UMC bulletin boards

[NathanATX]

amazing post!

[suzer1013]

I agree, that was an amazing post!

I can't express how grateful I am that y'all have added your voices over on the UMC boards. For so long, every time I read those boards, I was dismayed by so many of the posts. I knew that those few posters who seemed to dominate with their fundamentalist theology was not really what the UMC is about. Certainly, they are part of the voice of the UMC, but they are not the whole voice.

I have now left the UMC, but still visit the boards out of curiosity mostly. What a breath of fresh air it is to see your posts over there! I know I've said it before, but thank you again for your passionate and knowledgeable contributions.

Susan

[Jamie McDaniel]

I haven't spent time on the UMC boards, but I just read your post here, dewdrop_world. I agree, that was excellent writing. I especially liked these two sentences:

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

...I arrived at the position that human language is not capable of expressing the full mystery of God, which put Scripture in what is for me a more viable perspective: a source of wisdom, but one that requires careful study and whose meaning depends in large measure on the spiritual background one brings to it.

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

In my case, and in the case of millions of others, staying in the closet or staying celibate to appease a religious authority would be like cutting off the nose to spite the face--winning approval as a "good Christian" but failing to discover the best God has for us. To me, it's obvious which would be the worst sin.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

That got longer than I expected...

Now there's an understatement, and the story of my blogging life.

That was an excellent post. Kudos!

[dewdrop_world]

Further update

The thread I posted from earlier seems to have come to a dead stop. The response to my post was:

James,

I appreciate your thoughts and insights. I can tell that your comments are heartfelt and sincere.

To further clarify, may I ask would it not take a great love to be willing to change for someone, to be willing to sacrifice to make him or her happy? Would not conforming to God's will, as much as we are able, indeed be a big step towards discovering the best He has for us?

And the conversation killer, from me...

Of course, that's unassailable logic, but the big question is, what is God's will? I believe that God's will for me (not speaking for anyone else) is to continue in the direction I'm going, to get more and more deeply in touch with my light and to take my light out into the world.

That's a similar response to what I would offer to Vernon. God did transform my life, by freeing me from the burdens of unworthiness, and of seeking self-esteem through pleasing people (molding myself into what I thought they wanted me to be). Freeing me from fear! No strings were attached, just clarity and honesty with myself. And, like all genuine spiritual transformations, the work is ongoing.

Then things got much more interesting on another thread. I posted some humorous remarks on why conservative churches might be growing so fast, and the same guy said it was offensive, and obviously "The simple truth is that when liberals ignore the truth and look for 'deeper questions' it simply means that they can't handle the truth and therefore look to twist and distort it to satisfy their own worldly outlook." Youch.

That prompted what turned into basically a statement of faith from me. I wanted to post here in case it's inspiring.

To respond adequately, I think I need to go back and explain more about the crisis of faith I mentioned earlier. This will be a bit long

I grappled for many years with a question that seems simple on its face, but in fact was deeply unsettling for me. "How is it possible to pray while holding full respect for God's divine nature?" The question begins with a proposition I held as axiomatic: that it is beyond human capacity to understand God fully. I didn't try to "prove" it philosophically, as it seemed intuitively true; besides which, I was concerned about the consequences of the opposite statement. If we believe that we can have a perfect and correct vision of God, would we not be making ourselves into gods? If it follows then that our vision is imperfect, isn't it then dangerous to put too much stock in what people say about God? As I turned this question over and over, I came to feel I couldn't follow a faith that too casually accepted received images of God. At some point, the inherent limitations of any belief about God would be exposed, and the belief would have to be revised.

Some of this came from some time I spent in an Assembly of God youth group as a teenager. They made a lot of claims about what God is or is not like, and eventually I had to conclude that they were making assertions about things that no human being could possibly know for certain. That's probably the biggest source of my antipathy to the idea that God is what we think God is, and that what we think about God is right. My native Catholic faith didn't readily offer substantial advice, either.

At 25, I began reading about contemplative prayer and meditation. The orientation in meditation is to stop, slow down and see clearly. By looking carefully at what is going on right now, and observing the mind's tendency to interpret everything in one way or another, we learn that these interpretations actually cause us to suffer--from wanting things we don't have or clinging to things we do have (or the converse, fearing things that might come into our life or that are already there).

And then things started to click. What if I could live in the middle of God's creation and see things as they are, instead of on my terms? In answer to the question of how to pray without imposing human visions on God, the answer came through with blazing clarity: JUST BE. After nearly 11 years, while I know I have a long way yet to go, I also feel more deeply connected with God than any other time in my life.

It's worth noting that spiritual traditions the world over (including Christian contemplatives like St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila) speak of a common trajectory of descent into the core of suffering (the "Dark night of the soul"), followed by emergence, renewal, rebirth, a transcendent awareness that can both embrace the nature of suffering and touch on the nature of God. I don't recall which contemporary writer it was who wrote of older African-American women who had this overwhelming presence of grace about them, and eyes that could look right into your soul... that's the kind of presence that comes from being through hell and coming back transformed and reborn.

So when you say, "Ignoring the obvious to make things way more complicated and wrong is nothing short of foolish," I would say that the obvious--that none of us was never really separated from Creation in the first place, and in fact there is nothing to fear--seems foolish at the start of the spiritual journey. People are stubborn and the ego does not give up control easily. For most people, it's necessary to crash, repeatedly and painfully, into the limits of what the ego allows until it becomes clear that what the ego is holding onto simply doesn't work. At that point, the obvious truth becomes real and personal in a way pious imitation can mimic but not really obtain.

Let me conclude by saying that submission to a divine law is also a valid spiritual path, because the ego will crash into its limitations through that practice also (if it's done well). But it is certainly not the only path, and it's a path that simply doesn't work for me (it didn't bring me to greater communion with God).

What I really think is that we're taking different paths to the same goal. I hope it can be a mutually supportive journey.

That is why I jumped all over that forum... not just to make a point, but to test and refine my own understanding. A very good experience.

Next stop, catholic.org

hjh

[suzer1013]

I've been lurking on and off over at the UMC boards. It is very disheartening, to say the least. I wonder why the UMC has these boards to begin with, as it doesn't seem much meaningful conversation goes on there. Even when the homosexuality issue is finally dropped for a while, some anti-gay bigots return and stir up the pot again -- trying to have the last word, I guess.

I want to give up. James has had some wonderful posts over there, and I think has given a couple of folks there something to think about. But there are some who will never, never listen to reason or love -- and I suppose those are the folks you eventually just have to walk away from, saying "go in peace," but realizing they have been so brainwashed by religious intolerance that nothing we do or say will open their minds.

And, I guess, my goal should not really be to change anyone's mind, because only God can do that. But most of the time on the UMC boards, I am simply at a loss for words. How do I share God's love in the face of such intolerance?

Susan

[Zerbie]

Hey Suze.

I think you're right, a break is needed. It is too disheartening to wind up in verbal battles over and over with those who won't listen, with those whose minds are closed. Find something more worthy of your energy that won't sap it away from you so much.

Do you think spending time over on those boards could have anything to do with those insecure and doubtful feelings you were having a month or two ago? Worth thinking about - whether you are taking something inside you from those boards that is hurting you.

Anyway, what if you walked away from these arguments for a good long time. I dunno, say like, a year or two. The someday when you get into similar discussion again (and someday you will) it will be from a new, refreshed, and stronger perspective. I say fill your thoughts with something completely different for a while.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

I've been lurking on and off over at the UMC boards. It is very disheartening, to say the least. -- trying to have the last word, I guess.

I want to give up. James has had some wonderful posts over there, and I think has given a couple of folks there something to think about. But there are some who will never, never listen to reason or love -- and I suppose those are the folks you eventually just have to walk away from, saying "go in peace," but realizing they have been so brainwashed by religious intolerance that nothing we do or say will open their minds.

And, I guess, my goal should not really be to change anyone's mind, because only God can do that. But most of the time on the UMC boards, I am simply at a loss for words. How do I share God's love in the face of such intolerance?

Susan

James has a way with words. Always loving, kind, patient and tolerant of dissenters.

There's a few in particular over there that frustrate me to no end though. I've been staying away so I can put together a new strategy, to hopefully reframe the debate even more pointedly. That was the entire purpose of James' thread and they usurped that!

Obviously the die hards won't listen to reason but it might help shed some light on them for the others.

So I haven't given up yet, I'll be back.

-Just wanted to let you know I feel for you Susan.

[dewdrop_world]

I'm still active over there... I had to cut back a bit on my involvement because it was taking too much time away from my music. That has a good side effect, though, because I'm not so caught up in the drama and I have more time to listen and reflect.

But it is hard. What I've been trying to do lately is tease out the humanity of those whom we're calling "die hards" here. For them it seems that faith is a matter of believing in the right ideas. I've got a really good conversation going with someone who goes by the name of sboston6 -- not coincidentally, he's the only person who took the time to explain anything about his faith journey and what his faith in the Bible means to his spiritual journey. Now, Ezekiel... I have no idea what's up with him. So far I haven't seen him say much beyond, "Bible good, liberal bad," usually in an unnecessarily snarky way that makes me doubt the depth of his Christian transformation.

But I'm an incurable optimist, so onward I press...

The other interesting thing I learned over there is that I'm really not a Protestant. Somehow, the language and mindset feel fundamentally foreign to me as a cradle Catholic. Eventually I want to quit the UMC forum and take up residence on the catholic.org boards, which on a few quick visits appear to have no smaller share of vituperative, emotionally stingy conservatives.

James

[Liberal Crozier]

We have often spoken of the political divisions and often theological divides among those faith communities who share a singular definition, such as, Methodist, or Anglican or Presbyterian or Lutheran. This is especially true in the USA.

As I see it, only the Roman Catholics hold administrative, political and theological hegemony over their provincial churches. The Anglicans and the Orthodox have an honourary association - where both often "bleed" into the illusion of monarchical control...such as Canterbury's attempts today in the autocephalous and autonomous national provincial churches in Canada or the USA - by deciding which groups hold their honourific associative rights and privileges.

The Methodist Church (US) Book of Discipline in 1968 spoke to a merger - with the Methodist Episcopal Church and the United Evangelical Brethren - to form the United Methodist Church. Born of Anglican theology and churchmanship - American Methodism was prior to merger, a group of men and women who wore or whom did not wear liturgical or clerical attire or more, differentiate themselves from the inerrant anabaptist competitors for flock in their communities. Are you SBC or UMC were often the two choices - along with AOG for the vestige - in southern and southern midwest US homes.

The ALC/LCA merger for Lutherans into the ELCA, and now an undefined unity with ECUSA, had similar ultraconservative " out of merger" synodal choices with the LCMS or WELS - where the theology among they and the SBC/UMC reality on the ground in northern midwest states was difficult to define.

[dewdrop_world]

Let me cry a little bit. Here are a few snippets from the UMC board lately.

Perhapas it is because biblical truth and its interpretation is the "property" neither of conservatives or liberals but of God who promises to give us the mind of Christ. Perhaps the rub lies in the confidence from scripture that conservatives feel that God has indeed given them the mind of Christ on scriptural matters. Whereas the liberals have no idea what God might do and have little clarity on spiritual matters because they are so busy being toleranat, inclusive and pluralistic that they have lost most meaning of the II Timothy 3:16 and other related scriptures. For the conservative there is not arrogance but confidence...

Originally Posted by me

Such a rich irony here -- whenever I say there are ways in which conservatives are not living up to the spirit of Jesus's example, I'm accused of hostility.

But when a conservative says that liberal Christians are not capable of anything other than spiritual fraud, this is considered reasonable?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unless we take the time to share how we pray and practice, then we will just be arguing about ideas. We will imagine that our "opponents" are their ideas and we will fail to see common ground. Then the discussion is not respectful. People on both sides make ridiculous assumptions about the other side, without ever really knowing what is being brought to the table. It becomes a turf battle of exactly the sort dash_cramer described (and you, Steve, are proving his point).

Originally Posted by someone else

"But when a conservative says that liberal Christians are not capable of anything other than spiritual fraud, this is considered reasonable?"


Actually I like that, I think that is an accurate definition of the the Liberal pseudo christians. As far as conservatives taking over the "property rights" of Scripture, it is only because liberals have forfeited the land in exchange for humanistic views.

Observe how neatly he ignores what I propose as a way out of the deadlock. Heaven forbid one show a shred of vulnerability.

It is killing me to watch them destroy Christianity. They talk the Bible talk but when it comes to the fundamentals -- love one another as you love Me -- the foundations of spiritual life, of decency, are expendable in the name of defending conservatism. One's beliefs are so important that it's worth selling your soul to defend them.

In response, I wished to live Christ's example. It's one of the hardest messages I've written over there, because I'm burning with anger. How do you show love when you're angry?

Originally Posted by me

For the sake of argument, let's assume that liberal Christians are your enemy. I can't say for sure whether you really believe that or not, but your writings on this board give the impression that this is what you believe.

Let's make it more personal. Let's suppose -- again, for the sake of argument -- that you see me as an enemy.

What does it mean when Jesus says to love your enemy?

It is hard for me not to see you as an enemy right now. And in that condition, what it means for me, in this moment, to love my enemy is to ask what is in your heart (where I could assume that I know what is there and denounce you based on who I imagine you to be -- I am sorely tempted to do exactly that, but I will not, because that would be wrong).

What is in your heart toward me?

This is a very hard message to write. Righteous anger is boiling in my chest. It actually makes me almost physically ill to watch what is happening to the Christ I love. Dash said it better than I could at the moment. But I fear his words are wasted, because conservatives do not appear to be given to self reflection (which I would call a necessary part of any spiritual journey). I could be wrong in this assessment, but it is at least how conservatives present themselves here.

Perhaps it's that conservatives are uneasy around human weakness, so they refuse to admit it in themselves and attack it in everyone else. That is a natural -- human -- reaction, but it is not Jesus' way.

In the end, I'm not interested in who is right or wrong. I'm interested in whether we can treat each other well as Jesus commanded. I fail at this quite often, but I'm trying my best in this note.

If we grow through spiritual challenges.... I am really growing a lot. Any supportive words would be helpful. I just feel a bit devastated. It seems over there like good is evil and evil is good, love is condescending and cruel instead of patient and kind. I've had it up to here with these jerks for Jesus.

Take your claws off of my Savior! (It's interesting that I can say "my Savior" now. I am seeing more clearly than ever how Buddhist meditation is strengthening my Catholic roots. This is a great blessing I didn't expect from coming here, or going there.)

James

[Dash]

You are totally my hero over there James! I still feel like I'm just circling these guys...trying to figure out how they think...watching how they respond...learning their "tells." But you've been involved for so long, and your posts are so patient and gentle. Your responses are full of everything admirable. Every once in awhile there are hints that others are watching the exchanges silently, and I think you will have a strong, clarifying and positive influence on many observers.

Have to admit, at this point, I'm not really touched by their "claws." I'm more amused than anything else right now. Course, I'm not sure I'm even being taken seriously. Haha! They've been fencing for some time with our most formidable debaters, and I'd imagine that my input must seem rather lightweight by comparison.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

Let me cry a little bit.




It is killing me to watch them destroy Christianity.
How do you show love when you're angry?



If we grow through spiritual challenges.... I am really growing a lot. Any supportive words would be helpful. I just feel a bit devastated. It seems over there like good is evil and evil is good, love is condescending and cruel instead of patient and kind.

James

(((((James)))))

No feedback or help for you. . .

Reading your quotes above, odd, I think you're me at the moment you wrote them. I have been thinking, asking, crying the same things lately.
Especially the part about good being evil and evil good, love cruel, etc. I registered over at those CARM boards recently and after reading them for a while I was spinning in the same backwardness. Actually thought, "If this is love, I hate love." If love tears people's hearts to ribbons, or shuts their hearts down, or inspires folks to suicide, self-loathing, and a refusal of all that is kind or forgiving - if love does all that, then I hate love.

I am certain you nailed it when you say that some people elevate the correctness of their own adopted belief system over love itself. Yes they do. And that is a kind of ironic perversity that is anti-spiritual to it's core. A form of spiritual projection and egotism. I think that is it, anyway.

How do you show love when you're angry? Wonderful question! It should be its own thread - I don't know and I need to learn. It is why I will not post on boards like those.

James/Dewdrop, you write some of the kindest, truest, strongest messages imaginable. Such strength and authenticity. You make me cry sometimes with your gentle eloquence.

Thank you.

[Emproph]

(This is just a set up for what I have to say next on the matter. It's toxic so you may want to avoid it or avoid most of it until I get the next post up.)

Jerks for Jesus, I love it!

James, we've been dealing with this all day over at CARM. It was like the fourth of July.

I pulled up and posted on a thread a couple of days ago called "Double Standard." I've listed some highlights here. The quotes are in order but for any direct exchanges I've listed the names in the quotes so you know who said what, otherwise the other quotes are just examples. Jist of original post:

The point of my thread was to demonstrate the double standard of Christians when discussing sin. On many threads, Christians will often state that Homosexuals cannot be Christians as long as they continue to engage in homosexual activity. They either have to stop engaging in homosexual activity or they have not truly repented of their sin and cannot consider themselves saved Christians.

Now, if 90% of Christians admit to lying at least once a week and/or lying on a regular basis, they are doing exactly what they accuse homosexuals of doing. They continue to engage in a sinful act and must not truly have repented their sins. If a Christian tells a lie, they are no less accountable than a homosexual engaging in a homosexual act. Homosexuals being singled out for "continuing" to engage in sinful behavior is a double standard. Unless Christians can stop lying, they are no less accountable for their sins.

Responses:
(Remember, this is a thread on the double standards of some Christians when condemning gays) - most of the underlining is mine.

So your approach is moral relativism. If Christians have sinned, the homosexuals get a free pass to sin?

I think the key, is admiting that what you are doing is sin.Christians can slip up and lie, but they admit that it is a sin and pray and ask forgiveness and strength to not do it again.

Homosexuals will not do that. They want to try to twist Scripture to where they say that God "made them that way" or to say we have misunderstood those passages.

Is a homosexual going to justify his behaviour when confronted by his conscience?

There is no double standard that Christianity presents to the world. Just as important, there isn't a single sound and reasonable Christian who claims any kind of perfection with regard to this walk we engage in as aliens in a familiar world.

... what we do recognize when it rears it's head is the devil who claims Christ while living in opposition to Christ and proclaiming what is evil to be good and what is good is declared evil. ...
The difference being that when we lie, we repent and try harder. The homosexual does not repent, is not remorseful and continues on his/her sinful path.
As several of us have said already...the component that's missing with homosexuals is the remorse. How can you repent if you feel no remorse for wrong doing?

Originally Posted by Emproph

I consider my same sex attraction to be as innate and fixed as any heterosexual would consider their opposite sex attraction to be.

So IF I could get married to a man I loved and we had sex within the confines of our marriage, are you suggesting my conscience should still confront me outside of the arbitrary admonition in the Bible?

I say ‘arbitrary’ because making love to my husband would not be harming myself or anyone else, as murder, stealing, slander etc., would. All things that break the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.

So if my sin is based on my physical expression of my love for my husband, literally based on love itself, then how can that be evil?

And if it’s evil “just because the Bible says so,” then sin is arbitrary and does not require evil, harm, or a victim to be a sin.

And if that’s the case, then why is remarriage not condemned in proper proportion to homosexual “behavior” by those who use 1Corinthians 6:9-11.

Luke 16:18: "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery."

That’s directly from God as Jesus, and is also listed as one of the sins that bars one from “inheriting the kingdom” in 1Corinthians 6:9-11.

So why is the lesser of the two admonitions condemned disproportionately more?

(The following is as close to an admission of a double standard as has occured on that thread) Reply to my post:

God said it was. Period.

Homosexuality has become the whipping boy and those who fool themselves that it's somehow worse than their own adulterous behavior will be in for a shock on judgment day.

....how many rationalizations and justifications you come up with for this sin. God has spoken on the matter, and that's the way it is. He has never conditioned the definition of sin as being that which harms others....that's the wiccan viewpoint, not the Biblical one. (Also, regardless how many objections to the contrary, homosexuality does hurt those who practice it, as well as others.)

Sin is what God says it is....and it ALWAYS boils down to rebellion against God.

Wrong! There is a big problem with your statement. You better take another survey. That one is erroneous and isn't giving the correct variables. Next time ask if we think we are sinners first. We as Christians admit that we are filthy sinners and are only saved by the Grace of God. Homosexuals will not admit it's a sin. They are MARCHING IN PARADES saying they are PROUD of their sin. That is the difference. So if you are going to judge pay attention to details. Yes, I sin every single day and I try every day not to but it never works because I'm human but I TRY not to sin and ask for forgiveness that is the difference.

We do not PROMOTE OUR SIN AND ASK FOR CLASSES TO TEACH HOW TO DO IT AND ACCEPT IT.

However, somehow I knew this thread was coming. I love to be right.

[The Constitution] entitles people to practice homosexuality? I'm sorry, but it most certainly does not. It DOES entitle the people to freely express objection thereto, however.

Originally Posted by Bill

Where were those things when Adam and Eve sinned?

Probably because there aren't any militant divorced people trying shove their views down out throats, getting their views taught to children and so forth.

Oh Please. Nobody's singled them out. This post is attacking Christians because they admitted they sin in some bogus survey the poster set up. Then it became all about homosexuals like everything does on this board.

Originally Posted by Dan

I'm sorry I missed this three weeks ago, but you present a rather interesting justification. You're admitting that homosexuality is most certainly a sin, but since every man is a liar; you feel justified that one should be entitled to continue within the sin of which their own conscience understands they are guilty of? Don't waste your time, the devil's already been there.

Originally Posted by Emproph

Now those are some sweet little gems. And to think, these are attempts to refute the notion that some ‘Christians’ have a double standard when it comes to condemning homosexuals.

First take people who CAN get married and divorced and then sinfully and adulterously remarry anytime and as often as they like. Then take the people who CAN’T even get married, and-equate-the-two. Now those with rights are equal to those without rights.

Now, those without rights are “trying shove their views down out throats,” as opposed to those who already have rights and are not “trying shove their views down our throats.” That’s a quintessential strawman if I’ve EVER seen one.

But wait, it get’s better..We’re not even talking about rights, we’re talking about SIN worthy of eternal damnation!

So sin was put in the context of rights in order to avoid the entire merit of the observation of a double standard. A red herring was used to mask a strawman.

Two double standards were used in order to dishonestly appear to be acknowledging the original double standard. Do you think three wrongs make a right Bill?

Anyone who is divorced and remarried and those who have married them are openly and actively living an unrepentant adulterous lifestyle. They don’t need to shove it down your throat because you’ve already swallowed it.

Unrepentant adulterous lifestyle: Acceptable
Convinced that I was born a Homosexual: Unacceptable

A sin worthy of eternal damnation is legal, and instead of just acknowledging that you took the time to attack me and my desire for equal rights as an attack on you. Double Standard, and furthermore, shame on you.

Originally Posted by Dan

In all of this; however, you're still forgetting one thing...in order to get saved the first step is repentence. A turning from the sin and a change of the lifestyle. The desire must come from within you to do so. You're more than welcome to blame the Christian for hypocrisy if you so choose; but in the end you're still responsible for your non repentence. In the end, your anger to blame the Christian for hypocrisy is not going to matter at all; because you're still going to be held accountable for justifiying your own sin.

God will give you every available chance to turn yourself around, but if you choose not to do so; only you are going to be held accountable for it. Nobody else.

Originally Posted by Emproph

(to Dan)Furthermore in my "lower than" status... for even asking or observing or noticing any wrongdoing, THE, NUMBER ONE 'CHRISTIAN' CONCERN is to BLAME me for BLAMING ALL CHRISTIANS.

Fortunately for my sanity this thread is about double standards.

We’re not talking about me Dan, we’re talking about you. But what you’ve made clear, is that I’m SO beneath you, that we’re not even allowed to talk about you.
You dismiss my relationship with Christ Jesus as being beneath that of a maggot in the name of all that is holy and Good and true and expect me to respect you as knowing better than me about that relationship? How dare you! Who are you to dismiss me as a Christian? Who gave you that right?

Nope, no double standard there at all there.

Originally Posted by Dan

Nothing in my post was passing judgment down on you. But I see that you've taken it that way. Perhaps you're not ready yet.

Nate to the rescue!!!

Originally Posted by Nate

(To Dan)YOU are judging his salvation.

How does pointing out your ludicrous hypocrisy have anything to do with his personal responsibility?

Originally Posted by Dan

These are the standards of the Word of God. If he chooses to not repent its still on his own shoulders. You're pointing out my hypocrisy? Interesting assessment, the Word of God already states man to be born to original sin, so asking whether a Christian is a liar or not is fruitless, because the Word of God already states all men to be liars.

There is one difference, however. The reflection of God's character. One who accepts Christ is going to repent of their sin and change; to know they are sinning against God and desire to continue sinning; somewhere along the lines it doesn't add up that this person has made that personal acceptance of Christ into their lives, otherwise they would have.

And this was just a snipet. Much was clarified and confronted and subsequently ignored, in between and after what I've put here. It pretty much just continues to devolve though. Again This is just a set up for what I've got to say on it next.

[Emproph]

A pattern has been clearly established.

A formula even for determining who is wrong. And more specifically because it determines HOW they are wrong.

The Name and subject matter of that thread itself was Double Standard. Or in rawer terms Hypocrisy.

Those who have been confronted with the notion of a double standard are the very ones who have not only dismissed the validity of the notion, but have also taken it as an attack on Christianity as opposed to one's character. Which is consistent with "To question me is to imply the possibility that I could be wrong." And of course, the possiblity of being wrong IS to be wrong.

The very people who are intent upon judging the sins of others are the exact people who are literally incapable of EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING any aspect of sin withing themselves in doing so.

Accuracy of judgement is not only not a priority held by those who are determined to judge, but the suggestion of inaccuracy itself is construed to be an attack.

There seems to be a direct correlation between those Christians who are intent on judging the sins of others and their own inability to judge their own sins. They seem to be absolutely incapable of self reflection or introspection, and all challenges are met with accusations of attack and expressed through the defense mechanism of projection.

Napoleon complex comes to mind, as in inferiority complex, and it seems to fit. It reminds me of my mother’s rantings during the ‘04 election, (Back when I ‘invented the wheel’). The more they can convince others that they are wrong, the more they can convince themselves that they are right. For them, “Being right” is contingent upon others being wrong.

On some level they are aware that they don’t truly know the Bible is inerrant, and being so blinded by pride, it’s losing their supremacist status that terrifies them. That’s why coadie and Dan (CARM) felt the need to start up so many new threads today, because they were aggressively challenged.

They’re trying to convince themselves that they are right, that’s how tenuous their belief in inerrancy is, and rightly so. But like I’ve said before, to acknowledge to possibility of being wrong is to fully acknowledge being COMPLETELY wrong. The subject cannot be discussed because it cannot even be acknowledged. These are truly psychologically sick people.

They will either ignore the question, accuse of attack, etc., you name the defense mechanism or logical fallacy and they will employ it in order to avoid looking within themselves. The mere act of looking within would be an admission of guilt.
__________________________

We need to start posting threads like this one that speak of them in the third person. When we engage them we are automatically dismissed, and thus our words and wisdom are never considered long enough to have any impact.

I’m thinking that if the dialogue was to revolve around them and they were not responded to, yet were being spoken about, THEN our words might actually roll around in their heads for a time.

I’ve never used the ignore feature on a forum, but what if we had a plan. Say, take this post for example. Post something like this as a thread starter and then discuss it with only those who are sympathetic and/or who really want to dialogue.

Or how about if we had a plan to only respond to each other in the post? Everyone else goes on ignore if necessary. We’d HAVE to COMMIT to doing so in order to maintain the INTEGRITY of the conversation. God that would drive them NUTS!

That would only require two people, but ignoring everyone would probably be inconvenient, not to mention the curiosity factor, so if we really wanted to get fancy about it maybe we could have a third or fourth person to respond to the others in the thread who ignore legitimate questions, or only attack etc., and do so possibly even through private messaging.

Or a third option, actually this one could work but again, it would take a STRONG STRONG COMMITMENT on our part to ONLY speak with each other in the thread. We would just respond to each other about the other comments in the thread, always with the clarifications (to each other) that we know they never respond to us and that’s why we speak of them in the third person. We could try that as an experiment here even. Something could work.
_________________________________

Those “Christians” who judge others are incapable of judging themselves. That’s a double standard on top of a double standard.

Double Double Standard
Quadruple Standard
Double Standard Squared
Hypocrisy Squared
Hypocrisy Cubed
Cubical Hypocrite

Yes that’s the one. He’s a cubical hypocrite. Not to be confused with the cubicle hypocrite who works at the office.. (Two different spellings)

That reminds me of the phrase “spherical ass.” As in no matter what angle you look at them from, they're still a complete ass.
__________________________

Just to be clear:
-The first double standard, for example, is railing against the ‘Biblical’ sin of homosexuality and ignoring the ‘Biblical’ sin of adultery as the result of divorce and remarriage.
-The second double standard is not acknowledging the first double standard when confronted with it.

Ergo hypocrisy squared / cubical hypocrite.

[Liberal Crozier]

Emproph,

Melvin White said it correctly. Billy Graham never spoke about homosexuality when speaking about Sodom and Gommorrah. In 1959, the Protestant Curran, an Evangelical theologian discussed the need to examine the language of original scripture and to understand the Sodom story in the light of inhospitality in the cultural sense of the time and place.

Years later, at Catholic University of America, the Catholic Jesuit Curran, a peritus, clearly agreed with his namesake's thesis published a decade or two previously.

But ironically for Papa Ratzi, his predecessor Pius XII issued the encyclical "DE AFFLUENTE SPIRITU" which clarified the contextuality of Scripture in the light of new knowledge that further reveals as opposed to an outright denial of scriptural understanding. It clearly condemns thoughtless inerrancy and sola scriptura as understood by the fundamentalists. Pius XII wrote this encyclical in 1944, shortly after the liberation of Rome from the Nazis.

Pius XII, as Archbishop Pacelli, Nuncio to Weimar Germany in the 20s was enamoured of the fascists in Italy, and he nonetheless developed into quite a Germanophile. In 1929, then Cardinal Pacelli, Secretary of State to Pius XI, ratified the treaty creating the postage stamp nation of the Vatican City State with fascist dictator Mussolini. In 1936, Cardinal Pacelli was instrumental in the Austrian Anschluss and the accomodation with the Nazis a few years later. Elected in 1939, he served until his death in 1958. His reliance upon Natural Law, Scholasticism and Tomism - that cosmological belief system initiated by the Greek pagan philosophers - has served to institutionalise the sexual theology of the Roman Catholic Church despite evidence of their errors. There have been countless victims before and after Galileo and Copernicus- many nameless individuals who suffered under theocracy of the then Papal States, most of the Italian boot under Papal control until 1870.

His successor, John Paul II (1978-2006) has been successful in silencing and castrating every liberal Catholic theologican extanct in the world today. Many choose to remain in the Roman Church despite their total rejection of the Ultrajectine and Ultramontane church he developed. Papa Ratzi's election was foretold when he removed every cardinal over the age of 70 with the right to papal election, despite the fact that he had been elected with the votes of many 80 year olds. He also retired or removed or caused the resignation of archbishops and bishops worldwide who espoused a liberal and liberating theology, and replaced and reshaped his Church into the uberconservative bastion not known since the days of Pius IX, Leo XIII and (St.) Pius X.

These theocon dominionist right wing zealots on the web are, for the most part, individuals who enjoy the Pharisitical belief that they are wholly righteous, and that like Christ, we do not obey the law, and therefore are sinful and outside the purview of a loving God. Their leaders are cynical, pragmatic, calculating and have a theocratic agenda and alliance with the unbridled capitalistic fascist.

These leaders have provided their sheeple with moral approbation to dehumanize and villify a tenth of the human race....many who believe that their faith belief system, when correctly lived in love, compassion, and with a trust that man's pilgrimage to both knowledge and change occurs when doubt and not "blessed assurance" defines their faith.

What is the purpose of gay-affirming Christian apologetics? Regardless of the faith community within it, we must speak to those antagonistic zealots with knowledge given by the Holy Spirit - hopeful replacing their absolute assurance that they possess the only truth to the faith - with sure doubt that troubles them because they know it is from the Holy Spirit.

Isn't that how every major convert to Christianity has begun his pilgrimage- from Saint Paul of Tarsus to every person who has hated and loathed themselves as well as others like him because they absolute believe the fact that all truth has been revealed, all language is immutable, and that their leaders can describe which "abominations" remain and others are forever forgotten......or that every gay or lesbian is merely a pagan temple prostitute who come out on Pride Parade days to display their wares and behaviours on a float.....and that choice implies that the natural condition of heterosexuality is universal without exception, and that God created only heterosexuals....with those who are straight because God told them too and we are gay because we choose to disobey God for carnal fleeting lust.

And all this time, I bought into scientific pyschosexuality that informs me clearly that it is libidinal attraction, and normal as Blondel says, because it is my condition and not an activity beyond it.

The worldwide web is wonderful and so is Google and so are you . I am sure that you told them where you "live" on the web and they can come here and lurk to their heart's content.

Remember the one sheep as important as the ninety-nine others.....ministry - for Crozier over thirty-four years of service to the Lord since priestly ordination - is all about the one- to- one and the one.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by dewdrop

It is killing me to watch them destroy Christianity. They talk the Bible talk but when it comes to the fundamentals -- love one another as you love Me -- the foundations of spiritual life, of decency, are expendable in the name of defending conservatism. One's beliefs are so important that it's worth selling your soul to defend them.

Bruce Bawer Stealing Jesus If you haven't read this book, you should do it soon. It's an amazingly accurate account of what fundamentalists have done to christianity. Your point about defending conservatism and the superiority of one's beliefs over the spiritual reminded me of the things Mr. Bawer talks about in this book. This is an amazing thread. Emproph, you are one incredible thinker! James, you've made the very points they need to hear (but won't.)

Interestingly enough, the internet is where I hear these arguments. I never hear them in person, face-to-face. I am living as an out gay man in a very small conservative town. I can't think of anyone who does not know me as a gay man. Yet, I've never been confronted with any of these arguments. I teach in an elementary school in a neighboring city. I was "outted" in that community and there are some parents who know me outside of the school setting who also know that I'm gay; again, there's been no religious right protest at my classroom door. Are any of you getting this in real time? or are we dealing with a bunch of closet fundies?

[Emproph]

{Thanks Liberal's spouse, If our messages were instruments, what would they sound like? Internet Carol of the bells, how 'bout prayer of the 'bells'? }

Hey Dash, thanks for the compliment on UMC. I saw that the other night and it really made me feel good, but I wasn’t sure if it was you or not.

I know that you and James have read this before, but this is really what it comes down to. I’m going to generalize a bit to try and make this simplistic, and then I’m going to ramble a bit.

We all fall into 3 categories (Christian/religious or otherwise). Right, Wrong, and in-between.

For the sake of what we’re experiencing, this is what it really comes down to. (James and Dash you can skip this part)

James had four simple questions in a short but profound opening post. I think this one encapsulates the spirit of what the discourse was MEANT to be:

Why do you, personally, feel that your way of reading Scripture matches God's intent?

My response originally posted on UMC:

Originally Posted by Emproph

It depends on what our definition of God is: All Love All Powerful, All Powerful not All Love, or All Love not All Powerful. I choose the first definition.

Love is the only energy that could possibly be all powerful. It has infinite motivation -perpetually increasing heaven. It’s the only energy that can not only sustain itself but can also generate itself. It does so by sharing, the more it gives, the more it gets back, this is what we're here to learn.

(The Earth isn't just a 'school of learning', it's a 'school builders' school.)

Evil, is based on only taking, if it were a force of itself, it would be doomed to be extinquished. Love continues to share with it that it may be filled and transformed.

If God is All Powerful, why would He allow the possibility of even one doubt about His word?

With all of our different beliefs about the Bible, God obviously knew back when it was being written of all the raging controversies that surround the Bible today yet chose not to ensure that everyone who was exposed to it would come to the exact same conclusions. Certainly an easy feat for an All Powerful God, and considering that our eternal souls are at stake, certainly a motive of a God of Love.

Our idea of WHO God is determines WHY that choice was/is made.

The idea and understanding of love is universal. We all need love, to that extent it’s the one Biblical definition of God that’s not subject to interpretation.

It’s the message of Only Love Always that’s Biblically inerrant and infallible.

To the extent that scripture is viewed through this lens, so is the accuracy of its interpretation.

In regard to sin, it’s about understanding sin itself as being whatever takes away from the understanding of Only Love Always.

I’ll spare you the details of the actual discourse, if you’ve gotten this far reading through all three of my in-a-row posts, then you deserve a golden keyboard.
_____________________________

The “schism” of the UMC and like kind are complete. It’s only a matter of time before they recognize that it’s already the case.

As someone whose decided that they are certain that they are right, whether they are a Christian, or a believer, or just one of the other 6 billion shmoes walking the planet... Without the IDEAL of unconditional love FIRST, There is no improvement, not to mention guaranteed propensity for corruption of mind pride.

With the IDEAL of unconditional love FIRST, no harm is the ideal. No harm equals no sin. No sin because without harm no one has been “sinned against.”

I’ve written it so many times before, I think the simplest way to put it is that, they’re like that personality-wise first, before they are inerrantist Christians. They act like their bigotry is genetic, they act like they were "born that way." And they want the "special rights" to impune us based on their chosen lifestyle behavior (religion, and interpretation of it).

Basically they're equating (select parts of) 'God's word' with OUR-WORD OF-GOD

Follow the line of projection and we find stereo-specific insight that includes among other things (about "homosexuality"):
-possession of the mind
-a lying spirit that will justify that homosexuality is not only okay, but somehow approved of by God
-All had goten themselves into something that all have found terribly difficult to get out of
-few have had the desire to reach out for spiritual assistance
-and a few more have turned their lives around and followed Christianity.

All we have to do is substitute the word homosexuality with Biblical inerrancy (or something..like that). Everything they write about us is EVERYTHING that describes them to a tee. This is literally supernatural how utterly unaware they are of their own projection, and this is happening on a mass scale.
_______________________________

Anyway, here’s our two Christians, and thus our two God's and thus our two universes...
-One judges by the ideal of the love of certainty
-One judges by the ideal of the certainty of Love.

Or as I read it the other day; The Love of the law or the law of Love. (Everyone else is in between and has not "decided" yet.. lukewarm)

Do you love the “Holy Spirit” of Love, first and above all? 'God' to us because it is the most precious or “holy” feeling or “spirit” that exists.

It’s the same argument in all the chat rooms and in all the churches and there will be no compromise. This is what they must understand.
The entire issue of schism is the quintessential Christian purpose. Especially with that woman pastor/bishop who was just elected leader. She’s ever the uniter from what I read. She gets it, it has to be 'them' who decide to leave. It has to be their decision.

No matter what, we can never give up on them. But I don’t think either side fully comprehends this unique challenge, point blank, as of yet.

The real challenge is to get the other side to realize that we’re not budging, and more importantly to get them to realize its because we’re more certain than they are.

They’re all screwed up in exactly the same way, and the church schisms are just reflective of what’s going on on the ground. (ground-level believer).

Without love FIRST there is corruption. Their “world view” is based on the idea of the ideal, not the ideal itself. The frame, not the picture. But oh what a lovely frame it is. *

Never being wrong IS perfection, ideally...

*ACIM

[keltic63]

Emproph,

here is an excellent op-ed piece describing the kind of duality of which you speak. In this article, the divide falls among those who feel compelled to follow the Great Command (love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and others as yourself) and those who believe the Great Commission takes top priority (Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.) Is there a way to bring the 2 sides together?

Read the entire piece HERE

[Liberal Crozier]

Isn't it typical and predictable theocon apologetics to have one to suggest that the Great Decalogue and the Great Commission are contradictory or the latter has precedence, and to conclude syllogistically that ergo, their institutionalised and "theologically supported" homophobia is part of the Great Commissionary activity of their sects.

I have never used the terms "cult and sect" arbitrarily or often when speaking about Christian groups. However, these Dominionists fit the description accurately. In any theological discipline, they stretch the envelope, and in areas of moral theology and escatological theology, their views are, to be charitable, unique in description.

My answer is that both the GD and the GC are consistent with our belief system as LGBT Christians. Our problem is not with either Divine pronouncement, but with the interpretation that these Dominionists provide in terms of the OT and NT proscriptions about the definition of the Christian LGBT person and his monogamous marriage and raising of children in the Christian faith in a gay-affirming faith community. The same rings true today with the toxic papacy of Papa Ratzi in the Roman Catholic Church trying to spin away from the paedophile scandals that both impoverished them in terms of their theological wars with the Dominionists who are making inroads everywhere with cultural and nominal Catholics, to say nothing of the land and money lost in paying legal judgements worldwide.

We Soulforce and other LGBT Christians know the reply to Dominionists about the OT proscriptions in the Holiness Code. The mission is to repeat it, and repeat it, and repeat it often.....do not assume that everyone knows our side. Talk about the Pauline Proscriptions.....talk about them.....talk about how words change meaning throughout the centuries. Heck, my 92-year old mother was a "HOT TOMATO" - my late father's favourite expression of endearment. Pagan temple prostitute is not an accurate description of myself or of you.

Please understand that the resonance to the Dominionists about homosexuality and choice and behaviour definitions is that their leaders were once American racists and bigots who used Scripture to justify their ban on interracial marriage and racial hatred and bigotry. They denied earlier the existence of souls in the Negro race. That was their initial premise in order to deny them human rights.

With Communism and Racism gone, we were the only oppressed minority around which to marshall the sheeple and gain political and economic resources in the bargain. Their leaders know the truth, it is just that the truth has no economic, political or religious payback.

So, keep on telling your spiritual story, and keep on keeping it simply about the truths enunciated in all the good stories told by our leader, Dr. Melvin White.

This is Liberal Crozier, and it is time for me to go to the Oncology Centre for a WBC booster and some IV fluids. Will be back later, My Apostolic blesssing and may the Holy Spirit enlighten you when you communicate with these misguided sheeple.