which is why I said "progressive, yes."

---

In a more than hour long conversation that touched on many colleges and groups (government and private)....she misspoke and called the Baugh Foundation a progressive secular group instead of a progressive religious group

Glad you made sure to jump in and correct that part.....now that we have established that... would you like to connect on main part of the long informative interview?

Groups (secular and religious) using their money/big pockets to push universities to take progressive social and cultural stances and specifically the far Left trend at Baylor's school of social work and the administrations support for these kinds of beliefs and views.

---

If the idea of making people feel welcome in church is "far left" then I am all for Baylor being "far left."

---

So you won't actually connect on the basis of the interview....did you even watch it?

Probably not

Also, innocuous statements like that are not going to cut it. We all know that the sentiment of "welcoming" might seem benign, but its often enforced through mechanisms like mandatory sexuality training, legal threats, political coercion, and eventually becomes an ideological litmus test and a way to force Christian colleges and Christian denominations to change their biblical understanding of sexuality and marriage.

We have seen the Left's version of "welcoming" for decades.....its almost never welcoming to those they hate for ideological reasons.

---

I only watched the Baylor part. What I saw was the usual cultuer war arguments--generalizations followed by bogeyman warnings. Your post is more of the same. If you want to discuss specfic examples of your argument, that is great. If you just start from your premise, however, it is fruitless as I don't agree with that premise.

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time. The options that were on the table were for congregations decide for themselves same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, the entire church allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, or no congregation allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit. For the life of me, I don't understand what is so awful about the first option.

But conservatives would not hear it, they had to make it clear that not only was there no room for gays and lesbians to be welcome in their congregations, they should not be welcome in any Methodist congregation. In other words, conservatives were bent on enforcing thier view everywhere.

If you are that concerned about the sexuality of someone you don't know in a congregation thousand of miles from you, you are preoccupied with the issue.

---

100%. Many mainline denominations concern over sexuality rather than the gospel is why they're all basically dead except those that have just reformed as radical LWNJ clubs.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

She was talking about a lot of schools and organizations....so she misspoke about it being a secular organzation...it is by its own description a foundation that supports progressive nonprofit organizations

[THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE...NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS]

---

Which is why I said "progressive, yes."

---

In a more than hour long conversation that touched on many colleges and groups (government and private)....she misspoke and called the Baugh Foundation a progressive secular group instead of a progressive religious group

Glad you made sure to jump in and correct that part.....now that we have established that... would you like to connect on main part of the long informative interview?

Groups (secular and religious) using their money/big pockets to push universities to take progressive social and cultural stances and specifically the far Left trend at Baylor's school of social work and the administrations support for these kinds of beliefs and views.

---

If the idea of making people feel welcome in church is "far left" then I am all for Baylor being "far left."

---

So you won't actually connect on the basis of the interview....did you even watch it?

Probably not

Also, innocuous statements like that are not going to cut it. We all know that the sentiment of "welcoming" might seem benign, but its often enforced through mechanisms like mandatory sexuality training, legal threats, political coercion, and eventually becomes an ideological litmus test and a way to force Christian colleges and Christian denominations to change their biblical understanding of sexuality and marriage.

We have seen the Left's version of "welcoming" for decades.....its almost never welcoming to those they hate for ideological reasons.

---

I only watched the Baylor part. What I saw was the usual cultuer war arguments--generalizations followed by bogeyman warnings.

---

You mean generalizations like "making people feel welcome"

Funny how you love generalizations like that.

PS

She talks specifically about Baylor's school of social work accepting money from the Baugh Foundation and how the School of social work now uses LGTBQ affirming language, course materials, and hires staff with similar views.

Do you have a counter to that statement?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time. The options that were on the table were for congregations decide for themselves same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, the entire church allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, or no congregation allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit. For the life of me, I don't understand what is so awful about the first option.

But conservatives would not hear it, they had to make it clear that not only was there no room for gays and lesbians to be welcome in their congregations, they should not be welcome in any Methodist congregation. In other words, conservatives were bent on enforcing thier view everywhere.

If you are that concerned about the sexuality of someone you don't know in a congregation thousand of miles from you, you are preoccupied with the issue.

---

100%. Many mainline denominations concern over sexuality rather than the gospel is why they're all basically dead except those that have just reformed as radical LWNJ clubs.

---

"We don't care about your sexuality" is not a concern over sexulaity. It is the opposite.

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time.

---

In what ways are those who struggle with the sexual immorality of homosexuality denied the "full benefit of the Church"?

Are they denied Baptism? Forbidden from entering the Church? Denied the Lords supper/communion? Denied burial rights? Denied the opportunity to come to the church and participate in worship?

As far as I know the person next to me in church might struggle with that sin....we all struggle with sins....but how would I or anyone else know.

Last I checked no one was stopped at the Church door and forbidden entry

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time. The options that were on the table were for congregations decide for themselves same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, the entire church allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, or no congregation allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit. For the life of me, I don't understand what is so awful about the first option.

But conservatives would not hear it, they had to make it clear that not only was there no room for gays and lesbians to be welcome in their congregations, they should not be welcome in any Methodist congregation. In other words, conservatives were bent on enforcing thier view everywhere.

If you are that concerned about the sexuality of someone you don't know in a congregation thousand of miles from you, you are preoccupied with the issue.

---

Patently false again. It was about ordaining those in the gay and lesbian lifestyle. No one ever wanted to exclude them from being in a congregation. That is a figment of your desire to legitimize the lifestyle as acceptable to God in the ministry of His word.

---

If your sexuality excludes you from sacraments (marriage) or ordination, there is a pretty good chance you will feel excluded at every level. Interesting aspect of the discussion--I believe the purpose of the grant that caused the controversy was to study ways to bridge that very gap. Evangelicals raised hell, presumably because they don't want the bridge.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time. The options that were on the table were for congregations decide for themselves same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, the entire church allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, or no congregation allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit. For the life of me, I don't understand what is so awful about the first option.

But conservatives would not hear it, they had to make it clear that not only was there no room for gays and lesbians to be welcome in their congregations, they should not be welcome in any Methodist congregation. In other words, conservatives were bent on enforcing thier view everywhere.

If you are that concerned about the sexuality of someone you don't know in a congregation thousand of miles from you, you are preoccupied with the issue.

---

100%. Many mainline denominations concern over sexuality rather than the gospel is why they're all basically dead except those that have just reformed as radical LWNJ clubs.

---

"We don't care about your sexuality" is not a concern over sexulaity. It is the opposite.

---

So you the Methodist's church obsession with butt sex was made up? Interesting. Guessing if the UMC had take a biblical stance your ilk would have thrown a tantrum. I love the word games you guys play - you obsess over an extreme position and when someone notices your response is "why are you so obsessed with this?" LOL

---

Beautiful deflection when you can't refute the logic. One side says "X is irrelevant as a factor in our decision" while the other side says "X has to be part of the equation." Who is obsessed about X?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time.

---

In what ways are those who struggle with the sexual immorality of homosexuality denied the "full benefit of the Church"?

Are they denied Baptism? Forbidden from entering the Church? Denied the Lords supper/communion? Denied burial rights? Denied the opportunity to come to the church and participate in worship?

As far as I know the person next to me in church might struggle with that sin....we all struggle with sins....but how would I or anyone else know.

Last I checked no one was stopped at the Church door and forbidden entry

---

They are denied the sacrament of marriage and opportunity of ordination. They are singled out as more broken than alcoholics, adulterers, criminals, and every other a-hole that fills the pews. Not all barriers are tangible.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time.

---

In what ways are those who struggle with the sexual immorality of homosexuality denied the "full benefit of the Church"?

Are they denied Baptism? Forbidden from entering the Church? Denied the Lords supper/communion? Denied burial rights? Denied the opportunity to come to the church and participate in worship?

As far as I know the person next to me in church might struggle with that sin....we all struggle with sins....but how would I or anyone else know.

Last I checked no one was stopped at the Church door and forbidden entry

---

1. They are denied the sacrament of marriage

2. and opportunity of ordination.

3.They are singled out as more broken than alcoholics, adulterers, criminals, and every other a-hole that fills the pews.

---

1. No one is denied the sacrament of marriage (and not all churches consider it a sacrament). Anyone can enter into a marriage between a man and a woman. No man or woman is denied the opportunity to enter into the marital state.


2. All churches have rules about ordination. Generally involve needing to have a spiritual calling, theological study/degree, character assessment, and a formal ceremony (laying on of hands, vows), ensuring commitment to ministry. Many people involved in all kinds of activities would not then be eligible for ordination. Sexual practices outside Church teaching are valid....and someone would only need to give up those practices to be eligible for ordination.

3. What was that about generalizations not being good? Yet here you are using them and exaggerations without evidence again

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time. The options that were on the table were for congregations decide for themselves same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, the entire church allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, or no congregation allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit. For the life of me, I don't understand what is so awful about the first option.

But conservatives would not hear it, they had to make it clear that not only was there no room for gays and lesbians to be welcome in their congregations, they should not be welcome in any Methodist congregation. In other words, conservatives were bent on enforcing thier view everywhere.

If you are that concerned about the sexuality of someone you don't know in a congregation thousand of miles from you, you are preoccupied with the issue.

---

Patently false again. It was about ordaining those in the gay and lesbian lifestyle. No one ever wanted to exclude them from being in a congregation. That is a figment of your desire to legitimize the lifestyle as acceptable to God in the ministry of His word.

---

If your sexuality excludes you from sacraments (marriage) or ordination, there is a pretty good chance you will feel excluded at every level. Interesting aspect of the discussion--I believe the purpose of the grant that caused the controversy was to study ways to bridge that very gap. Evangelicals raised hell, presumably because they don't want the bridge.

---

This proves your obsession with sexuality over what God has provided as the better way. So will you next want to be more welcoming to allowing polygamists and the covetous to be ordained so that they will feel "welcomed?"

You are part of the obsessed, unrepentant, and unsubmissive. And in the UMC, such are not wanting to be held accountable to God or anyone but their own desires. This is why the UMC will fail as the old Hebrew nations did. Sorry for you and wish you would be able to listen to the God you purport to believe in. Love is not always "acceptance" as you and your like minded try to make it.

---

You seem to know a lot about me. Do you shame everyone who disagrees with you like this? Awesome ministry tactic.

But you are sort of proving my point--hard to see how a gay man or lesbian woman would feel comfortable sitting next to you on Sunday morning. As to polygamists-no, that is illegal. I am pretty sure the covetous are within the ordained ranks in great numbers, which is also my point.

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time. The options that were on the table were for congregations decide for themselves same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, the entire church allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit, or no congregation allow same sex marriage and gay/lesbian in the pulpit. For the life of me, I don't understand what is so awful about the first option.

But conservatives would not hear it, they had to make it clear that not only was there no room for gays and lesbians to be welcome in their congregations, they should not be welcome in any Methodist congregation. In other words, conservatives were bent on enforcing thier view everywhere.

If you are that concerned about the sexuality of someone you don't know in a congregation thousand of miles from you, you are preoccupied with the issue.

---

Patently false again. It was about ordaining those in the gay and lesbian lifestyle. No one ever wanted to exclude them from being in a congregation. That is a figment of your desire to legitimize the lifestyle as acceptable to God in the ministry of His word.

---

If your sexuality excludes you from sacraments (marriage) or ordination, there is a pretty good chance you will feel excluded at every level.

---

So those practicing polygamy or anonymous group sex would then also feel the right to feel aggrieved and "not welcome/ excluded"

Are you really against Churches being able to set standards for marriage and ordination...or are you just advocating the the rules/moral teachings around the issue of homosexuality be changed?

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time.

---

In what ways are those who struggle with the sexual immorality of homosexuality denied the "full benefit of the Church"?

Are they denied Baptism? Forbidden from entering the Church? Denied the Lords supper/communion? Denied burial rights? Denied the opportunity to come to the church and participate in worship?

As far as I know the person next to me in church might struggle with that sin....we all struggle with sins....but how would I or anyone else know.

Last I checked no one was stopped at the Church door and forbidden entry

---

They are denied the sacrament of marriage and opportunity of ordination. They are singled out as more broken than alcoholics, adulterers, criminals, and every other a-hole that fills the pews. Not all barriers are tangible.

---

The UMC has been too lenient on adulterers for a long time - and that is a conservative issue brought up before. It is part of the unaccountability problem. Alcoholics and criminals have been booted from ordination, so those are not real complaints, but are loosely stated talking points .

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The grant giver was not a "secular organization." It is a Christian organization whose view of Christianity is different than that of many conservatives. Progressive, yes; secular no. Also, far left, no.

https://www.baughfoundation.org/

THE BAUGH FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT REFLECT THE LOVE OF CHRIST BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN NEED, ENRICHING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, KEEPING FAITH COMMUNITIES INFORMED AND ENGAGED, AND GUARDING THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

---

Are they Christian like many of the Methodist and Presbyterian rainbow congregations claim to be?

---

I am United Methodist. Does that make me a non-Christian?

---

I was United Methodist as well until the Church's focus shifted from Christianity to butt sex.

---

Those who disaffiliated were much more concerned about it than those who stayed.

---

Patently false. Gay and Lesbian influencers were fighting to legitimize their lifestyle in United Methodist doctrine for decades. They finally took over the judicial board and proved to be unaccountable to any conference, including the General Conference. Hence there was a split.
The liberal wing of the United Methodist Church became the very thing the fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Church became in the 1990's. It will not end well for the United Methodists as unaccountability did not do well for the Baptists.

---

If by "legitimize their lifestyle" you mean enjoy the full benefit of the church, yes gays, lesbians, and people who like people fought for that right for a long time.

---

In what ways are those who struggle with the sexual immorality of homosexuality denied the "full benefit of the Church"?

Are they denied Baptism? Forbidden from entering the Church? Denied the Lords supper/communion? Denied burial rights? Denied the opportunity to come to the church and participate in worship?

As far as I know the person next to me in church might struggle with that sin....we all struggle with sins....but how would I or anyone else know.

Last I checked no one was stopped at the Church door and forbidden entry

---

1. They are denied the sacrament of marriage

2. and opportunity of ordination.

3.They are singled out as more broken than alcoholics, adulterers, criminals, and every other a-hole that fills the pews.

---

1. No one is denied the sacrament of marriage (and not all churches consider it a sacrament). Anyone can enter into a marriage between a man and a woman. No man or woman is denied the opportunity to enter into the marital state.


2. All churches have rules about ordination. Generally involve needing to have a spiritual calling, theological study/degree, character assessment, and a formal ceremony (laying on of hands, vows), ensuring commitment to ministry. Many people involved in all kinds of activities would not then be eligible for ordination. Sexual practices outside Church teaching are valid....and someone would only need to give up those practices to be eligible for ordination.

3. What was that about generalizations not being good? Yet here you are using them and exaggerations without evidence again

---

1. You can marry, just not anyone to whom you are attracted. Real useful

2. Circular-yes churches have rules about ordination; we are discussin what those rules should be and how they should be applied. The fact of rules does not answer those questions, it is the reason for the questions.

3. It is neither an exaggeration nor a generalization. The attention paid to homosexuality far exceeds the attention to any other perceived sin; it is disqualifying in practice. That is pretty specific.