"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."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Dana, can you elaborate on the Judicial Council and the General Conference? What if they don't agree?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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! Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably not the vast majority, since the vote has been running about 40 percent for recognizing same-sex marriage and ordaining openly gay clergy.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
posted
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
