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.

---

Can you walk me through the Bibles "endorsement of slavery"?

Was it wrong for Gentiles to eat shellfish? Was the law on shellfish for a specific group?

I have a sign on my office door that reads

AGENDA vs TRUTH
Who Wins?

Message me your PO Box and I'll send it to you. It seems you could use it as a reminder.

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?

---

that's good advice. Do you believe both the old and New Testaments are vague when speaking of homosexuality? What about repentance?

What about " For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the Lord.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."?

Are those all vague, non-specific?

Malbec said:

---

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?

---

It is simple. What has the Baugh Foundation done to "condone sin?"

LIB,MR BEARS 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.

---

Can you walk me through the Bibles "endorsement of slavery"?

Was it wrong for Gentiles to eat shellfish? Was the law on shellfish for a specific group?

I have a sign on my office door that reads

AGENDA vs TRUTH
Who Wins?

Message me your PO Box and I'll send it to you. It seems you could use it as a reminder.

---

Slavery

There are at least seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters "in everything" (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).

But slavery is viewed positively in Scripture well beyond these commands. Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God's blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment. Slavery was simply part of life, and most people saw it as just the way things always were, even the divinely ordained order of things.

And yes, in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: "the slave is the owner's property" (Exod 21:21). Both Old and New Testaments called for better treatment of slaves than many of the peoples around them, and the Law of Moses in particular called for better treatment of fellow Israelites as slaves. But slaves could be beaten (Exod 21:20-21; 1 Pet 2:18-20), and slaves could be taken as concubines (Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11) or even raped without serious consequence (Lev 19:20-22).

These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God's blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it's only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery.

Lifted from: https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

Shellfish

I am aware of the argument that some of Leviticus is meant only for Jews (and may have been "repealed") and other parts of it are global. But it is non-sensical to make those distinctions and at the same time declare the whole of the Bible is the immutable word of God meant for everyone. It makes more sense to me to view all of the Bible as instruction for how to please God in the context of people's particular circumstances.That is the brillance of Christ's two commandments answer.

You can keep the sign, but thanks.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

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?

---

It is simple. What has the Baugh Foundation done to "condone sin?"

---

Baylor's increasingly liberal administration took at look at the issue with the Foundation and even they decided to return the recent grant

Looks like Admins found it to be an attempt to use money to force ideology change at Baylor and to condone the sinfullness and disordered nature of homosexuality.

Does not help the Baugh foundation that it presents itself as almost an activist group and less like a neutral grant foundation simple interested in academic research

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

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?

---

It is simple. What has the Baugh Foundation done to "condone sin?"

---

Baylor's increasingly liberal administration took at look at the issue with the Foundation and even they decided to return the recent grant

Looks like Admins found it to be an attempt to use money to force ideology change at Baylor and to condone the sinfullness and disordered nature of homosexuality.

Does not help the Baugh foundation that it presents itself as almost an activist group and less like a neutral grant foundation simple interested in academic research

---

As if. Baylor didn't "look at the issue" and change its mind. It got pressured into changing its mind by conservatives and their pressure tactics.

The idea that studying how to make gays and lesbians feel more home in church is some sort of ideaology stalking horse is repugnant. If you believe in the mission, you believe in welcoming all.

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?

---

No denominational affiliation/identity guarantees that one is in Christ, who is the only place there is salvation.

canoso 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?

---

No denominational affiliation/identity guarantees that one is in Christ, who is the only place there is salvation.

---

I agree, but that was not the question. I was asking whether my support of UMC policies disqualifies me.

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS 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.

---

Can you walk me through the Bibles "endorsement of slavery"?

Was it wrong for Gentiles to eat shellfish? Was the law on shellfish for a specific group?

I have a sign on my office door that reads

AGENDA vs TRUTH
Who Wins?

Message me your PO Box and I'll send it to you. It seems you could use it as a reminder.

---

Slavery

There are at least seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters "in everything" (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).

But slavery is viewed positively in Scripture well beyond these commands. Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God's blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment. Slavery was simply part of life, and most people saw it as just the way things always were, even the divinely ordained order of things.

And yes, in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: "the slave is the owner's property" (Exod 21:21). Both Old and New Testaments called for better treatment of slaves than many of the peoples around them, and the Law of Moses in particular called for better treatment of fellow Israelites as slaves. But slaves could be beaten (Exod 21:20-21; 1 Pet 2:18-20), and slaves could be taken as concubines (Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11) or even raped without serious consequence (Lev 19:20-22).

These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God's blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it's only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery.

Lifted from: https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

Shellfish

I am aware of the argument that some of Leviticus is meant only for Jews (and may have been "repealed") and other parts of it are global. But it is non-sensical to make those distinctions and at the same time declare the whole of the Bible is the immutable word of God meant for everyone. It makes more sense to me to view all of the Bible as instruction for how to please God in the context of people's particular circumstances.That is the brillance of Christ's two commandments answer.

You can keep the sign, but thanks.

---

Slavery Response
There is a significant difference between God allowing or permitting slavery for a time in contrast to endorsing it for all time. In the bible, we have the principle of accommodation. The principle of accommodation shows God's patient, gradual guidance of His people toward higher ethical and spiritual truths, often meeting them where they are without affirming their fallen conditions as ideal.

We see a proof test of this in Matt 19:8 "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." From the beginning it was not so is a reference back to Creation. This shows that the Mosaic law is not God's ultimate standard. And slavery is very similar to divorce as we do not see slavery present in the Garden of Eden. In addition, we do not see slavery present in the Eternal Kingdom. This is important because it shows God's ideal and the Eternal Kingdom is a restoration of the Garden of Eden. So though we do see slavery present in the bible, God's ideal is not for man to have dominion over each other which would reduce man down to the animal level. Gen 1:26-28 makes God's ideal clear as we are to have dominion over the Earth but not over each other as we are all made in the image of God. What we see in the bible is God moving through time to change the hearts of man to become image bearers of his glory again.

Shellfish Response
Different opinions abound on why the OT dietary and ceremonial laws do not apply to Christians. However, if you are going to claim that we should be avoiding shellfish, you are going to have to contend with several verses.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.
Also, in Mark 7:19, it says "For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" This is significant because we know from Matt 15:15 that Peter asked Jesus this question. And it was Peter who has the vision in Acts 10:11-14 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
If you are going to claim this is only talking about Gentiles, you would have to admit that God told Peter a lie that it was ok to eat unclean foods by the literal meaning of the words "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." This is a problem because we know God does not lie. Num 23:19; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:9. And when you take this in conjunction with the words of Mark 7:19, we can understand why Mark made that annotation.

You also have the problem of the early church fathers not agreeing with your interpretation.

Ignatius- Magnesians 9- Christians do not observe the Sabbath, but the Lord's day. This shows a change from the Mosaic law.

Mathetes AD 130 Epistle to Diognetus 3,4 Christians do not offer sacrifices, nor abstain from meats, nor observe the Sabbath or new moon festivals, nor become circumcised like the Jews do. Epistle to Diognetus 11 I (Mathetes) was taught directly by the apostles.

Justin Martyr AD 110-165 Dialogue 10 Christians live like all other gentiles, not observing the festivals, Sabbaths, new moon, or the rite of circumcision. Dialogue 11 Christ did away with the entire Law of Moses, and circumcision. Dialogue 19 to 23 Circumcision, food laws, and Sabbaths were for a teaching. Circumcision began with Abraham and the Sabbath and the rest began with Moses. Dialogue 43 Circumcision began with Abraham. The Sabbath, sacrifices, offerings, and feasts began with Moses.

Tertullian AD 190-210 Against Marcion 5.2 Galatians proves the Mosaic law is fully abolished. Against Marcion 5.11 1 Corinthians, the veil of Moses refers to the complete doing away with the old dispensation. Christ being Messiah brought abrogation of Moses' Law.

Lactantius, AD 285 Divine Institutes 4.17 Jesus abolished circumcision, and laws against eating pork, and the Sabbath.

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS 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.

---

Can you walk me through the Bibles "endorsement of slavery"?

Was it wrong for Gentiles to eat shellfish? Was the law on shellfish for a specific group?

I have a sign on my office door that reads

AGENDA vs TRUTH
Who Wins?

Message me your PO Box and I'll send it to you. It seems you could use it as a reminder.

---

Slavery

There are at least seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters "in everything" (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).

But slavery is viewed positively in Scripture well beyond these commands. Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God's blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment. Slavery was simply part of life, and most people saw it as just the way things always were, even the divinely ordained order of things.

And yes, in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: "the slave is the owner's property" (Exod 21:21). Both Old and New Testaments called for better treatment of slaves than many of the peoples around them, and the Law of Moses in particular called for better treatment of fellow Israelites as slaves. But slaves could be beaten (Exod 21:20-21; 1 Pet 2:18-20), and slaves could be taken as concubines (Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11) or even raped without serious consequence (Lev 19:20-22).

These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God's blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it's only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery.

Lifted from: https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

Shellfish

I am aware of the argument that some of Leviticus is meant only for Jews (and may have been "repealed") and other parts of it are global. But it is non-sensical to make those distinctions and at the same time declare the whole of the Bible is the immutable word of God meant for everyone. It makes more sense to me to view all of the Bible as instruction for how to please God in the context of people's particular circumstances.That is the brillance of Christ's two commandments answer.

You can keep the sign, but thanks.

---

Is permitting the same as endorsing?

Is all slavery the same?

Did slavery occur in the Garden of Eden or did it occur in the fallen world?

Is a defeated people the same as the people that sold themselves into slavery?

Is massa boss the same as the company store?

If God endorsed slavery as you seem to believe, why would you ever worship Him? Or, did He not endorse it but used bad things for good?

It's almost an hour video with Wes Huff but, it's good and addresses many aspects of the topic.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS 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.

---

Can you walk me through the Bibles "endorsement of slavery"?

Was it wrong for Gentiles to eat shellfish? Was the law on shellfish for a specific group?

I have a sign on my office door that reads

AGENDA vs TRUTH
Who Wins?

Message me your PO Box and I'll send it to you. It seems you could use it as a reminder.

---

Slavery

There are at least seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters "in everything" (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).

But slavery is viewed positively in Scripture well beyond these commands. Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God's blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment. Slavery was simply part of life, and most people saw it as just the way things always were, even the divinely ordained order of things.

And yes, in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: "the slave is the owner's property" (Exod 21:21). Both Old and New Testaments called for better treatment of slaves than many of the peoples around them, and the Law of Moses in particular called for better treatment of fellow Israelites as slaves. But slaves could be beaten (Exod 21:20-21; 1 Pet 2:18-20), and slaves could be taken as concubines (Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11) or even raped without serious consequence (Lev 19:20-22).

These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God's blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it's only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery.

Lifted from: https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

Shellfish

I am aware of the argument that some of Leviticus is meant only for Jews (and may have been "repealed") and other parts of it are global. But it is non-sensical to make those distinctions and at the same time declare the whole of the Bible is the immutable word of God meant for everyone. It makes more sense to me to view all of the Bible as instruction for how to please God in the context of people's particular circumstances.That is the brillance of Christ's two commandments answer.

You can keep the sign, but thanks.

---

Is permitting the same as endorsing?

Is all slavery the same?

Did slavery occur in the Garden of Eden or did it occur in the fallen world?

Is a defeated people the same as the people that sold themselves into slavery?

Is massa boss the same as the company store?

If God endorsed slavery as you seem to believe, why would you ever worship Him? Or, did He not endorse it but used bad things for good?

It's almost an hour video with Wes Huff but, it's good and addresses many aspects of the topic.

---

God did not endorse slavery. God's people who wrote the Bible did, but many of their stories did not age well.

Your post and the post above it do blindfolded backflips to explain away obvious contradictions. In your telling, not much is permanent except homosexuality is bad. Your theory lacks logic or the logic is so deeply hidden in antiquity that it is useless to me and billions like me. This all flows from the idea that "every word of the Bible" must be true.

There are much easier, more beautiful, and more useful interpretations available if you break away from inerrancy. I have enjoyed the conversation, but do not fell like there is much more I can say about the subject.

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS 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.

---

Can you walk me through the Bibles "endorsement of slavery"?

Was it wrong for Gentiles to eat shellfish? Was the law on shellfish for a specific group?

I have a sign on my office door that reads

AGENDA vs TRUTH
Who Wins?

Message me your PO Box and I'll send it to you. It seems you could use it as a reminder.

---

Slavery

There are at least seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters "in everything" (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).

But slavery is viewed positively in Scripture well beyond these commands. Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God's blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment. Slavery was simply part of life, and most people saw it as just the way things always were, even the divinely ordained order of things.

And yes, in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: "the slave is the owner's property" (Exod 21:21). Both Old and New Testaments called for better treatment of slaves than many of the peoples around them, and the Law of Moses in particular called for better treatment of fellow Israelites as slaves. But slaves could be beaten (Exod 21:20-21; 1 Pet 2:18-20), and slaves could be taken as concubines (Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11) or even raped without serious consequence (Lev 19:20-22).

These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God's blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it's only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery.

Lifted from: https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

Shellfish

I am aware of the argument that some of Leviticus is meant only for Jews (and may have been "repealed") and other parts of it are global. But it is non-sensical to make those distinctions and at the same time declare the whole of the Bible is the immutable word of God meant for everyone. It makes more sense to me to view all of the Bible as instruction for how to please God in the context of people's particular circumstances.That is the brillance of Christ's two commandments answer.

You can keep the sign, but thanks.

---

Is permitting the same as endorsing?

Is all slavery the same?

Did slavery occur in the Garden of Eden or did it occur in the fallen world?

Is a defeated people the same as the people that sold themselves into slavery?

Is massa boss the same as the company store?

If God endorsed slavery as you seem to believe, why would you ever worship Him? Or, did He not endorse it but used bad things for good?

It's almost an hour video with Wes Huff but, it's good and addresses many aspects of the topic.

---

God did not endorse slavery. God's people who wrote the Bible did, but many of their stories did not age well.

Your post and the post above it do blindfolded backflips to explain away obvious contradictions. In your telling, not much is permanent except homosexuality is bad. Your theory lacks logic or the logic is so deeply hidden in antiquity that it is useless to me and billions like me. This all flows from the idea that "every word of the Bible" must be true.

There are much easier, more beautiful, and more useful interpretations available if you break away from inerrancy. I have enjoyed the conversation, but do not fell like there is much more I can say about the subject.

---

The word "endorse" came from your post. Maybe it was a cut and paste that you are only in partial agreement with. We've all been there. But that is why I mention endorse.


Watch the video and get back to me, please.

PS… do you believe God permits or endorses divorce? Whatever your determination, how did you arrive at it?

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 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.

---

I would say the LGTBQ movement is pretty preoccupied with sex & sexuality...but regardless...its a issue of serious debate because it is important.

[As Philip Rieff has elsewhere observed, sex was the linchpin of the Christian social imaginary. Harper writes, "Nowhere did the moral expectations of the Jesus movement stand in such stark contrast to the world in which its adherents moved." The Romans might well have asked the same question as our modern post-Christians: Why does the Church care so much about sex? The answer then, as now, is: Because the way we exercise eros has everything to do with how we regard the human person, and even cosmic reality.]

[The Biblical rules of Christian sexual conduct are inextricably rooted in a particular vision of what the human person is, under God, and how believers are supposed to treat the material world, their bodies (and the bodies of others) first of all. Whatever the German Catholic and Anglican bishops think, it is not possible to reconcile contemporary sexual morality, including homosexuality, with Christianity. It simply cannot be done. Those who believe it can are lying to themselves.] -Rod Dreher

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

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?

---

It is simple. What has the Baugh Foundation done to "condone sin?"

---

Baylor's increasingly liberal administration took at look at the issue with the Foundation and even they decided to return the recent grant

Looks like Admins found it to be an attempt to use money to force ideology change at Baylor and to condone the sinfullness and disordered nature of homosexuality.

Does not help the Baugh foundation that it presents itself as almost an activist group and less like a neutral grant foundation simple interested in academic research

---

The idea that studying how to make gays and lesbians feel more home in church is some sort of ideaology stalking horse is repugnant. If you believe in the mission, you believe in welcoming all.

---

Do you really need to study how to make the homo feel welcomed? Couldn't you simply ask a homo what would make the homo welcomed and gay?

More fabulous gowns on the clergy?
Glory holes in the back of pews?
Ushers with helping hands?
More homo themed children events?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

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?

---

It is simple. What has the Baugh Foundation done to "condone sin?"

---

Baylor's increasingly liberal administration took at look at the issue with the Foundation and even they decided to return the recent grant

Looks like Admins found it to be an attempt to use money to force ideology change at Baylor and to condone the sinfullness and disordered nature of homosexuality.

Does not help the Baugh foundation that it presents itself as almost an activist group and less like a neutral grant foundation simple interested in academic research

---

The idea that studying how to make gays and lesbians feel more home in church is some sort of ideaology stalking horse is repugnant. If you believe in the mission, you believe in welcoming all.

---

Do you really need to study how to make the homo feel welcomed? Couldn't you simply ask a homo what would make the homo welcomed and gay?

More fabulous gowns on the clergy?
Glory holes in the back of pews?
Ushers with helping hands?
More homo themed children events?

---

Straight from the gospel for you.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

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?

---

It is simple. What has the Baugh Foundation done to "condone sin?"

---

Baylor's increasingly liberal administration took at look at the issue with the Foundation and even they decided to return the recent grant

Looks like Admins found it to be an attempt to use money to force ideology change at Baylor and to condone the sinfullness and disordered nature of homosexuality.

Does not help the Baugh foundation that it presents itself as almost an activist group and less like a neutral grant foundation simple interested in academic research

---

The idea that studying how to make gays and lesbians feel more home in church is some sort of ideaology stalking horse is repugnant. If you believe in the mission, you believe in welcoming all.

---

Do you really need to study how to make the homo feel welcomed? Couldn't you simply ask a homo what would make the homo welcomed and gay?

More fabulous gowns on the clergy?
Glory holes in the back of pews?
Ushers with helping hands?
More homo themed children events?

---

Galvin is Methodist, not Presbyterian.