Redbrickbear 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.

---

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?

---

The latter. I am a fan of free association and the free exeercise of religion. My gospel is not your gospel; that is ok by me. Apparently, however, it upsets a lot of other posters.

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'm not certain and it's not my call to make outside of discernment.

I am certain that, just like Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and other denominations, nobody has ever got to heaven based on their denomination affiliation. I'm also confident there is evidence, one way or the other, regarding your Christianity such as, are you producing fruit or stumbling blocks regarding the LGBTQ+ lifestyle?

You would obviously know the details of the war waging inside the Methodist Church. I believe there are many stumbling blocks being placed in people's faith walk because of affirming the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. Remember, narrow is the gate.

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

1. So sex is the biggest part of marriage? Not to mention Christianity has long taught a Biblical moral teaching that sex between members of the same sex and outside of marriage is disordered and not compatible with Christian moral teachings.

You seem to just want the moral teachings dropped....more than you seem to really care about Christian marriage and its purpose.

2. At least we agree that rules for ordination are valid. Now why should rules about homosexuality be changed but not other sexual activities that are not in keeping with Christian morality?

3. Of course that is a generalization you are using.... "They are singled out as more broken than alcoholics, adulterers, criminals, and every other a-hole that fills the pews"

Where is your proof of that statement or data to back it up?

In my own life I have heard homosexuality mentioned from the pews a handful of time....always in the context of a larger discussion about overall sexual sins or explanations of the Christian discussion about marriage, children, and family life.

I have heard far more discussions and sermons about adultery, drug abuse, alcohol addiction, gambling, pornography, abortion, pride, materialism, love of money, etc.

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

I could say you are trying to shame others, as well, for not being as "accepting" as you. I am glad you are still able to feel shame for your sin as we all should.
And the foolish argument that all kinds of sin being in the ranks of the ordained, so mine should be included - that is the problem with the UMC once again. No real accountability. The ranks of the ordained can and should be thinned when sin is fully apparent and unrepentant. "Let not many among you be teachers." Better for the ranks to be thin than to be unaccountable. Part of our life as Christians is to be submissive to His teachings from the Gospels and from the words of His apostles and the prophets. If you refuse to try and live as God has taught us, you do not love God more than you love your own desires. It is not all about sexuality. This argument of sexuality is a symptom.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

1. So sex is the biggest part of marriage? Not to mention Christianity has long taught a Biblical moral teaching that sex between members of the same sex and outside of marriage is disordered and not compatible with Christian moral teachings.

You seem to just want the moral teachings dropped....more than you seem to really care about Christian marriage and its purpose.

2. At least we agree that rules for ordination are valid. Now why should rules about homosexuality be changed but not other sexual activities that are not in keeping with Christian morality?

3. Of course that is a generalization you are using.... "They are singled out as more broken than alcoholics, adulterers, criminals, and every other a-hole that fills the pews"

Where is your proof of that statement or data to back it up?

In my own life I have heard homosexuality mentioned from the pews a handful of time....always in the context of a larger discussion about overall sexual sins or explanations of the Christian discussion about marriage, children, and family life.

I have heard far more discussions and sermons about adultery, drug abuse, alcohol addiction, gambling, pornography, abortion, pride, materialism, love of money, etc.

---

1. No. But it is a very important one, particularly to most people who are getting married.

2. Because nothing about homosexuality is harmful. Polygamy, pedophilia, adultery, etc-harmful

3. My proof is that homosexuality is considered disqualifying for a sacrament--marriage. None of your mentioned sins are. It is the one thing where the actual practice causes revulsion. No one is revolted when Johnny ties one on every night.

At the root of all this is that I have a fundamentally different view of the Bible than most. It is the Word of God revealed to man; but that does not mean to me that every proscription in it is a commandment. Slavery, shellfish, pork, etc. I keep to the two main things-No Other Gods and Do Unto Others. But also a big fan of do not judge and the Beatitudes. Everything else is unecessary complications.

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."

---

Regarding the LGBTQ lifestyle, is "making people feel welcome" the same as affirming their lifestyle choices or different? Please elaborate.

Personally i've no issue with welcoming the alcoholic, the used car salesman, the shyster attorney , the gossip, the selfish, the glutton or anyone else into the church. What I do have an issue with is deviating from God's word to keep from offending someone-my gluttonous, gossipy, selfish self included.

I have enough faith in the Holy Spirit to open the ears of the sinner. It doesn't have to happen in my church building because I'm sure the Holy Spirit works in other places as well.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

I could say you are trying to shame others, as well, for not being as "accepting" as you. I am glad you are still able to feel shame for your sin as we all should.
And the foolish argument that all kinds of sin being in the ranks of the ordained, so mine should be included - that is the problem with the UMC once again. No real accountability. The ranks of the ordained can and should be thinned when sin is fully apparent and unrepentant. "Let not many among you be teachers." Better for the ranks to be thin than to be unaccountable. Part of our life as Christians is to be submissive to His teachings from the Gospels and from the words of His apostles and the prophets. If you refuse to try and live as God has taught us, you do not love God more than you love your own desires. It is not all about sexuality. This argument of sexuality is a symptom.

---

If you take sinners out the ranks of the ordained, you have no one, As I mentioned elsewhwere, if I am drafting the rules, I limit ordination to those whose sins are not inherently harmful to others. I don't see how homosexuality is harmful.

I also don't think it is a sin, but that is not a discussion worth having.

LIB,MR BEARS 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."

---

Regarding the LGBTQ lifestyle, is "making people feel welcome" the same as affirming their lifestyle choices or different? Please elaborate.

Personally i've no issue with welcoming the alcoholic, the used car salesman, the shyster attorney , the gossip, the selfish, the glutton or anyone else into the church. What I do have an issue with is deviating from God's word to keep from offending someone-my gluttonous, gossipy, selfish self included.

I have enough faith in the Holy Spirit to open the ears of the sinner. It doesn't have to happen in my church building because I'm sure the Holy Spirit works in other places as well.

---

Great question. Going back to the start of the thread, it seems to me like the point of the grant was to gain some understanding that would help answer your question. But conservatives did not want to engage in that exercise-that was the point of my criticism.

LIB,MR BEARS 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'm not certain and it's not my call to make outside of discernment.

I am certain that, just like Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and other denominations, nobody has ever got to heaven based on their denomination affiliation. I'm also confident there is evidence, one way or the other, regarding your Christianity such as, are you producing fruit or stumbling blocks regarding the LGBTQ+ lifestyle?

You would obviously know the details of the war waging inside the Methodist Church. I believe there are many stumbling blocks being placed in people's faith walk because of affirming the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. Remember, narrow is the gate.

---

I appreciate your post, but am curious about how affirming gays and lesbians as equal children of God is a stumbling block?

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS 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'm not certain and it's not my call to make outside of discernment.

I am certain that, just like Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and other denominations, nobody has ever got to heaven based on their denomination affiliation. I'm also confident there is evidence, one way or the other, regarding your Christianity such as, are you producing fruit or stumbling blocks regarding the LGBTQ+ lifestyle?

You would obviously know the details of the war waging inside the Methodist Church. I believe there are many stumbling blocks being placed in people's faith walk because of affirming the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. Remember, narrow is the gate.

---

I appreciate your post, but am curious about how affirming gays and lesbians as equal children of God is a stumbling block?

---

Now you seem to have gone back to a stance that if a Christian or Christian institution is not accepting of homosexuality or won't change its moral teaching then its "not affirming gays are equal children of God"

I don't and no one does think that people struggling with homosexuality or same sex attraction are not children of God.

The issue is the morality and compatibility of homosexuality within a Christian moral frame work.

That line of argument also seem particularly disingenuous coming from you.... since you have no moral problem with homosexuality and all...your big issue is more with the actual bedrock Christianity moral world view.

One might come to think that calls for "acceptance and affirming" and "welcome" are really just about demands for railroading new moral ideology into Christianity and Christian institutions.

If one assumes that homosexuality is a sin (again, I do not), there is no doubt in my mind that most churches treat that sin differently and more harshly than other sins. The clearest example is refusal to ordain. That is what I meant about not treating gays and lesbians as "equal children of God"; they are treated as lesser by definition.

No one is forcing gays and lesbians to be a Baptist or a Global Methodist. I am not advocating against those denominations; I am stating what my beliefs are. And people just have to prove me wrong. For some reason, the sin of homosexuality is defining in a way that other sins are not. (My thought is that it is easy to define something as a disqualifying sin if you are 100% sure you will never commit it).

In any event, my criticism did have a point. The Baugh Foundation wanted to find ways to `reduce barriers between homosexuals and the church; conservatives viewed those efforts as a threat. The podcaster calling the Baugh Foundation "secular" was not only factually wrong, it is ironic in the extreme to view effforts at inclusion in the chruch as non-religious.

I am sorry Baylor caved.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

I could say you are trying to shame others, as well, for not being as "accepting" as you. I am glad you are still able to feel shame for your sin as we all should.
And the foolish argument that all kinds of sin being in the ranks of the ordained, so mine should be included - that is the problem with the UMC once again. No real accountability. The ranks of the ordained can and should be thinned when sin is fully apparent and unrepentant. "Let not many among you be teachers." Better for the ranks to be thin than to be unaccountable. Part of our life as Christians is to be submissive to His teachings from the Gospels and from the words of His apostles and the prophets. If you refuse to try and live as God has taught us, you do not love God more than you love your own desires. It is not all about sexuality. This argument of sexuality is a symptom.

---

If you take sinners out the ranks of the ordained, you have no one, As I mentioned elsewhwere, if I am drafting the rules, I limit ordination to those whose sins are not inherently harmful to others. I don't see how homosexuality is harmful.

I also don't think it is a sin, but that is not a discussion worth having.

---

You are once again using false talking points. No one suggests only the sinless in the pulpit. They do suggest only the submissive (to God), repentant (daily), and sanctified. That your belief system has to exaggerate to justify could be a warning sign to you. I hope you find the voice of the Holy Spirit - the One who encourages and convicts - to refine your discernment.

---

And I hope you do too.

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS 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'm not certain and it's not my call to make outside of discernment.

I am certain that, just like Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and other denominations, nobody has ever got to heaven based on their denomination affiliation. I'm also confident there is evidence, one way or the other, regarding your Christianity such as, are you producing fruit or stumbling blocks regarding the LGBTQ+ lifestyle?

You would obviously know the details of the war waging inside the Methodist Church. I believe there are many stumbling blocks being placed in people's faith walk because of affirming the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. Remember, narrow is the gate.

---

I appreciate your post, but am curious about how affirming gays and lesbians as equal children of God is a stumbling block?

---

That's not what I said. I used the word lifestyle and you did not. We can discuss what a child of God is later but let's use we are ALL created in God's image as a starting point. Im sure you'll agree we do not all attempt to live our lives as God would have us live.

Let's use some obvious stereotypes and let's not get into a discussion about the RC church as a result of this analogy. The stereotype is of the mafia-Italian, Catholic, murderous. Should the local priest affirm the hitman Guido's lifestyle and business or should he tell him to confess and sin no more?

I know you stated previously you don't see how the homosexual lifestyle hurts others and obviously Guido does hurt others but I also don't see how gluttony hurts others but, God's word says it's a sin. So, it's a sin.

Do you and I know more than God? Do you and I fully understand God? I don't even fully understand my wife of almost 40 years. There are times when I just have to understand that God had His reason for doing things and stating things and I should trust Him.

I'm sure there are things that you trust God for and things in God's Word that you trust. Do you trust your own logic enough to pick and choose what in God's Word is correct and what's not?

To paraphrase Paul, he said that he does the things he doesn't want to do and doesn't do the things he wants to do. That's a great description of me and, if you're honest with yourself, it probably describes you as well. If that is the case, how can you have more faith in your own views than you do in God's Word?

The woman caught in the act of adultery was welcomed by Christ but, He also said go and sin no more.

Christ told the rich young ruler what he needed to do and yet the dude became sad and walked away. Do you expect the UMC to have a better success rate than Christ?

Prep the ground, plant the seeds of God's word, and let Him provide the growth. You and I should do our jobs and let the Holy Spirit do His.

(Edit: it should have read my gluttony)

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

---

That is why we don't go to the same church.

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Condonation of sin?

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.

---

I took that same fork in the road.

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?

---

In 2025? Yes.

Next question.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

---

That is why we don't go to the same church.

---

I'm guessing we worship the same God and read from the same 66 books of the Bible.

So I'll ask again, how do you determine when you beliefs override scripture?

---

I try to say never. But to pretend people don't have different interpretations, sometimes wildly different, is ridiculous. I read the Bible much differently than most in this forum.

Realitybites 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?

---

In 2025? Yes.

Next question.

---

What a joke.

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Condonation of sin?

---

Maybe be specific?

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Condonation of sin?

---

Maybe be specific?

---

It's only 3 words. Which of them do you not understand?

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

---

That is why we don't go to the same church.

---

I'm guessing we worship the same God and read from the same 66 books of the Bible.

So I'll ask again, how do you determine when you beliefs override scripture?

---

I try to say never. But to pretend people don't have different interpretations, sometimes wildly different, is ridiculous. I read the Bible much differently than most in this forum.

---

Is your reading of scripture similar to your reading of a Chinese menu; whatever only what you like from column 1, only what you like from column 2 and egg roll/salvation for everyone?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

---

That is why we don't go to the same church.

---

I'm guessing we worship the same God and read from the same 66 books of the Bible.

So I'll ask again, how do you determine when you beliefs override scripture?

---

I try to say never. But to pretend people don't have different interpretations, sometimes wildly different, is ridiculous. I read the Bible much differently than most in this forum.

---

Is your reading of scripture similar to your reading of a Chinese menu; whatever only what you like from column 1, only what you like from column 2 and egg roll/salvation for everyone?

---

No.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

---

That is why we don't go to the same church.

---

I'm guessing we worship the same God and read from the same 66 books of the Bible.

So I'll ask again, how do you determine when you beliefs override scripture?

---

I try to say never. But to pretend people don't have different interpretations, sometimes wildly different, is ridiculous. I read the Bible much differently than most in this forum.

---

"Interpretation" does not mean ignoring parts of the Bible that does not fit with your political agenda. But you know that. You just believe politics should drive your faith rather than your faith driving your politics.

---

Well I am going to ignore the Bible's endorsement of slavery and feel pretty good that I am still a Christian. I might end up hell based on my shellfish consumption though.

I don't know anything about this latest controversy, but the Baugh family have been generous donors for decades. The entrepreneurship program is named after John Baugh (Sysco). I served on the San Antonio alum board with his heir Babs Baugh. She was a huge Baylor fan and very down to earth. As a young alum new to the city, she was really kind to me. I have no idea if she was liberal or not. People didn't wear their politics on their sleeve like they do now. She definitely loved Baylor which is what all of us have in common.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

---

That is why we don't go to the same church.

---

I'm guessing we worship the same God and read from the same 66 books of the Bible.

So I'll ask again, how do you determine when you beliefs override scripture?

---

I try to say never. But to pretend people don't have different interpretations, sometimes wildly different, is ridiculous. I read the Bible much differently than most in this forum.

---

"Interpretation" does not mean ignoring parts of the Bible that does not fit with your political agenda. But you know that. You just believe politics should drive your faith rather than your faith driving your politics.

---

Well I am going to ignore the Bible's endorsement of slavery and feel pretty good that I am still a Christian. I might end up hell based on my shellfish consumption though.

---

No one is surprised your obsession with other people's sex lives prevents you from taking the time to understand Scripture.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

---

That is why we don't go to the same church.

---

I'm guessing we worship the same God and read from the same 66 books of the Bible.

So I'll ask again, how do you determine when you beliefs override scripture?

---

I try to say never. But to pretend people don't have different interpretations, sometimes wildly different, is ridiculous. I read the Bible much differently than most in this forum.

---

"Interpretation" does not mean ignoring parts of the Bible that does not fit with your political agenda. But you know that. You just believe politics should drive your faith rather than your faith driving your politics.

---

Well I am going to ignore the Bible's endorsement of slavery and feel pretty good that I am still a Christian. I might end up hell based on my shellfish consumption though.

---

No one is surprised you spend your time obsessing over other people's sex lives rather than understanding Scripture.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

So, if polygamy were legal you'd be ok with it?

---

No, those people are too busy to be pastors. Actually, no because I believe polygamy to be harmful to others, exploitive of women, and usually not truly consensual.

---

"because I believe"

How do you determine when your beliefs should override scripture or be subservient to scripture.

There are obviously some families that believe differently than you and they don't see the harm - even you admit that because you used the word "usually ".

---

That is why we don't go to the same church.

---

I'm guessing we worship the same God and read from the same 66 books of the Bible.

So I'll ask again, how do you determine when you beliefs override scripture?

---

I try to say never. But to pretend people don't have different interpretations, sometimes wildly different, is ridiculous. I read the Bible much differently than most in this forum.

---

"Interpretation" does not mean ignoring parts of the Bible that does not fit with your political agenda. But you know that. You just believe politics should drive your faith rather than your faith driving your politics.

---

Well I am going to ignore the Bible's endorsement of slavery and feel pretty good that I am still a Christian. I might end up hell based on my shellfish consumption though.

---

No one is surprised you spend your time obsessing over other people's sex lives rather than understanding Scripture.

---

That makes no sense at all.