"The debate over homosexuality is expected to dominate the agenda of the conference, which is held every four years and runs through May 7"
should read
"The debate over homosexuality is expected to dominate the media coverage of the conference, which is held every four years and runs through May 7."
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Very true, Dana.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I also think whoever wrote the article you linked to doesn’t have a very good grasp on UMC polity. It doesn’t say what the actual question the court was asked to rule on was.
It wasn’t whether or not “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” That is a direct quote from the Book of Discipline. How that statement is interpreted is able to be questioned, but not whether or not the statement is the position of the UMC. It is. (Although that could change at General Conference, I doubt that it will.) I tried to look up more info, but the official UMC website is overwhelmed right now.
The article also seemed to conflate General Conference and the Judicial Council. They’re both meeting this week, but they’re two separate bodies.
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
It's the blind leading the blind these days. Tolerance of people's crap is just all the rage these days... that is, until one must tolerate intolerance, which is simply not done, and one must agree to be tolerant in order to be tolerated. Homosexuality, according to Christian doctrine, which SHOULD stem from the Bible, is wrong... unless, of course, that church is infected with Tolerance, in which case everything is right except that which is actually right.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Wow.
Polio's either an idiot or I didn't understand him at all.
Ced-sense blaring...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Polio...
Assuming you are serious and you aren't just making some lame joke (a pun on your screenname?)...
The problem with asking others to tolerate your intolerance is that you are obviously not willing to meet them halfway. Or even a inch of the way.
And since different denominations interpret Scripture in different ways (using different methods and coming to different conclusions), your intolerance certainly has plenty of places to express itself without you also needing to claim that your way is THE TRUTH for all of Christianity.
The sooner we realize that Christians of good conscience (the UMC's words) can disagree on this issue, the closer we will come to the core of Christ's teachings. Which, if I'm not horribly mistaken, had a lot more to do with loving each other than they did with condemning specific behaviors or people.
[ May 01, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Dana, can you elaborate on the Judicial Council and the General Conference? What if they don't agree?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It's not a matter of agreeing -- The General Conference is the only body that can speak for the church. They set the legislation. The judicial council interprets it relative to specific cases. (Think congress and supreme court.)
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I'm with Lalo, I didn't understand a word of what Polio said.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Personally, as a Methodist, I agree with the ruling. I don't believe that homosexuality is compatible with church teachings. Of course, I don't think homosexuals should be harmed, just as I don’t think that people who engage in any form of premarital sex should be beat up. We don't live in the crusades, just because someone violates church law does not mean they should be abused...but that does not mean the church is wrong to expect church leaders to follow church law. Living in a way that is counter to church teachings does not mean that your rights as an American are taken away, but it is understandable that you could be removed from leadership from the church.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Sure, but then, I'd love to hear some logical reasons why the remarkably few scriptural rules against homosexuality are so cherished by Protestants when so many others are ignored.
Must I remind you that at this very moment, your church leaders, leaders you know and trust with your children, may be wearing shirts sewn of different fibers?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Lalo, doesn't someone bring this up almost every time there's a homosexuality thread? I thought it was something to do with Old versus New testament (but IANAC)
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Shrug. Okay. New Testament, then. Isn't Dana herself fairly blatantly disobeying Paul's laws that a) women shouldn't speak in church and b) women shouldn't have authority over men? Let alone preaching to them. Yeesh.
I don't lack for inconsistencies in modern-day Christianity. What I lack for are reasons why homophobic scriptural laws are treasured while much of the rest of the Bible is ignored.
Well, okay, I don't lack for reasons for that, either, though I do lack for reasons most Methodists would like to hear.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I've said it before and I'll say it again, sin isn't that big a deal. Saying something clearly spelled out in the Bible as a sin isn't really a sin is a big deal. If a person chooses to be gay, I don't figure that's really any of my business. If they want to parade out in the streets and say "My behavior is just fine, God approves." it's my responsibility to say "You might want to check the book again."
Church leadership are held to a higher standard than laymen becuase they are models of proper behavior. 1 Timothy chapter 3 lays out the rules for picking your leadership. It's a whole big list I'll try to get a link to, but the important bit is verse 2, "The overseer must be above reproach..." link
Again, if you don't believe Paul has any authority to speak on God's behalf, we'll have to agree to disagree.
[edit for link and capitalization]
[ May 01, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: AvidReader ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
In the trial on that specific case (the lesbian minister), the jury ruled in her favor -- basically declining to move forward with any sort of sanction.
At the time, I recall thinking that this must set some sort of precedent. But after talking to Dana and reading up on how the Methodist Church makes decisions, it became very clear that it wouldn't really have a far-reaching impact at all. Basically, the specifics of one case don't change how the voting comes out in General Conference.
Sadly, to me, it seems that General Conference is likely to reinforce the current language rather than admit the validity of committed homosexual relationships. I personally feel that this is a wrong move, but understandable. I think that eventually things will change in America and in some Christian denominations, though certainly not all.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So is there anything that a regular chuch member could do that a minister couldn't?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Different religions focus on different rules as being important. Many Jewish synagogues are very strict on what a person can and cannot eat, while others are not. Those that are Orthodox join synagogues that require strict adherence to the rules, while others join groups that don't care what they eat.
The same is for Christianity; there are some who are very strict when it comes to sexual morality. The Catholic Church does not believe in birth control, even within a marriage. While Baptists believe that you must wait until marriage, once you are married birth control is ok. On the other hand Baptists don't drink, while Catholics do.
All of the Christian religions share a bible, they just focus on different aspects of that bible. Is it hypocritical to say that the parts of the bible that restrict clothing or food are less important than those that restrict sexual morality? I don't think so, even Jesus placed different weights on the ten commandments.
Are you a hypocrite when you go 10 miles over the speed limit, yet insist that murder is wrong even though they are both violations of our criminal justice system? I don't think so; you just place different values on different laws.
If you want to create a new denomination that allows a behavior that is forbidden in the current denominations, then that is fine, but you should not be surprised when the members of the existing denominations want to keep their value systems in tact. I would not expect a Catholic Pope to announce that birth control is a great thing, and that all Catholics should use it both in and out of wedlock, so it should not be surprising that many Methodists don't want their leadership to express values that run counter to what they want the Methodist church to hold.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lalo, I don't think you really have a clue about what "most Methodists" believe. I know I sure didn't when I started studying the denomination.
The fact that I think that the General Conference will go the conservative route this year is based on Dana's knowledge of how the delegates are chosen and that there's no particular groundswell of support.
Isn't it interesting, though, that the people closest to that particular pastor (in the one case that's been getting a lot of attention) overwhelmingly support her? There were some parishioners who were turned off by it. But obviously plenty of others who felt like they could still learn a lot from her. In other words, that group of Methodists feel just fine with a woman pastor who also happens to be a lesbian.
Regarding the references to various uses of Paul's letters: Tell me, who is ABOVE reproach? Not even Paul was above reproach. His words sometimes ring hollow to me.
Here's the example about not letting a woman teach or have authority over a man...
quote:12But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 13For Adam was first formed, then Havah. 14Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; 15but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.
The reason Paul gives for his opinion is that Adam was first formed and that, contrary to Adam, the woman WAS deceived.
Uh huh...
If anything misses the point of the fruit story, this does. Adam ate it too! He was deceived. Where in that story does it say HE WASN'T deceived?
Is Paul wrong? Yes, he was.
But more to the point, he's not claiming much of a scriptural basis for his opinion. He's using the Adam and Eve expulsion from the garden against women as a whole. Ignoring the holiness of Jesus' own mother and probably scores of very holy women who had power in the early church. Or maybe not ignoring them. Maybe they saw through his attitudes and didn't go along with him every time he preached this stuff.
So he had a simmering "issue" with them.
I don't know. But Paul's attitudes about women are fairly dismissable, to me.
UNLESS, you give them equal weight with other scripture.
I do not.
I think he was screwed way too tight and needs to be treated very carefully by a church hoping to mine them for points of doctrine, especially.
Not to say there isn't value there. But I'm actually happy that Paul gives his reasoning for some of his more outrageous statements. Because we can choose to reject or modify his conclusions based on our own logic.
If you have learned from any woman anything of value, then Paul is wrong. If you have ever had a good boss who was also a woman, then Paul is wrong. In fact if ANY man has either learned from a woman or had a good boss who was a woman, Paul is wrong.
And so he is.
Case closed. Paul should stay after class and have an attitude adjustment.
[ May 01, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Lupus, Jesus didn't place different weights on the Ten Commandments, he summed them up.
Matthew 22:34-40
quote: The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Also, there is more weight placed on sexual immorality. 1 Corinthians 5
quote:9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[2]
Again, it's not the sin, it's doing it again when you know it's wrong and encouraging others to do it, too. Jesus forgave the adultrous woman, but He told her to go and sin no more. That's the important bit.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:If you want to create a new denomination that allows a behavior that is forbidden in the current denominations, then that is fine, but you should not be surprised when the members of the existing denominations want to keep their value systems in tact. I would not expect a Catholic Pope to announce that birth control is a great thing, and that all Catholics should use it both in and out of wedlock, so it should not be surprising that many Methodists don't want their leadership to express values that run counter to what they want the Methodist church to hold.
I think we're in agreement here. It doesn't surprise me.
It saddens me.
But it doesn't surprise me.
And given that many Methodists also agree with me, the possibility that the denomination may act to change its own laws in a very democratic process gives me hope for the future. If not at this Generatl Conference then maybe at the next one or the one after that or one after that...the lack of a sound scriptural basis for the attitudes against homosexuality will finally win out over the feelings of antipathy or ambivalence and committed relationships between adults will be recognized for what they are.
And the world will still keep turning.
I don't think Methodists would allow their church to split over something like this.
Certainly the ones advocating change are doing it within the church's laws and procedures.
It is to be hoped that when the change finally comes, those on the opposing side could find it in their hearts to stick with a denomination that has the ability to change in ways they don't particularly always agree with.
I, for one, would ask them to question their own attitudes separated from what they believe to be in scripture. And then to examine scripture more closely. Not just for one-liners, but for context and for the bigger picture -- the overall message of what God wants us to do.
And then decide if opposition to homosexuality is as important as they seem to think it is.
If they truly can't abide it, then they may have a choice to make. But I think most people who think about it would come to the conclusion that what homosexuals do, in or out of church-recognized relationships, doesn't affect their lives one iota and it never will. And it isn't their call to make regarding the nature of other people's sins. And maybe we can move on to more important things for a church to worry about.
But I'm not even a Methodist yet. So don't listen to me.
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
Real simple. Gay people should start their own denomination. Why keep beating your head against a brick wall? Go be gay in your own damn church! Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Bob, as far as your response to me goes, you misread what I wrote. While I was a Methodist for half my life, I don't claim to know what they "believe" -- I presume that they wouldn't like to hear the only reasoning I can come up with as to why they prefer to listen to homophobic aspects of the Bible rather than, say, the misogynistic aspects.
At least, that's been my experience so far. Few people on Hatrack alone have enjoyed being named a bigot for wanting homosexual relationships to be legally ignored and/or relegated to as inferior a sub-class of relationship as possible. I presume that attitude would prevail throughout the vast majority of the Methodist church.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Probably not the vast majority, since the vote has been running about 40 percent for recognizing same-sex marriage and ordaining openly gay clergy.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
My apologies, dude, I wrote unclearly. The vast majority wouldn't enjoy being called bigots -- or so I'd presume. I'm glad to hear the Methodist church isn't as rabidly anti-homosexual as other churches, though those numbers are still fairly depressing.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Are you one of those strange folks who call both genders "dude"? =)
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Yes, and thank you for using the term "strange folks." So many jackasses prefer to call us "Californians" out of their hate, it's nice to meet someone less intolerant of people different from their own brand of humanity.
Yes, that is tailored specifically to a thread about anti-homosexual bigots.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
* blank look *
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Yes, and thank you for using the term "strange folks." So many jackasses prefer to call us "Californians" out of their hate, it's nice to meet someone less intolerant of people different from their own brand of humanity.
Actually, man, (that's what OLDER Californians called everyone before "dude" became popular), I wasn't trying to nitpic your post. Although it sure sounds like it when I re-read what I wrote. Sorry. I was merely surprised at how broad the opinions are in the UMC. They are very open about the internal disagreements too. It's kind of refreshing.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Ugh. Not another one of these threads. Let's all jump on Polio for having other than the accepted opinion, let's throw around the word "bigot" again, it was SO FUN the last time.
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
Entonces, Lalito, te debemos decir "buey" en vez de dude? No?
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
Rata llamada perro, mejor le decimos "buey".
[ May 01, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: m. bowles ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
dude is spanish for doubt, which gives us this amusing translation
quote: Then, Lalito, we must say "ox to you" instead of doubts? No? Called rat dog, better we say "ox to him"
Ahh, Sherlock.
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
Texmex/ spanglish. Buey is a term for a male that is alittle like dude. k?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Whut, no "ox to you"? =)
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh, dude, soy gringo que nada otros, mucho a la verguenza de mi padre (es de Ciudad de Mejico). Hablo casi nada espanol, a excepcion espanol de escuela secondaria.
Pienso que quiere decirme "buey" en vez de dude, o posible perro. Pues, heh, bueno, dude. Es "calf," si? Le necesite Google.
Pero no me esperan hablar espanol bueno -- se los fundamentales, y puedo comunicar con mi cuerpo, pero ese esta sobre todo.
Mi padre pobresito...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Man, it took me ten minutes to write that out?
I'm sticking to English. All the better for laying the smackdown on Geoff, who seems to consider Polio's call against (quite literally) tolerance "other than the accepted opinion."
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
FYI, buey means ox but metaphorically dude. Thats all. But to expect the church to accept gays is a bit far fetched. I mean uh isn't it like a sin or something dude?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
So are women preachers, dude. So is wearing clothes sewn of different fibers, sowing fields with different seeds, or not executing your firstborn son when he talks back to you. There's a particularly amusing letter to the self-proclaimed doctor Laura about this...
Ah.
quote:Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10 [note that this should be Lev. 11:10]), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 20:20 [note that this should be Lev. 21:20] states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Or perhaps you'd prefer reading the famous X-rated Bible? It's not as good, insofar as it addresses far fewer actual problems with the Bible than it addresses what can be interpreted as dirty, but it has some whoppers.
quote:SEX AND OBSCENITY IN THE BIBLE
GENESIS 17:9-14 Circumcision mandated 19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels 19:30-38 Righteous man impregnates his 2 daughters while drunk 24:2-3, 9 Place your hand "under the thigh" (sexual organs) of someone swearing sacred oaths 25:1-6 Keeping mistresses is not adultery 32:25 God grabs Jacob's testicles 34:1-31 Brothers are riled when sister is defiled 35:2 Reuben sleeps with father's concubine 38:1-10 Onan's method of birth control not approved 38:12-30 Tamar plays the harlot to seduce father-in-law 39:1-20 Women tries to rape man 47:29 Joseph ordered to place his hand under father's thigh
EXODUS 20:26 God specifies building of altar to prevent exposure of nakedness 22:19 Death decreed for bestiality 33:17-23 God moons Moses
NUMBERS 31:1-18; 28-47 God commands genocide of Midianites, Moses orders that virgins be kept, other captives slain 5:11-31 God's fidelity test for women only
LEVITICUS 12:1-8 Bible calls childbirth a sin and bearing females a greater sin than bearing males 15:16-18 Sperm and intercourse are unclean 15:19-33 Menstruation unclean; elaborate rules 15:29-30 Women must make sin offering for menstrual periods 18:22 Homosexuality declared an abomination 18:23 More bestiality 19:1,20-22 Man gets forgiven, slave girl gets flogging 20:10 Adulterers shall be put to death 20:13 Death decreed for homosexuals 20:15-16 Death decreed for bestiality (& beast) 26:29 Curse: Eat your sons and daughters
DEUTERONOMY 3:1-7 Kill men, women, & children 21:10-14 God okays captured maidens as trial wives 22:5 Men's clothing not to be worn by women, & vice versa 22:13-21 A bride not a virgin must die 22:23-26 Virgin raped in city given no pity 23:12-14 Defecation: Carry paddle, dig hole, & cover up 25:5-10 Woman has cause to spit in man's face 25:11-12 A woman shall have her hand cut off for touching a penis 22:28-29 Paying father to have sex with daughter 23:1 Man "wounded in the stones" can't enter congregation 23:2 Children born out of wedlock condemned as bastards to 10th generation 23:10-11 Cleanliness called for in nocturnal emissions 24:1 Man can divorce wife through eviction 28:27 Hemorrhoids ("emerods") punishment for sin 28:30 Lord's curse: Another man shall lie with groom's bride first 28:53-57 Curse: Eat your own body & children
JUDGES 3:20-22 Dagger in fat king's gut gets "dirt" out 4:4-22 Hammer & nail murder by woman 8:30 Gideon had many wives, concubines 11:29-40 Jephtha's daughter: human sacrifice 19:1-30 Woman raped and ruined by homosexuals 21:6-25 Amidst carnage virgins captured for wives
RUTH 3:6-9 To "hook" him as husband, Ruth sleeps with Boaz 4:9-10 Boaz buys Ruth
I SAMUEL 5:9-12 Philistines "smitten with emerods" as punishment for stealing ark 6:1-5 To placate God, make golden emerods 15:3 God orders Saul to kill suckling babes 18:23-27 200 foreskins gain David a king's daughter 25:22,34 Any that pisseth against the wall
II SAMUEL 3:7 More concubine hanky-panky 11:1-27 Uriah sent to lose his life so David can get his wife 12:7-12 Obscene performance to be viewed by all Israel 5:13 David had many wives, concubines Chapter 13 Amnon rapes his sister 16:20-23 Absalom copulates with father's concubines on rooftop 20:3 David imprisons concubines for above
I KINGS 1:1-4 Virgin as therapy for sick old man unsuccessful 11:1-10 Wise Solomon has wives and concubines galore 14:10 Him that pisseth against the wall 16:11 One that pisseth against a wall 21:21 Him that pisseth against the wall
II KINGS 6:24-33 "So we boiled my son, and did eat him" 9:8 Subject not mentioned in sermons 23:7 Male houses of prostitution destroyed
I CHRONICLES 1:32-33 Abraham's concubines have children
II CHRONICLES 11:21 King Rehoboam had 18 wives & 60 concubines
ESTHER Chapters 1-2 Sexual contest to decide new queen
SONG OF SOLOMON (the whole thing!)
ISAIAH 3:16 "...and the Lord will discover their secret parts" 9:20 Every man shall eat the flesh of his own arm 14:21-22 Slaughter children for fathers' iniquity 16:11 Biblical boast: "My bowels shall sound like an harp" 36:12 Eating dung and drinking piss
JEREMIAH 16:4 Grievous, obscene deaths
LAMENTATIONS 2:19 Something to lament 4:10 Women boil children for food
EZEKIEL 4:12-15 God says: Eat bread defiled with dung 5:8-10 What's for dinner? 8:2 Lord's loins make guest appearance 16:15 Fornications pour out 16:36-37 Their "filthiness poured out..." 23:1-40 Sex organs and ejaculate of harlots' lovers compared to asses & horses 29:7-8 God performs bloody castration via a sword
HOSEA 1:2-11 God tells Hosea to take whore to wife 2:1-15 Complications ensue (lewdly described)
NAHUM 3:4-6 Lord: "I will discover thy skirts upon thy face"
MALACHI 2:1-4 An angry god will spread feces on your faces
MATTHEW 5:27-30 A man may lust but it's not considered just 5:31-32 Man can divorce wife for fornication only 19:3-9 Man who divorces and remarries is adulterer 19:12 Castrate yourself for Jesus 22:24 Law of Onan (you have to marry your dead brother's wife)
LUKE 2:21 Eight day old Jesus is circumcised
ACTS 5:38 Eunuch baptized 15:24 Circumcision is not commandment 16:3 Paul circumcises adult
ROMANS 1:26-32 Gay men and lesbians "worthy of death"
I CORINTHIANS 6:18-20 Abstain from sex 7:1-40 To be more holy, refrain from sex wholly 7:18-19 If you're not circumcised, stay that way
GALATIANS 5:1-4 Paul speaks against circumcision
REVELATION 17:1-6 A whore is stripped, eaten and burned
The Bible isn't the most consistent document in the world. There are few people more worthy of contempt than those who try to pass off their bigotry -- against homosexuals or otherwise -- without a shred of reason beyond dim and hypocritical quoting of any given religious text. If a person's against homosexuality, fine, but at least be able to provide some tattered form or logical reasoning to justify your stance. If one can't, the stance -- as any hateful, discriminatory stance without supporting logic, evidence, or reasoning would be -- is necessarily bigoted.
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
wow, you got a big chip on your shoulder, huh?
Hell, I'm not even a christian. But if they say their god tells them being gay's a sin, who are you to start quoting their bible back to them to disprove them? Shit, you're not gonna get much respect from them like that. I mean, they'll just blow your ass off, buey.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
If you don't think quoting the Bible to show how homophobic declarations of divine mandate for persecution of homosexuals is the right step to take when dealing with people who cloak their anti-homosexuality in their religion, what would you recommend to show them their reasoning and conclusions are utterly incorrect?
And yeah, I have a huge chip on my shoulder. I grew up next door to some of the best people I know, Harry and Farley, who've been a loving, committed couple longer than I've been alive. I despise anyone who tells me these people, or the love between them, is inferior or more wrong than love between heterosexuals -- I can't imagine how self-blinded one must be to actually believe that.
It's not that I think people with anti-homosexual prejudices are bad people -- hell, my white granny's still convinced those "colored people" are trying to take over the government (she's never quite forgiven my mother for marrying and breeding with a Mexican, though her distrust is aimed primarily at black people). She's the sweetest old lady you'll ever meet, and I love her, but I have huge problems with her views. Such is it with anti-homosexuals. I feel sorry for them more than I actively dislike them.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Speaking as a Methodist, I think my church is wrong about this one. However, I also don't think the church is or should be a democracy. They can decide what they wish, and I will decide whether I agree with it.
Truthfully, I don't think it's a big deal. I don't think I've ever seen the governing body of the church take a stance on a political issue that in any way impacted how things were actually run. The preacher does not get up and speak against homosexuality any more than he or she might get up and speak out about John Kerry - which is never. Church is about more generally applicable things, such as love, forgiveness, or one's relationship with God.
[ May 01, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Okay, I found more information about the Judicial Council case. The question they were asked to decide was not whether or not “homosexuality is incompatible with church teaching,” which, as I stated earlier, is not something within their purview, but whether or not it is a chargeable offense for clergy, even though it’s not explicitly mentioned in the list of chargeable offenses. They ruled that it is.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But Tres, your church (UMC) truly is a democracy. It's a representative form of democracy.
For those who don't know, in the UMC it works like this:
Every 4 years, the General Conference decides on changes to church laws (considered binding) and social positions (non-binding).
The delegates to the Conference are elected in the Annual conferences held at the regional/state level. 1/2 of the delegates are lay people, the other half are clergy. Everyone gets one vote.
It's an amazing system. During the Conference, they break up into committees to decide whether to recommend for or against various petitions. The petitions are submitted in advance by members of the church. Any member can submit a petition and it will get a hearing in committee and a vote by the General Conference.
Some are so lacking in controversy that they are put into a block for yes/no voting as a group. But the more sensitive issues are discussed and voted upon individually.
At the end of it, the UMC communications group publishes a new book of laws and that's in place for 4 years (until the next General Conference).
It's probably the coolest way of making decisions I've ever seen in any religion or denomination.
The fact that it is slightly on the conservative side shouldn't surprise anyone. It's still a better system than other's I've seen. And it means that the people who ARE the church get to decide what the church stands for.
I'm sure there are downsides, but it still seems to me like a very practical solution to a major problem for any religious community -- how to change in appropriate ways over time.
This process, the Social Principals, and the Wesleyen Quadrilateral are the three things about the UMC that I've learned about them that I admire most. Well...there IS dkw, of course... But she's not shared by ALL Methodists. Just a few. Wait, that didn't come out quite right. What I meant to say was that...
Oh never mind.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, and Rat, I have to say that I think my response to Polio was fairly reasonable and even-toned, especially given his/her statements.
I wasn't the only one concerned that perhaps he/she was joking (as you can tell). I don't think anyone dogpiled. I think we all pretty much posted simultaneously and were reacting to a very snarky post in the first place.
Having said that, I don't think Polio's opinion comes anywhere close to the opposing viewpoint you have expressed in similar threads in the past. Do you think Polio is voicing your position here?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think I need to write to UMCom and congratulate them on their online courses.
But then, Bob may be a more motivated student than most. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(Bob, it's "Dog", not Rat) I thought Dabbler was also from California.
Bob, I share your concern about Polio. We've seen several posters who seem to espouse conservative views but skew to the absurd from time to time. I committed in another thread not to name names.
I've actually posted the "intolerant of intolerance" argument before, but I was more concerned with folks who dislike Mormons generally based on their tendency to be intolerant, and not this specific issue. Though I will say I'm intolerant of homosexuals intolerance of the opposite sex.
At the LDS General Conference (which is nothing like the UMC), they didn't actually decry homosexuality. Though there was a talk about how we should value the role of men in the family more.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Though I will say I'm intolerant of homosexuals intolerance of the opposite sex.
What the heck does this mean?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think there is a difference between being homophobic and intolerant, and not thinking that they should hold church leadership positions. Am I a sexophobe because I also believe that people who publicly support premarital sex should be barred from church leadership? I don't think so, I have had many friends who believe in premarital sex, and lots of it. I don't "fear" them, or act in a bigotted way towards them, yet I don't think they would be a good fit for Methodist leadership. I ran a website with a homosexual for many years, we were good friends, but again I don't think he would be a good match for leadership in the Methodist church (and he would agree with me). I feel the same way about people who are pro-abortion, people are athiest, and a whole list of other things that are legal in this country, but don't fit what I see as someone who I would want to lead my church.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Xav, I'm talking about people who say that because someone belongs to such and such a group. "I could never be attracted to them sexually". I can understand same-sex attraction. But I don't feel society should support opposite-sex revulsion.
I've thought about the Paul thing, and much of the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. For instance, the Old Testament mentions prophetesses and women serving as judges in Israel. But on homosexuality the Old Testament and the New Testament agree as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Uh. Heh, Pooka, I wouldn't be offended because homosexuals aren't attracted to you -- by the very nature of being homosexual, homosexual men aren't about to have fantasies about you or any other woman.
No more than I, a straight man, would have fantasies about KarlEd or Caleb or Frisco. I don't mean to offend them by saying that -- it's just who I'm attracted to.
To be honest, I'm kind of bewildered by your offense.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As far as homosexuality in the Bible goes, yes, two blurbs from Paul agree with the wacky book of Leviticus that homosexuality's wrong. Does this mean you also support Paul's incredible misogynism, given that it's also reflected in the Old Testament?
Is that your criterion for divine mandate, pooka? If the Old and New Testaments don't contradict each other, it must be true?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
?
Why is it so hard to believe there are homosexual people who would not be attracted to people of the opposite sex, just as there are hetereosexual people who are not attracted to people of the same sex?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Lupus, you seem to be missing the point. What makes pre-marital sex and abortion legitimate moral problems is that at least abortion has a reasonable case for immorality. What immorality can you find in a homosexual couple that isn't inherent in any given couple, be it heterosexual or homosexual?
Until you can provide a rational reason for the immorality of homosexuality, I don't think you have a leg on when you declare you wouldn't want a homosexual to be an official in your church.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Lalo: I think I demonstrated that the blanket oppression of women based on Eve's sin is not in the Old Testament. Should we only uphold truths that are in both? I don't know. I haven't studied it that closely. But I don't think the seclusion of menstruating women is in the New Testament. Is there stuff in the Bible that you do think is right?
I've always said that I don't think homosexuality is worse than sins I myself am guilty of. But I'm not lobbying any religious organizations to change their standards so I don't have to feel uncomfortable there. I just accept that I'm not perfect.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But Tres, your church (UMC) truly is a democracy. It's a representative form of democracy.
It's a democracy among church officials perhaps, but the average member like myself doesn't really have a vote.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think the point that Lupus was trying to make was that being qualified for leadership position in a church doesn't have to have any correlation with being qualified for other positions or agreeing with popular social opinion.
If the Methodist church votes that wearing knee socks is against their doctrine, then they have every right to forbid their ministers from wearing knee socks. Sure, you may think them bigoted, but the premise of our first amendment was to let people, no matter how crazy or out of fashion, worship however they like.
Frankly, I as a non-Methodist have no right to say what the Methodist church should or should not do. As an outsider, my opinion is presumptuous and irrelevant.
I can think whatever I like about their doctrine, and if I disagree with it I can refuse to support it and choose not to be a part of their congregations, but if they're a self-governing body, then the opinion of their majority - however antiquated you might think it - is the authority in their decision making.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Xav, I'm talking about people who say that because someone belongs to such and such a group. "I could never be attracted to them sexually". I can understand same-sex attraction. But I don't feel society should support opposite-sex revulsion.
I'm quite confused about this, and am honestly shell-shocked.
I am not attracted to men. Sexually, it would be fair to say I am revolted by them. By this I mean that in a sexual situation, interaction with a man would make me lose all arousal and stop all activity.
Am I intolerant of men?
No way.
*checks*
Yeah in fact, I still AM a man. I am not being intolerant of them. I like men. Most homosexuals like women. Sexual disinterest is not intolerance.
We just don't want to sleep with them.
Now if I remember correctly, you have professed to be a bisexual who chose to be only with men. Thats great. There are TONS of people like that.
We are not all built that way though.
Again, your stance boggles my mind Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:It's a democracy among church officials perhaps, but the average member like myself doesn't really have a vote.
Tres, from everything I know, that is simply not true of the UMC. I'm not trying to invalidate your experience of your own church, but just point to what I've learned about it from their own website, two online courses, from Dana, and from her friends.
Basically, as I understand it, any member of the UMC for more than two years is eligible to be elected as a delegate to the General Conference. I think there's a similar longevity requirement to be part of the Annual Conference in your local area.
I imagine, certainly, that people who are involved in their parish are more likely to be nominated to serve in the Annual Conference, and those attendees are more likely to be elected to serve at the General Conference.
But the fact is that at the General Conference, Church Officials (the bishops) don't have a vote. It's the 50% lay representatives and the 50% clergy representatives who vote on all the petitions.
I gather there's a part that is set aside for "church officials" to vote on -- things affecting just the clergy. But vast majority of petitions (those affecting either the Book of Discipline or the Social Principals) are voted on by the whole assembly.
And everyone in attendance serves on a committee too, so they get to recommend for or against petitions that go to the floor (or have them placed on the general consent agenda for a block vote).
Seriously, I haven't found another religion or denomination that's even close to that level of democratization.
Sure, it's not one person/one vote. But it is, in fact, a representative form of democracy in which you can get your point heard.
Another interesting aspect is that any UMC member can send in a petition and is guaranteed that it will get a hearing. I think that's amazing. From a religious standpoint, it means that every member can get the entire governing body to hear their plea and it is guaranteed to be voted upon, not stuck in committee somewhere or simply ignored.
I think it's a wonderful way to do things. It recognizes that no one person has all the answers or has a monopoly on hearing God's will. It means that questions from the polity are just as valid as those from the recognized leaders.
Now, I do suspect that the average member is not very involved in the church and would feel like a 2 week commitment (attendance at the General Conference) would be a hardship. So their vote is really only in being able to have a say in who represents them at the meeting. And if they don't even attend church, they're probably not going to have the opportunity to do that either.
But I am impressed at how the involved members of a congregation can affect what goes on in the entire denomination.
I plan to send in a petition or two as soon as I join.
Something like "Change all references to "God" to read "<insert name here>"
Oh yeah, and downgrade Paul from "apostle/Scripture author" to "newbie troll we shouldn't feed."
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
bob,
quote: Something like "Change all references to "God" to read "<insert name here>"
I'd like to nominate "Carl" for the <insert name here>.
fallow
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I refuse to get involved in this train wreck, but I had to thank pooka for doing my name-correction for me Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dog gone?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since Lalo seems to be active again, I'm going to repost my response to his response to my question, “Does believing that homosexual actions are wrong/sinful/immoral/whatever make the person holding that belief a bigot?” This post has not been responded yet to date. I believe his original post is fully quoted, but haven't confirmed. (I added in the definition of bigotry, since I didn’t quote it in my original response.)
quote:Lalo said: I'll dedicate this post to Dagonee and his contention that anti-homosexuals are not, in fact, bigots, since so many of them wrap their homophobia (or anti-homosexuality, if that's a preferable term) in the mantle of religion.
First, I didn’t contend anything. I do happen to contend that mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful does not make one a bigot.
I did ask a question which you still haven’t answered. For the record, that was “Does believing that homosexual actions are wrong/sinful/immoral/whatever make the person holding that belief a bigot?” Not, “Does believing that homosexual actions are sinful plus hating homosexuals or believing God hates homosexuals make the person...” I know you equate the one with the other; most of this post will be dedicated to refuting that.
quote:Lalo said: …I’ll dedicate this post to Dagonee and his contention that anti-homosexuals are not, in fact, bigots, since so many of them wrap their homophobia (or anti-homosexuality, if that's a preferable term) in the mantle of religion.
First, let's start out with the essential definition of a bigot. Rather ironically, the term stems from "by God."
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- big•ot n. 1. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
While these definitions essentially make the case for me
Actually, neither one does. The first clearly doesn’t apply to me, since I support equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals. I also oppose laws making consensual homosexual actions illegal. I oppose discriminating against them in housing or secular employment. So I serve as a counterexample to the contention that all those who believe homosexual actions are sinful are “intolerant of those who differ.”
On the second definition, I don’t view my own faith as unquestionably right nor those opposing my faith and beliefs as unreasonable or wicked. My faith in my beliefs is great enough that I try to pattern my life after it and behave as if it were true. But no one who lives by a moral philosophy does any less.
Of course, if we assume you think bigotry is wicked (or, to use your term, despicable), then this definition could apply to you quite well. After all, that would mean you think any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from your belief on the rightness of homosexual actions is wicked. I’m not willing to go this far yet, because I hold high hopes for you acknowledging that a large group of people’s motivations and beliefs aren’t as simple as you seem to think them to be.
quote:Lalo said: I'll elaborate further. Bigots are often characterized by their pre-determination of another group, be that group recognized by its socio-economic class, race, sex, or sexuality. Determining that all blacks are criminals, for example, is an obviously bigoted statement -- clearly, not all black people are criminals, and the person declaring thus lacks the experience and/or tolerance to back up his/her unreasonable beliefs. Or so I'd assume; if there are reasons to believe all black people are criminals, I'm open to hearing them, though my personal experience alone disproves the claim's sweeping generalizations.
I hope we can all agree, at least, that making such a pre-determination of any group, be it racial or sexual, is a bigoted act. Is it any less bigoted if you wrap that bigotry in religious context? If I were to claim I believe God believes all blacks are criminals, am I any less a bigot?
We agree up to this point.
quote:Lalo said: Now, let's switch the focus of this bigotry from black people to homosexual people. If I believe all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong, am I a bigot?
I actually don’t know anyone who believes this. I do know there are people who do, but that’s not the generally accepted teaching on homosexuality in my Church. And I would say that anyone who thinks “all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong” is a bigot. (Caveat: I think all people are sinful in some respect. I’m taking your meaning to be “all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong as a result of the fact that they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex.)
quote:Lalo said: If I put that in religious terms, and declare that my God hates fags (or any euphemism thereof), am I a bigot?
Yes, you are. Claiming God hates any group is bigotry.
quote:Lalo said: Or if I utilize a common cop-out and declare that God doesn't hate fags, only faggoty actions -- that is, homosexuals who dare love someone they're attracted to -- am I any less a bigot?
Here’s where we part company on the issue. Your statement here shows a gross misunderstanding of the Christian faith and it’s teachings. First, and most importantly, Christians believe that God hates no one. Second, everyone commits actions that God hates. To be really bald about it, while believing all blacks are criminals would be bigoted, believing that all blacks commit sins is not bigoted if the person holding that belief thinks that all people commit sins regardless of race.
quote:Lalo said: It's rather important to note that since the only distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual is homosexual attraction, declaring that God hates homosexual (faggoty) actions is the equivalent of declaring that God hates homosexuals (fags).
No, it isn’t. Christians believe that everyone is tempted to commit actions that God hates. Are you saying that Christians believe that God hates everyone? Further, Christians believe that everyone is vulnerable to different temptations.
Christians also believe that many sinful actions have the effect of actually preventing fully experiencing the pleasure which is the aim of the temptation’s underlying, proper desire. For example, humans seem to have an innate desire to take chances. Properly channeled, this can lead to scientific discovery, acts of courage, and a greater appreciation for life. Improperly channeled, this can lead to excessive gambling which can cause a person to neglect duties of familial care and charity to others as well as lead to personal ruin.
quote:Lalo said: Claims that homosexuals can avoid a life of sin by never acting on their attraction to the same sex are little more than an attempt to stamp out homosexuals by suppressing homosexuality (or vice versa, if it’s preferable -- both amount to the same bigoted pre-judgment).
Christians, in there better moments, would also like to see an end to premarital sex, greed, abortion, lust, and many other sins, even as they commit them themselves. It’s not an attempt to stamp out homosexuality; it’s an attempt to encourage people to live a life more in accord with what God intends. Christians believe such a life is potentially happier here on Earth and far better for the ultimate fate of the immortal soul. As such, it is an act of love to help someone choose that life. Emphasis is on “help” and “choose.”
quote:Lalo said: By pressuring the homosexual into a life of non-offensive celibacy or false heterosexuality -- by removing the homosexual person from his/her love life, even if it means condemning that person to a life of loneliness and/or misery…
Christians are called to make sacrifices. This would be a much greater sacrifice than most Christians ever make, but not greater than the sacrifices most Christians (myself included) should make. One of the reasons I hold the stances I do on the law and homosexuality is because I believe that coercion should not be related to a sacrifice.
quote:Lalo said: (especially if the homosexual person suppresses his/her sexual needs to the point of marriage to a heterosexual of the opposite gender, which extends and amplifies that loneliness and misery to the target’s spouse and possible children).
We probably disagree as to whether this is the inevitable result of such actions. I would say that a marriage “which extends and amplifies that loneliness and misery to the target’s spouse and possible children” is not the most Christian of acts. But I also am not qualified to say if the net misery and loneliness caused by such an arrangement is better or worse than possible alternatives. (Consider that the children would not even exist as a starting point.)
quote:Lalo said: By stamping out homosexuals’ homosexuality, the homophobe (or anti-homosexual, if it’s a preferable term) can effectively stop hating the target, since the target’s no longer an active or proud homosexual person. Is this not bigotry? Is this active persecution of homosexuals and their loves not active bigotry?
Active persecution would be bigotry. We’re talking about mere belief that homosexual actions are wrong here. I am not denying that people who hold that belief often use it justify a further, bigoted, belief that “homosexuals are evil” and use that belief to justify persecution of homosexuality. But the problem is with the second step, not the first.
quote:Lalo said: To reiterate what I’ve said above, by condemning homosexuals and/or homosexuality (which amount to the same identity) without knowing them, their lives, their partners/spouses, or even their identities, am I a bigot?
Now you’ve left homosexual actions out of your identity. It is not a Christian’s place to condemn anyone. But believing an action is sinful and stating that belief in an appropriate place is not condemnation.
quote:Lalo said: If I actively persecute the breeding of black people as I do homosexuals, am I more of a bigot since it’s clearly wrong to judge all black people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of black ancestry – but clearly not wrong to judge all homosexual people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of loving people whose genetalia don’t meet an arbitrary standard?
Actively persecuting the breeding of black and homosexuals is bigotry of an equal degree. In fact, I anticipate with horror the day when a genetic marker for homosexuality (or deafness or blondeness or athletic ability or any other criteria) is identified and people start pre-testing unborn children for that marker as a criteria for abortion. It will be interesting to see how societal forces realign themselves at that point.
Further, the belief that homosexual actions are wrong is not a judgment that homosexual people are unworthy. It is a judgment that sexual consummation of certain loves is sinful. But believing that an action is sinful is not uniquely aimed at homosexuals or even at sexual actions.
quote:Lalo said: It’s stunning how few homophobes/anti-homosexuals are willing to acknowledge that their stances are, in fact, bigoted.
Well, assuming you mean by homophobe people who “believe homosexual actions are sinful,” it’s not stunning to me because they’re not all bigoted.
quote:Lalo said: If actively condemning/persecuting a huge number of the population without ever knowing who they are or what they’ve done to merit unworthiness of equality isn’t bigotry, what is?
This is where you’ve projected far beyond my original question. I would agree that people on an anti-homosexual campaign “actively condemning or persecuting a huge number of the population” are bigots. But that’s different from holding the belief that certain sexual actions are sinful, that among those are homosexual actions, and only speaking about it in an appropriate place and manner. Collapsing diverse sets of people into a single group is at the heart of bigotry, Lalo, and you seem dangerously close to it here. Not all Christians who hold the belief at issue here are actively doing anything about homosexuality.
quote:Lalo said: Ever since the civil rights movement for racial minorities went through, the term “bigot” has been (rightly) stigmatized. Association with the label -- even if one agrees with all the requisite definitions of the term -- has negative connotations, which is no doubt the principal reason behind the anxiety of the homophobic/anti-homosexual crowd to avoid such a label. After all, if anti-black people are despicable for their bigotry, why doesn’t that principle extend to the anti-homosexual crowd? It does. Which is, I believe, why so many people are anxious to emphasize their homophobia’s role as a religious tenet rather than an opinion that requires logical justification -- justification which, I might add, nobody here (or anywhere, to my knowledge) has ever been able to provide.
I have never rested my claims that this belief is not bigotry on the grounds that it is a religious tenet. I have rested my claims on the fact that there truly is a difference between believe homosexual actions are sinful and hating/condemning/persecuting homosexuals.
quote:Lalo said: To end this first segment -- yes, Dagonee, bigotry applies to all intolerance of different groups (be they racial or religious or sexual) inspired by no other reason but hatred of their differences.
And yet, you haven’t even attempted to demonstrate that people who think homosexuals actions are sinful are inspired to do so by no other reason but hatred of their differences. And in many threads, people have given reasons why this might not be so. I haven’t seen you respond to any of those posts (although I could have missed one) in a way that demonstrates you understand the claims being made.
quote:Lalo said: Intolerance wrapped in religion is still intolerance -- bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry, with all the negative connotations that go with the term.
Agreed.
quote:Lalo said: The sooner anti-homosexuals are honest about the requisite prejudice for holding such a position, the sooner this argument will reach a conclusion.
Which argument? That homosexual actions are sinful? Or the gay marriage debate? The first will never be settled to your satisfaction. The second, God willing, will be settled in our lifetimes when more Christians start realizing there is no reason to vilify homosexual actions any more than there is reason to vilify other sinful actions. There are many actions which are legal yet sinful. The immorality of an action should be a necessary condition for its criminalization. It is not sufficient. One reason I favor allowing equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals is that the behavior of such a couple is in greater conformance to the ideals of Christian sexuality than a lot of heterosexual actions are. We might be seeking perfection, but that shouldn’t mean we ignore positive steps.
quote:Lalo said: The longer that the anti-homosexual camp continues to insist that its pre-determination of guilt for people it’s never met has nothing to do with bigotry, the longer will people suffer and will Christianity’s reputation be tarnished.
And the longer the “pro-homosexual camp” continues to insist that the belief that homosexual actions is a “pre-determination of guilt” the longer will the debate be dominated by name-calling and not rational discourse.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tres, from everything I know, that is simply not true of the UMC. I'm not trying to invalidate your experience of your own church, but just point to what I've learned about it from their own website, two online courses, from Dana, and from her friends.
Basically, as I understand it, any member of the UMC for more than two years is eligible to be elected as a delegate to the General Conference. I think there's a similar longevity requirement to be part of the Annual Conference in your local area.
Yes but the people "electing" those delegates to the General Conference are just other officials in the local churches. There is no point where regular members of the church all get together and vote on who is going to represent them, and there is certainly no discussion of whether or not so-and-so represents the actual political views of the congregation or anything like that. Regular, average church-goers don't vote on anything. For all practical purposes, it's only a democracy among the elite.
quote:But the fact is that at the General Conference, Church Officials (the bishops) don't have a vote. It's the 50% lay representatives and the 50% clergy representatives who vote on all the petitions.
The lay representatives and clergy representatives ARE church officials. They are people who are running and operating churches at the local level, for the most part.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*Wanders into the thread and BUMPs his foot on a partially obscured rock*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The lay representatives and clergy representatives ARE church officials. They are people who are running and operating churches at the local level, for the most part.
So...the people most involved in the day-to-day operation of the church have more say than the folks who don't get involved?
Hmm...I guess I'm not too bothered by that.
But I do see your point. It's not a true democracy.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, I'm not bothered by it either. But that's why I say I don't expect or demand that my church agree with me on these sorts of things.
[ May 02, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: The lay representatives and clergy representatives ARE church officials. They are people who are running and operating churches at the local level, for the most part. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So...the people most involved in the day-to-day operation of the church have more say than the folks who don't get involved?
Um, those people running and operating churches at the local level? How did they get there? I don't think anyone hired them.
I admit that the church I currently attend is not Methodist, and should perhaps wait for dkw to comment. But as I recall, anyone could get involved in church leadership who wanted to. You volunteer to be on committees or task forces, and there are term limits as to how long you can be in any particular leadership position, although that may vary with congregation. Within that structure of volunteers, there is a vote on leaders. So if you want to express an opinion on who represents you at Annual Conference, I bet you can. It probably wouldn't even be very difficult.
Speaking as someone who's very involved in her current church, I don't consider myself as part of an elite. It is not a privilege, it is a responsibility. My church is on the edge of survival, and I want to see it succeed. I want it enough to give my time and a whole lot of my energy to try to help. Yes, that means that I get to participate in some decision-making that people who just show up on Sundays don't. But believe me, I would be thrilled if more people wanted to get involved and help make those decisions. I'm ready to step down... I'm just afraid no one will step up to take my place. So I am gradually finding replacements for all my roles, because I will not just abandon them. That's part of being in community... and most communities will let you participate to whatever level you feel comfortable.
Edit 'cause I type too slow... then if you don't expect or demand that your church agrees with you, I guess it makes sense not to exercise your ability to vote.
[ May 02, 2004, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I am so done with this thread. And I didn't even post.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
ElJay put it much nicer than I would have. The people who care enough to want to have a say have one. The people who make decisions at the local level are the people doing the work. And by that I mean volunteers. The clergy and paid staff have voice but no vote on the church council. And when a church conference is called every member of the church has a vote.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
More specifically – the delegates to Annual Conference are normally elected by the Charge Conference, which consists basically of the church council and a few others. But at the discretion of the pastor or District Superintendent, or by request of 10% of the church membership, that conference may be expanded to a Church Conference at which every member has a vote. The same goes for the election of church officers, the recommending of candidates for ordained ministry or certified lay ministry, and setting the church budget. If any member of a United Methodist church wants a vote on any of those things, (or anything else, really) all they have to do is get 10% of the members to agree to call a Church Conference, and everyone gets a vote.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
And how is the church council selected? Just so we're clear here.
Also: I was nicer than you? Must be a first.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Voted on at Charge Conference (which may become a full Church Conference, at the discretion of the pastor, the DS, or by request of 10% of the church membership).
Btw, I didn't say you were nicer than me. I said your post was nicer than all the replies I didn't post.
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
"The problem with asking others to tolerate your intolerance is that you are obviously not willing to meet them halfway. Or even a inch of the way.
And since different denominations interpret Scripture in different ways (using different methods and coming to different conclusions), your intolerance certainly has plenty of places to express itself without you also needing to claim that your way is THE TRUTH for all of Christianity.
The sooner we realize that Christians of good conscience (the UMC's words) can disagree on this issue, the closer we will come to the core of Christ's teachings. Which, if I'm not horribly mistaken, had a lot more to do with loving each other than they did with condemning specific behaviors or people."
Bob, I am definitely not asking people to tolerate my intolerance. I was simply pointing out the irony in the fact that so-called "tolerant", "liberal" people will only tolerate something insofar as they agree with it. Much like myself. I was not trying to stress that THE TRUTH was MY WAY, although I do believe that there is absolute truth and an absolute right way, and of course I believe that my beliefs are the truth. However, I acknowledge that everyone else on this planet believes to some degree that their way is the right way, and contrary to your opinion, I do not hate everyone for not agreeing with me. I am also not condemning anyone, although I can see how it would have come off that way; I have gay friends and despite the fact that I do believe that homosexuality does not line up with Biblical commands, I love them. It is not the people I do not tolerate; it is the sin. Or "sin", if that makes you all feel more comfortable. I do not spray paint their cars with "SINNER!" or smash their bedroom windows with rocks and a sign attached that says, "You're evil. Jesus loves you!" It is a MUTUAL friendship, as friendships usually are, and although I possess relatively strong opinions I do not feel the need to shove them in everyone's faces 24/7. I also agree that the Church as a whole is completely lacking any semblance of unity, and that is a problem. We should be encouraging and loving and accepting each other rather than scrutinizing each other's doctrines, and I KNOW that, trust me. Each denomination's doctrine will invariably be slanted by humans' less-than-perfect analysis of the Bible, and it shouldn't hinder us, and I didn't mean to give the impression of an ignorant conventionalist. And as an aside... I do not intentionally make puns. Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Yo creo que las palabras, "bigot" y "homophobe" son bastante malusados aquí.
Please stick to actual arguments instead of rhetoric. One of the comments made on this thread rather scared me-
quote: At least, that's been my experience so far. Few people on Hatrack alone have enjoyed being named a bigot for wanting homosexual relationships to be legally ignored and/or relegated to as inferior a sub-class of relationship as possible.
Yes, let's wage a war by name-calling instead of logic, shall we?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm a true homophobe- my disapproval of gays is rooted in my fear that I am secretly like them.
But I maintain that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Paul didn't call for the stoning of homosexuals. Just that they shouldn't be in Christian congregations. As for contradictions between Old and New Testament, there seem to be contradictions between various books ascribed to Paul. I think that is because he was tailoring advice to different situations. I'm sure one could look at his praise of women church members as secretly proving his misogyny. Where everything can be read to mean it's opposite, I might as well read it to mean what I think and not what others think.
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
In regards to the Old and New Testament conflict, you have to remember that Jesus instated the whole "Love, not smite, thy neighbour" ideology. He was the "new covenant" and introduced a new way for his followers to live.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm a true homophobe- my disapproval of gays is rooted in my fear that I am secretly like them."
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Must be a first.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)