How about another Inquisition?

[keltic63]

This is why the Council of Bishops should take inventory of what each bishop believes and then disfellowship all bishops who refuses to uphold true biblical doctrine.
This same policy should then be passed on to the District Superintendants, Local Pastors, those who hold position in the local church.



The body of Christ: 21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. (1 Corinthians 12)

for some reason, I was struck by this particular post today, then saddened as I realized what the poster was really stating.

[BruceChris]

And I'm not sure of thee.

Don't really want to go there, BC


Edit: Well, all of those unemployed John Birchers had to find Something to do.

[keltic63]

And I'm not sure of thee.

Don't really want to go there, BC


:lol: My ex-MIL's version: They're all QUEER but me and Thee, and I'm beginning to wonder about THEE!

[Emproph]

Tragedy + Time = Comedy

Remember, we wouldn’t even be communicating with each other if it weren’t for this common hell we are trying to undo.

Lots of people can undo hell, but I truly believe that we have the capacity to undo the meaning of hell.

~~

I’ve got commentary up the ying yang on this one, but it stands on it’s own. Suffice it to say though, someday we’ll all look back on this and laugh. (God is ONLY fun).

...this is so gay :rainbow:, and :laughing:, and :rofl:, and :tup::

The Inquisition. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAVJ9ZyghlA&mode=related&search=)

PS No, I don't see any connection with our situation either... ;)

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,
From the context, (reference to Council of Bishops, District Superintendents etc.) that this is from the United Methodist Board. The interesting thing is that the word "disfellowship" is nowhere used in the United Methodist Discipline (book of church law). I believe "disfellowship" is a concept from another denomination. I suspect there are a lot of non-Methodist fundamentalists essentially sabotaging the Methodist discussion giving the whole thing a much more right-wing, un-Methodist and nasty flavor.

Steven Webster

[keltic63]

Friends,
From the context, (reference to Council of Bishops, District Superintendents etc.) that this is from the United Methodist Board. The interesting thing is that the word "disfellowship" is nowhere used in the United Methodist Discipline (book of church law). I believe "disfellowship" is a concept from another denomination. I suspect there are a lot of non-Methodist fundamentalists essentially sabotaging the Methodist discussion giving the whole thing a much more right-wing, un-Methodist and nasty flavor.

Steven Webster


Yes, I was not mentioning the UMC because I didn't want to be perceived as slinging mud at any particular denomination. In this case, the OP claims to be a member of the church, and is disillusioned. Although, I suspect the member also does not have a good grasp on the what the Book of Discipline says.
But that really isn't my big point. My main thought is that Christians are increasingly exclusionary, to the point of someone suggesting a "test of faith" if you can call it that. Then urging that this statement of faith be adopted, followed, tested, and violators removed from fellowship.

[Vanessa White]

Which is so unfortunate and sad, Keltic, just because we deserve to be embraced and invited into our congregations more than many of us are. However, when the Methodist church had been discussing the issues this summer about excluding a person from membership who was openly gay, my individual pastor told me to not worry about it, that there were many Methodist ministers who would support gay persons. However, a calling for all levels to ascribe to a certain interpretation and then action, at risk of possibly not being able to serve in a ministerial position, is sad beyond belief. My pastor is the person who helped me to want to believe in the church again. An on line church is looking better and better.....:(

[RainbowL'elly]

the methodist church has a lot of issues like that- the heirarchy of it all is confusing and nobody knows what to do- it's so broken and fragmented!

ruddy thing needs an organisational overhaul.

note- grew up methodist.
the orgaisation worked when it was a circuit rider church, but we're past that point in history and need something a little less...convoluted.

btw- i love the mel brooks link- he's another one of my favourite people- ranks right up there with oscar wilde and john lennon.

[BruceChris]

And that Mel Brooks thing, what could be clearer - The Jews are clearly a Menorah-ty!

I believe that the average Christian, and maybe those not too far up in the hierarchy, will be much easier to reach than those at the top. (Except maybe for that new Episcopalian Lady Bishop..........)

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Eugene]

This is why the Council of Bishops should take inventory of what each bishop believes and then disfellowship all bishops who refuses to uphold true biblical doctrine.


I hate to be in the gay minority, but I don't see anything wrong with the statement. I don't believe that theological integrity should be sacrificed in the process of changing the church's stand on homosexuality. I think this mainly because the inclusive churches I've attended are so far removed from historic Christian doctrine as to be pagan, in my opinion.

And speaking historically, I think the apostles (particularly Paul) held the same view as espoused in the quote above.

[Daniel]

They're all QUEER but me and Thee, and I'm beginning to wonder about THEE!

I read this with an Irish accent. And laughed my head off. :lol:

Had a conversation with a priest the other night who keeps a close watch on these sorts of matters and Episcopalian concerns in particular. He said something that gave me hope. That being that, with the advent of the internet, movements of whatever stripe are coming and going faster and faster. Things really are speading up.

While the kind of witchhunt that we all fear is a serious matter, the fact that it can be shown for what it is in a speedy manner is a cause for rejoicing.

But back to the matter at hand.

The thing that sticks out here is the use of the words "true doctrine." I am suspicious of anyone who professes to know what these words actually mean for the simple reason that anyone who sets himself up to decide what is true for others isn't concerned about a loving relationship with that person as much as he/she is trying to control them. Having the Truth is- inherently speaking, an exlusionary activity.

And that's the real truth.

Being it? I can see that that might be an entirely different matter.

[RainbowL'elly]

i'd like to know what this 'true biblical doctrine' is that the bishops are being held up against- is it levitican law? is it the writings of paul, many of which were responses to letters and situations we no longer have or understand? is it the book of job? does it include the apocryphal texts? is it based on a bible that has been documented as changed by the monks that copied it many years ago to fit their times and never revised since then?

what is 'true biblical doctrine' when the bible isn't even in it's original form anymore because we don't have the original texts? all we have are copies of the texts that we know have been changed...so what really is 'true biblical doctrine'?

[Eugene]

is it based on a bible that has been documented as changed by the monks that copied it many years ago to fit their times and never revised since then?

all we have are copies of the texts that we know have been changed...so what really is 'true biblical doctrine'?


Your statements exaggerate the facts. Textual criticism is a science, and the result is a reliable text of the Biblical documents.

There is an underlying assumption in Christianity that the Bible contains timeless and distinctive truths.

[tpdncr4christ]

I'm a methodist and concerning "gay-ness" I was under the impression that the church UM took no stance, a kind of: we don't know, so we can't say; thing. But I could be wrong. I am openly gay in my church and my pastor and youth pastor and I have great biblical discussions about this sort of thing. When I came out, my parents went to my pastor to see if he would "fix" me, you know, the bible stuff, and he said no. He baisicly told them that if me and my parents got into that disscussion they would loose. So my impression was and is, at the moment, that the United Methodist Church took no stance on GLBT rights. If I'm wrong, someone please inform me.:confused:

But that really isn't my big point. My main thought is that Christians are increasingly exclusionary, to the point of someone suggesting a "test of faith" if you can call it that. Then urging that this statement of faith be adopted, followed, tested, and violators removed from fellowship.

Keltic:
I like what you said. I keep thinking of Churches becomming more and more like little boys and club houses. Lets say three little boys work so hard to build up a little "safe place" away fromt the world, a tree house in one of their backyards. The little boys post up a sign that says only club members allowed. The boy next door wants to join the club, so he goes through "initiation" and joins. (A Christian repenting and joining the church.) Well, once news of this club house gets going our three little boys get very popular and very powerful, and they are the ones who get to decide who gets to go in the club house. And of course, they can't just let everyone in, then they would loose their control. They have to say no to keep their power. And everyone has to listen to them, well, they did build the club house.

The thing is, we often forget that God (sometimes refered to as "The Doodler) has an even cooler club house open to everyone. He doesn't bother with any signs saying club members only, or no girls allowed. All He wants is you to say, "Can I join?" and He just nods, smiles, and opens the door. Its up to you to step inside.

My point with all of this is that when we are shut out of someone's club house we really want to get in, badly. We forget we are already in the Doodler's club house, and we don't need to join the three little boy's club house. We get that important feeling when we join their club house though, and we seem to forget the important feeling when we join the Doodler's club house.

Granted, if the three little boys decide that if you aren't part of the club then you should die, that would be a bit scary. But it looks like the "little boy's club" just wants to exclude a few people. And the thing is, when our three little boys go through puberty, they'll let in some girls. And when the girls come, they'll let in some more boys, and then more girls. And I'm sure, that at least one out of the ten boys in the club, would let another boy in too, instead of a girl. :rainbow: ;) :rainbow:

[Deb]

I don't believe that theological integrity should be sacrificed in the process of changing the church's stand on homosexuality. I think this mainly because the inclusive churches I've attended are so far removed from historic Christian doctrine as to be pagan, in my opinion.

.

I sure do agree .... I hate to see us leave christainty in the process of encluding gays into the church. If that happens, why not just join a club? :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

There is an underlying assumption in Christianity that the Bible contains timeless and distinctive truths.

Isn't more accurate to say that people make assumptions, not religions, insofar as they reflect self-contained belief systems? If you mean to say that there is the perception that Christianity reflects Truth, then would be a very different matter.

The danger here- as I see it- is that unexamined assumptions can lead to mistakes. And the assumption that one has the Truth may be one the biggest one of all.

As in: "it's only Christianity if it looks like this".

[tpdncr4christ]

I have a question: The Spanish Inquistion was when they tortured people for not being a part of the church right? They aren't really gonna torture gay people are they? :eek::confused::mad::( I hope not. You'd think people would be smarter than that, but then again, this could be proof that history repeats itself, while laughing :lol: at the onlookers...

[Eugene]

If you mean to say that there is the perception that Christianity reflects Truth, then would be a very different matter.

Well, no, I didn't mean to say that.

And the assumption that one has the Truth may be one the biggest one of all.


I believe that Christianity presents a truth that trumps all other religions. And I believe that Christ is the truth.

What I don't believe is that any single denomination or branch of Christianity has exclusive claim to true doctrine. That doesn't change my conviction that there is an ideal, flawless system of theology that has only (so far) been approximated. I doubt it will ever be anything but approximated, in varying degrees.

[Daniel]

I believe that Christianity presents a truth that trumps all other religions. And I believe that Christ is the truth.

Your statement reminds me of a similar point of view that is expressed in Mel White's book Religion Gone Bad in which he refers to a conversation with a Wicca who asks him about standing with SF.

I am not a fundamentalist Christian who is determined to see his beliefs prevail. I am an evangelical who is inspired and informed by the life and teachings of Jesus. And though I admit that down in my heart I hoped that young Wicca would one day be equally inspired and informed by the Christian faith, until that day my responsibility was not to convert her but to love her just as Jesus would love here, giving her all the rights and freedoms that kind of love (and democracy) demand and to learn from her in return.

If I understand Dr. White correctly, the bias here is the notion that Christianity is (as you put it - the trump card) better than all other religions and faiths- and it is only a matter of time before everyone agrees to that ("every knee shall bow....").

I think it takes courage to admit one's bias. And Dr. White seems to be able to look past his in some respects. But, like you, he seems to want to hold onto that trump card.

Now, if one wanted to talk about Christ Consciousness and the like, we might have room for agreement. Even Buddhist's can wrap their heads around that. ;) But I fear that the prevailing thought-system is more akin to "our guy is better than your guy". And I find that very sad indeed.

[Eugene]

I have a copy of Dr. White's latest book, but I haven't had time to read it yet. I like the quote you pasted, and I think his attitude is to be commended.

The most I expect from someone of another faith is tolerance. And it is the most he can expect from me. And it should be expected.

But if I thought pluralism were the answer to the world's religious problems, I would just chuck all religion, because logically, if every religion is equally true, then every religion is false.

[Daniel]

I have a copy of Dr. White's latest book, but I haven't had time to read it yet. I like the quote you pasted, and I think his attitude is to be commended.

The most I expect from someone of another faith is tolerance. And it is the most he can expect from me. And it should be expected.

But if I thought pluralism were the answer to the world's religious problems, I would just chuck all religion, because logically, if every religion is equally true, then every religion is false.

Eugene- I never said pluralism was the answer my friend (though I don't see anything wrong with it actually). What I did was call you on your bias- an entirely different matter. Want to re-direct matters? Fine. How about doing as you suggest: chuck it all- that is- at least for five minutes. You might actually see how other people live and breath who are different from you. You might see past your "tolerance" into something else. Gee...I don't know....maybe compassion....love....

[novaseeker]

It's an interesting discussion.

For me, as I view it, Christ is the door, for me, to spirituality and communion with God. I've never agreed with the proposition that it was the exclusive doorway for all humanity ... I'm aware that contradicts certain biblical passages, and the teachings of most Christian churches, but so be it. I've never really believed it, even when I was in my most fundamentalist phases as an Eastern Orthodox Christian in the late 1990s.

I find it useful for me, spiritually, because it's the tradition most famililar to me. In that way, I guess I recall something I remembering reading from the Dalai Lama to the effect that we should all best labor in our own spiritual traditions, but labor in them rightly ... or something to the effect that the key was not for Christians to become Buddhist, but for Christians to find enlightenment in their own place, in the context of their own tradition. I always thought that this was a very good and intelligent way of looking at things, for Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.

[Eugene]

What I did was call you on your bias- an entirely different matter.

I don't deny having a bias for Christianity. But it is a bias that I don't intend to discard or apologize for.

Want to re-direct matters? Fine. How about doing as you suggest: chuck it all- that is- at least for five minutes. You might actually see how other people live and breath who are different from you. You might see past your "tolerance" into something else.

I am a bit surprised at the tone of your response. First, I wasn't redirecting anything, and I wasn't being critical of your belief system (which I assume is Buddhism, from the winking icon in your previous post). If you can cite any way in which I could agree with you without embracing religious pluralism (if only for five minutes), I'm waiting to hear it.

Can you give a name to what I'm supposed to see past "tolerance" into? And why should it be important to you that I see past it, if I'm tolerant of your beliefs?

[Daniel]

I am a bit surprised at the tone of your response. First, I wasn't redirecting anything, and I wasn't being critical of your belief system (which I assume is Buddhism, from the winking icon in your previous post). If you can cite any way in which I could agree with you without embracing religious pluralism (if only for five minutes), I'm waiting to hear it.

Can you give a name to what I'm supposed to see past "tolerance" into? And why should it be important to you that I see past it, if I'm tolerant of your beliefs?

Ah....the assumptions we make about one another.

As for the winking icon, though I do sitting meditiation, but I would hardly call myself a Buddhist. In fact, I've gone on record here as being a 'closet Buddhist', which I mean with some humor. You see, despite all appearances, I do try to not take myself so seriously.

What I'm trying to get at here is this: all too often the view that is expressed as 'I am the Truth and the Life- no man cometh to the Father but by me' (or words to that effect) translates - all to often- into 'Sorry you Poor Sucker, Any Other Way is Unacceptable and Wrong- Here's Your Ticket to Hell- Call When You Get There- You'll Soon See That I'm Right and Have Always Been Right- Because- Don't Forget JC is The Only Way!'

Now, I'm trying to be a bit humorous here. But this kind of view, in essence, is blatant spiritual materialism.

Reminds me of the time my mother and I got into some discussion in the car one day and she said "How can you talk about MY Jesus like that?" I responded: "Gee....I didn't know you owned him." To her credit, she laughed at herself.

That's the crux of the matter, I feel. We take various thoughts and ideas and make them concrete and impervious to anything resembling real human warmth and kindness. We are even, on occasion, willing to die for them. In clutching our ideas so close to ourselves, we forget that this can blind us to the very meaning of the words themselves.

Pablo is right about one thing: I AM critical of this kind of belief system. For the simple reason that, left to its own devices, rather than being seen as having any esoteric (or inner) meaning, it all too often becomes, in the hands of the most ardent of disciples, a means, nay, a commandment to make others subservient to the will of that individual- all in the name of God.

I think this is worth looking past.

Tolerance? Well...the person who is tolerant just holds on to their view- whatever it is- and doesn't budge a muscle.

I just think we can do better than that.

After all, isn't that what nonviolence is supposed to be about?

[tpdncr4christ]

My favorite definition of tolerance is the one they use in health class, pertaining to drugs. When your body builds up a tolerance to a drug, it simply means your body requires more of that same drug to get the same high. The drug is still a drug, you've just become "tolerant."

Granted, it's just a definition. :D

[Daniel]

Nova- we're on the same page.

I was struck by the same comment attributed to HHDL. That is why I don't call myself a Buddhist per se. Though I must point out that I'm not in a hurry to call myself a Christian either! :lol:

Living without labels doesn't mean one is without convictions. After all, labels are simply that, labels. A way to process information and tell you what's in the can. How you cook what's in that can is- in my view- another matter.

[Eugene]

Tolerance? Well...the person who is tolerant just holds on to their view- whatever it is- and doesn't budge a muscle.

I just think we can do better than that.

Daniel, you are free to think whatever you please. But to be quite frank, so am I, and your attitude toward traditional Christianity comes across as condescending.

It sounds like what you're really after is acceptance of alternative views. You really don't have the right to demand that of anyone. No more so than a Christian has the right to demand conversion.

What I'm trying to get at here is this: all too often the view that is expressed as 'I am the Truth and the Life- no man cometh to the Father but by me' (or words to that effect) translates - all to often- into 'Sorry you Poor Sucker, Any Other Way is Unacceptable and Wrong- Here's Your Ticket to Hell- Call When You Get There- You'll Soon See That I'm Right and Have Always Been Right- Because- Don't Forget JC is The Only Way!'


Pablo is right about one thing: I AM critical of this kind of belief system. For the simple reason that, left to its own devices, rather than being seen as having any esoteric (or inner) meaning, it all too often becomes, in the hands of the most ardent of disciples, a means, nay, a commandment to make others subservient to the will of that individual- all in the name of God.



The phrase "all too often," which you used twice, does sort of tag that you're employing a stereotype.

As for the plea for an esoteric meaning, "esoteric Christianity" is otherwise known as Gnosticism in church history. From my experience at a church that embraced it (esoteric Christianity), I consider it a means of introducing and justifying religious pluralism. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not broad-minded enough to accept it. I was trained to think as a traditionalist, and traditional Christianity works well for me. And so, the best I can give you is tolerance. To my thinking, that's a lot better than what's been dished out in church history. If it's not good enough for you, I'm just sorry about that.

[tpdncr4christ]

I am truly ashamed. From my understanding, no two adults should be talking like that to each other, in private or on a public forum. You two have disgraced yourselves by bantering on about how you should view religion in such harsh violent tones, in a Faith and Nonviolence Forum.

Did either of you read my post about clubhouses? That's exactly what you two are doing. Daniel's got his club house and Eugene's got his. Both of you are too busy defending your own arguments that you have lost the point of this thread. This thread was started concerning one set of individual people, deciding for another set of individual people their validity in worshiping the lord. It was started to alert those of us who didn't know about happenings within the church and prepare us to have faith and practice nonviolence.

Daniel, do you remember my very first post here on Soulforce? Let me remind you: My First Post (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=16185#post16185). The funny thing is, everyone who read my post immediatley picked apart what was "wrong" with it and told me. My point in that post was simply: "You do not fight with nonviolence. You live with it."

Lets go back to a favorite hero of mine, Ghandi. He united his people and rooted them in a beleif system that allowed them to gain freedom from England. Know what happened when Engalnd left? They had no unity. And you know what that meant, right? Civil war and hell. Right now the gay community has no unity. No wonder nothing gets done.

We are all thrown into this world naked, small, and confused. No one is born angry, no one is born hating. We are all born wanting to be loved. We learn hatred and anger from EACH OTHER. No wonder Conservative Christians hate/fear/despise us, we give them every excuse to. Stop biting back. Stop biting each other. It serves no purpose. Both of you are caught up in this argument and aren't thinking rationally. You are regressing to childlike defense mechanisms. It is abhorable behavior, something I expect from my peers, not the ones who are supposed to be my teachers. No one is born hating, be everyone dies knowing hatred.

I wonder, have either of you prayed about this? Since the beginning of the argument, have you brought the issue to God? And if you have, did you honestly aproach God seeking an answer to the question, or did you look for approval of your thoughts and beliefs. I am ashamed of both of you. This is a place for disscussion, not argument. This is a safe place, a place that is supposed to be away from such hateful words.

I used to think of this place as a bunker, a safe place away from the bombs of the outside world. What I didn't realize was that everyone had a grenade in their back pocket. Such a sanctuary has never before been safer.

Now that I've had my rant, I expect one of three things. 1. The moderators intervene. 2. Both of you apologize to each other and the rest of the community. Or 3. You follow my prediction, pick apart my post, and tell me what is wrong with it.

Sincerly,
Austin

[Eugene]

I am truly ashamed. From my understanding, no two adults should be talking like that to each other, in private or on a public forum. You two have disgraced yourselves by bantering on about how you should view religion in such harsh violent tones, in a Faith and Nonviolence Forum.


Hello Austin,

The level of discussion on this forum isn't anywhere near "harsh" or "violent". I would recognize it because I've been the victim of cyber-violence and cyber-attacks on numerous other forums in the past. From that, I've developed a rather thick skin. So despite what you might think, I'm not angry at Daniel. I just don't agree with him.

Just because we believe in physical nonviolence, it doesn't mean we must be insipid, does it? Gay people are as diverse as heterosexuals.

[Daniel]

Apparently, I've made a big mistake, and that would be shining a light- in my own way- on Orthodoxy. Is that violent of me? Have I committed the sin of pointing out the mite in someone else's eye while having a log in my own? I have no doubt there are those who will yell at me a sounding yes!

In my defense, I would simply offer the following.

Addressing an idea is not the same thing as attacking a person. Unless, of course, that person so closely identifies with the idea/concept that they do not see any separation between it and themselves.

David- I appreciate your efforts as a moderating voice.

Eugene- Thank you for your post- I can more clearly see who I've been addressing. While you hold the notion that I am condescending, I hope you will give some thought as to why your earlier expression of "trump card" is very disheartening for this gay soul to hear.

It sounds like what you're really after is acceptance of alternative views. You really don't have the right to demand that of anyone. No more so than a Christian has the right to demand conversion.

You are right, no one can demand acceptance. And no one can demand love. These things have to be given freely from an open heart.

[Eugene]

Eugene- Thank you for your post- I can more clearly see who I've been addressing. While you hold the notion that I am condescending, I hope you will give some thought as to why your earlier expression of "trump card" is very disheartening for this gay soul to hear.

I do understand, of course, why it is disheartening. And believe me, I had to change a lot of my thinking to come out while remaining evangelical.

And though I did think you were condescending, your most recent post convinces me instead that you are a real gentleman. Thanks. :)