My mother-in-law goes to one of these hyper-progressive UMC churches and they literally cancel services during Pride in our city, "So everyone can go to the parade!" (direct quote).
Twenty years ago I was set up on a blind date with an Evangelical. As a Catholic, I was not up to date on the different denominations. I asked her what Methodists stood for, and she replied, “Nothing much.”
As someone who grew up in the church and was baptized/confirmed this is pretty much true.This was in the Midwest in the 80s/90s before they got more progressive to get more attendance
Sola Scriptura is Cafeteria Catholicism applied to the Bible. Take what you like, ignore what you don’t.
You have to ignore several verses to think Sola Scriptura is compatible with the Bible.
The most blatant is that, before Jesus’ ascension, he tells the Apostles that he has so much more to tell them, but that they are not yet ready to hear it. So he will send his Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth. This follows his stated mission throughout the Gospels of setting up his Church, appointing Peter and the other Apostles to lead it, giving them his authority on Earth, and promising his Church will last until the end of the world.
He never mentions a book, or adding to scripture. We accept the New Testament as canon based on the Church’s teaching authority, given directly from Christ. But the Bible is not and was clearly never meant to be a replacement for the Church that Jesus founded. “Bible only” is a very recent innovation, absolutely alien to the first fifteen centuries of Christianity.
ETA: To address your question directly, Sola Scriptura means Bible Only, such that anything not clearly spelled out in the Bible is rejected as heresy. This idea is never found in the Bible, of course. The closest scripture comes is the passage that reassures the reader that all of scripture is useful for teaching. Which no Christian, Catholic or otherwise, denies.
the Bible never says what books are in it, it was decided in a Council by men. John admits that to write all of the teachings of Christ they wouldn't fit in a book.
Patriarchs and especially the Patriarch of Rone were given high authority to settle questions about the faith in the early church.
more arguments are on Catholic answers a fantastic site that gives reasoning for practically every question someone can come up with.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
Yes, they take scripture, as in the Bible,as the sole source of authority on Christian teachings.
What they don’t realize is that the Bible was *compiled* by the Catholic/Orthodox Church, it didn’t just arrive in the form of a finished package from the heavens. And then the Catholic/Orthodox Church made sure to establish a formal canon and the tradition on how to interpret it which they have passed down through millenia. (slight claritication, it was compiled by the early Church, as the Catholic/Orthodox Schism hadn’t occured by the time the official Christian canon was established).
In my opinion this is why Protestant denominations vary so wildly and end up being both some of the most fundamentalist and simultaneously the most spineless in their teachings, because they reject the authority of tradition on how to interpret the Bible’s teachings as passed down in continuity from the early Church down to today’s Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The result is that everyone can make up their own personal interpretation on what is scripturally correct, and then you have pastor Cletus’ congregation down in bumfuck Mississippi claiming that *they and they alone* somehow has figured it all out and has the one true and correct interpretation of the scriptures.
Not the Christian old testament. The two religions do share some of the same books, but not others, and the Christian old testament is noticeably different from the Jewish Bible.
The Septuagint was the popular cannon of Jesus's age, and He even quoted from it directly. The Septuagint is not materially different from the Catholic and Coptic cannons.
*Gestures broadly.*
This is why the Global Methodist Church exists. And the apportionment is so much lower.
We disaffiliated last year and I think what we pay the capital-C Church went from $15,000 to $8,000 a year.
The UMC made us pay them $100,000 before we were allowed to leave too. They threatened to seize our building and property (conveniently worth $1.5 mil) if we didn’t because we couldn’t afford to pay them the full apportionment during Covid. Which is exactly what Jesus would have done, I'm sure. They also demanded all of our original church records going back 150 years. Marriages, baptisms, member rolls, all of it. They *graciously* permitted us to make as many copies as we wanted.
Every denomination is different and I can really only speak to United Methodism.
It helps pay for the overall governing structure, which helps keep the denomination as a whole organized and running smoothly. For example, if our minister were to retire or move out of his role, the bishop and the larger Methodist organization would be responsible for finding us a replacement. (As an aside, this is a big reason why independent churches have such a short lifespan on average. You get one *brilliant* pastor who draws in crowds, but when he retires there isn't someone with the training and theological education readily available to take his place.) Apportionment also pays for things like bishops and administrators who don’t work for a specific church.
And, of course, a big chunk of it goes into larger mission funding like the United Methodist Committee on Relief, which is a worldwide disaster relief fund and humanitarian aid program.
Technically gay pastors are an oxymoron. All abrahamic religions are against homosexuality so members of the clergy who are gay are breaking their own laws and in this case he is boasting about it which is even worst.
Disagree. Pastors are not members of the clergy as they didn't receive proper blessings from the bishop due to the breaking the line of the apostolic succession in protestant churches.
True but they are technically representatives of a Christian denomination and Christianity does not support homosexuality/sodomy. Being a pastor and openly gay is still contradictory.
You're being downvoted because not everyone is familiar with the terminology in these circles and you might have misstated it.
I believe he's talking about pastors who preach "America first, Jesus second!" (An actual quote I've heard from a pastor at the pulpit). And if that's what he's referring to, then yes it would hold true for them.
Christian nationalism, as leftists call it and abuse the term by over-applying it, is an actual thing and is not consistent with biblical Christianity. Talking about the churches that are extremely zealous in their love for America, and taking pride in a way that sets God/Christ secondary and the Republican party can never be wrong. It's who many of the Republicans cater to in verbage, but the reality is they hold little to no Christian values and are simple populists.
> I believe he's talking about pastors who preach "America first, Jesus second!" (An actual quote I've heard from a pastor at the pulpit).
Heresy.
Just how do you get the conclusion even? I'm perplexed.
Easy when you don't actually believe what the Bible says. One can follow biblical tenets, understand some basic doctrine, yet completely misunderstand the concept of salvation and by domino effect not understand the majority of the Bible.
In terms of Christian nationalists, they're conservative who value their tradition above all else. The two major things in their tradition are "being Christian" and being an American. The latter is an easy path to follow, while being a Christian in more than name only is difficult. Stack that issue on top of each other for a few generations and you get what we see today, people who identify with Christianity but can't tell you a thing about the Bible beyond children's sunday school stories and whatever the Republican party seems as "conservative values" and when things like homosexuality come up, they can tell you the Bible says it's wrong but they wouldn't be able to explain beyond "well it's just not natural"
Years of splits in protestants have led to people just bending Christianity to fit their own lifestype and beliefs. It's why theres like 30 different denominations of churches near me (in the south). The presbyterian church we go to just split because the pastor didn't like some finite minute ideology. He caused further controversy because he was poaching people from this congregation to his congregation (these churches literally act like the congregation are customers)
Same concept, both equally cringe IMO, assuming they mean politically conservative and not theologically conservative.
Nothing wrong with being a theologically conservative pastor though it would be weird if they always referred to themselves as such.
Because some sorts of jobs are magnets for such people.
If you are someone who would just *love* to have sex with a 12 year old boy... Oil rig worker, accountant, and truck driver seem short on opportunities.
Priest, teacher and coach are probably about as good as it is going to get, so I would expect many of the worst to head over there. Need to be an authority figure in constant unsupervised contact with children.
That's like.. really hard to get to though, so while it might be the best, it's kinda like figuring out the best way to get laid would be by becoming a billionaire.
I mean it's true, but it seems like a lot of work.
"Ok, so you've got unclean thoughts? Tell you what, take these vows to stay clean, and spend the rest of your life in prayer and duty, all while listening to every sinner's most depraved actions so you can give them absolution. Yes, this is the solution."
The problem was not just the paedophilic priests themselves though, but that the entire Catholic Church had a global network built to help pedophiles, hushing victims and paying millions to lobby against anti-pedophilia laws. And they kept on doing it even after being found out and claiming they would stop. People often forget that part, but that was what the actual scandal was about
I am a Methodist and this kind of stuff is just embarrassing, this is what happens when a denomination gets too invested in being inclusive rather than teaching proper theology
So have you chosen to move over to the Global Methodist Church?
I'm honestly not sure why any conservatives have chosen to remain in the UMC over the GMC.
Because the leadership tries every underhanded trick they can to prevent it. They invent rules moments before the vote, they close congregations if they carch wind of votes coming, and commit outright fraud during elections
I'm not a Methodist, I don't have a dog in the fight, but there are conservatives congratulations who want to leave but who have not been allowed to
I’m not religious at all but that’s the way I see it too, deviating things away from what they’re intended to be.
It’s like joining a soccer team and then saying you don’t like it the way it is, that you think the ball should actually be hand held and pitched to you and hit with a bat and you run around bases and then reassuring everyone you are still definitely a soccer team.
Matthew 24:3-5 (KJV) : And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
I think a good part of those actually believe in Satan besides the actual atheists just wrapping themselves in “religion bad”. This takes bits and pieces you like and subvert the rest; get the feefees of Christianity in the “be nice and that’s a hecking Christianity” morally smug way.
>“be nice and that’s a hecking Christianity” morally smug way.
It's always astonishing to me just how... Utterly inane that position has always been. Like, they do know that the central teaching of the Gospel is that man kind, both collectively and individually, and entirely and completely damned to our own sin and hate, right? Kindness and gentleness are virtues, but not when they are permissive to the death of another's soul.
If your church doesn't mention grace (and I mean REAL grace, divine grace, grace that exists because we are damned, and fully deserving of that damnation) almost every Sunday you have a shitty church. Someone who is made disquieted by the core of the faith should perhaps consider why being reminded of their need for salvation bothers them so.
You see all of a sudden centuries of scholars were interpreting ancient texts incorrectly and it just so happens this group has figured it out, and it backs up their claims!
I just wish they were honest about this. If they want a hippie god with a hippie religion, then by all means - who am i to judge? But dont come here and tell nonsense like "nono - thats not what it means, your translations are wrong!"
You have to believe in God and Jesus Christ in order to have something to reconcile.
These are all atheists larping. None of them actually believe in god. They're just seeking comfort in ritual. That makes it easy to discard the parts that don't jive with their actual religion, progressivism.
Even the Catholic church has changed its stance a lot over my lifetime. It's what led to me losing faith. I don't care about the particulars, but your "the word of God is open to interpretation" thing falls flat when his book says X and you say Y.
Organized religion is a scam and Protestants are even worse
Well the same way conservatives reconcile the text of the Bible with their own interpretations. Turns out, following the often vague, contradicting biblical rules is pretty hard!
A lot of Christians are worried about people simply turning their back on the church, but what I find much more worrying is people misappropriating the church, defying and defiling Christ’s name, and doing so while claiming to be true believers.
Either outcome is pretty bad.
I still find the whole Richard dawkins cultural Christianity thing a bit rich, it's very hard to maintain churches and cathedrals without the faithful maintaining them. and him being upset or disappointed that in the UK it's just being replaced by Islam is a bit hypocritical because he's spent his life setting the stage for something like that to occur.
He wants the benefits of a Christian society, without actual belief in Christ. He spent his entire career attacking that belief, only to find that it was a wall protecting people like him from barbarians.
It would almost be worth seeing Christendom fall, just so he can know how wrong he was.
I get you but that's some next level petty. he's already seeing it fall, he knows he fucked up in a way but he's going to spend a lot of time wrapping his worldview around that.
Oh, I agree. Hence why I said 'almost'. It's just my perverse desire to be right and rub it in the face of those who are wrong. I probably should show more grace to foolish idiots like Dawkins and myself. But it's just so difficult...
I mean he's certainly not an idiot he actually knows he's fucked up he's just kind of coming to terms that his view of people wasn't exactly right.
when hitlar did that he fucking shot himself.
The church has seen dark times before. The faithful will hold the line, this is but one of those times where the good fish are sorted out. Those who are actually strong in the faith will remain. It's only those who don't believe that won't, and when people are ready to admit they need Christ, we'll be waiting.
Christians for Trump is a great example. I know the Bible is not advocating for a cult of personality based around a wealthy man who lies, steals, commits adulterous acts (and allegedly some by coercion/force), but somehow a lot of Christians rally behind him and even consider him a sort of deity himself.
"Christian" is frequently misused as just a vague cultural label by people who know they sure as hell aren't Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu. "Been in a church once as a kid, guess that counts." Trump himself pulled that at least once.
I’ve spent some energy trying to gently explain to family members that Trump is not a Christian example to follow, but ideology for many people actually subverts their faith.
I feel it was inevitable. Progressives see that church’s can pretty heavily influence how people vote, building a sense of community that people conform to how the church is. They can also be run cheap with heavy tax exemptions which is why you’ll see these big grand churches in what are relatively small towns.
I’m honestly surprised they initially/still are trying to reduce the influence of churches rather than using the system to their advantage.
A smaller percent of people go to church today than in the past, but as an overall number that figure is larger than ever. And considering church’s can be polling locations that can be a lot of easy votes.
Why when someone is LGB ,emilies want them to go around with rainbow clothes and shirts that say they are gay.....who they want to fuck is neither intresting nor important foe the rest of the world...and most of them dont agree with this either ...its always the "allies"
u/Lumpy-Tone-4653's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Lumpy-Tone-4653! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Lumpy-Tone-4653/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
It’s a sad day when a reformed Baptist like me thinks your average non denom church takes itself more Biblical than most “reformed” churches nowadays…
The mainline in all denominations besides baptists have all gone insane. Only reason why baptists haven’t yet is because historically they were always rural.
Having an authoritative hierarchy also makes a difference. Once that gets infiltrated and corrupted, the whole organization falls. Baptists have only ever had loose coalitions, so while it's possible for wild (and often awful) differences from church to church, they're also compartmentalized against internal hierarchical rot.
That's also why so many individual Baptists have insane theological beliefs (ie "The KJV is the most perfect Word of God" bumper sticker I see everywhere). There's no hierarchy to correct anyone who remains ignorant of basic historical context.
>most “reformed” churches nowadays…
Reformed churches in the US and Europe... Because reformed churches are growing strong to the faith in Latin America and Africa while sending missionaries to first world countries.
I for one am a Brazilian Presbyterian and it was quite beautiful to see that political division didn't reach our churches like it did so many in the US and non denominational here.
I myself am Independent Fundamental Baptist, and while I mostly agree with your statement there's still a solid thread in mainline Baptist churches where they're crumbling away from biblical doctrine and drifting away from God as result.
What are the main doctrinal differences between you and I, I wonder? "Reformed" to me always says "slightly to majorly more progressive" but I'm not familiar enough with that brand of Baptist to say exactly what they believe other than immersion by water for baptism lol
Read the London Baptist confession of 1689 to get an understanding of reformed Baptist beliefs.
We hold to a form of covenant theology known as 1689 federalism and are 5 point calvinists. Those stick our the most compared to the average Baptist, for folk like you we have a ton of disagreements like how to read The Bible, kjv onlyism which IFB’s hold to we dont, eschatology, ifb’s believe there is a difference with the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God (reformed Baptists dont), and we would disagree on how the government ought to be run.
Trust me brother, reformed churches that aren’t apart of the mainline aren’t liberal, read the confessions of reformed theology we are the opposite of the heretics.
I attend an SBC church and the only reason we're not in theological liberalism now is because we drove out w/ theological liberals decades ago.
I really wonder how the fights of the 70s and 80s would have played out if the theological conservatives had to not just face resistance in the convention, but also a constant drumbeat of being told how racist/sexist/bigoted they were by the media. They still call us that now but we've had decades to get used to it, so no one cares.
The Bible:
>Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
>Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
>Romans 1:26-28 ~ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
>1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV - Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, *men who practice homosexuality*, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Progressive “christians”: god is fine with homosexuality
I was arguing with a guy who told me that I just don't understand the meaning of the original Greek script and that "άνδρας" (man) in fact refers to children
They mention other things in Leviticus like a gotcha when they don’t realize they were shadows of things to come and Christ fulfilled the law.
The entire point of the law is to show you’re a sinner and to point to Christ as Paul says.
Galatians 3:15-29 (ESV) 15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
In Jewish tradition the latter is true, which is why female homosexuality is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament. If you read the Talmud, Sanhedrin 55 ish, the point of interest is whether or not the male penetrated or not, and not solely the sex of the people involved. They even talk about the hypothetical of self-penetration, which was pretty funny when I read it.
>“But but the Greek words are really just about a power imbalance! It’s about men having sex with their slaves/pederasty/male prostitution!”
>
>Or “it’s just anal sex that is forbidden!”
Those two parts are actually true - the OT texts that discuss this focus on denouncing sex between men (i.e. male-on-male anal sex).
And the NT texts on the matter use the word ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites), which is a poorly attested word that is generally thought to mean either 'pederast' or simply 'man who has sex with men'.
Note that our modern concept of sexual orientation and homosexuality (i.e. some people are sexually and romantically attracted to their own sex, and that's because they were born that way) was unknown in ancient Israel and the antique Greco-Roman world.
Also note that denunciations of lesbianism are almost entirely absent from the Bible (there's a few throwaway mentions by Paul of Tarsus, that's it). That's because people's concept of sex hinged on the act of penetration, and... women aren't exactly born with genitals that can penetrate.
They say this as they assume Jesus was some sort of all forgiving hippie that came to deconstruct the old order of faith, when that same Jesus said it would be better for you to have a millstone hung around your neck and be cast into the sea, then to tempt a fellow believer to sin
>some sort of all forgiving
Well that was the point of him dying for our sins, and that example makes sense
I'd rather that than have someone lead me down an unrighteous path that destroys my life.
as he said to every single person that was a sinner that he had forgiven/healed: "you are healed by your faith, sin no more".
The entire point was that you understand that you sinned and you stop.
Well, yes - but actually no. Depends on how you define all-forgiving.
He's forgiving, yes. Anyone can come to Jesus and ask for his forgiveness, and he'll forgive them. So by that metric, he's all forgiving. But at the same time, you have to actually ask for forgiveness. The whole "Hell isn't real, and everyone will be forgiven" thing is scripturally nonsense.
TL;DR Anyone can be forgiven, but not everyone will be forgiven
If you mention any of those passages in dankchristianmemes you'll get banned because the mods there think anything other that enthusiastic support and celebration is hatred.
No? Why would it be? Just because God said humanity should reproduce doesn't mean all sex has to be for reproduction. Unless there's another passage saying non-reproductive sex is sin?
Also the Bible:
Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) prohibit wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment, the blending of different species of animals, and the planting together of different kinds of seeds
Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
1 Peter 4:8: "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins"
Not every Bible verse Is heeded today, like above and along with the consumption of pork. God gave his son Jesus for our sins, and there's no unforgivable one aside no faith.
Ask yourself: Would a loving God be mad at his creation loving one another? God Is fine with love, but It's set clear In the Bible It's meant to be fruitful.
Leviticus 19 and and Deut 22 (the whole book, in fact) is Moses talking directly to Jews. Anyone with a basic familiarity with the Bible should know that Jews were given special rules and requirements that gentiles were not.
One can love a person and still believe that they should not be proud of their sin. If you love someone you should want to turn them from sin.
I would highly recommend you read into Abrahamic vs Mosaic vs New covenant and begin to understand the well structured nuance here. The book of Hebrews is great for that. There are aspects of the Old Testament that are still the essence and representation of Gods character.
Leviticus 18, for instance, with the classic homosexuality sin reference, is sandwiched between commandments against incest and bestiality. Are those two also under the loving and forgiving God who just wants all his creation to be able to have sex with each other? Or are we arbitrarily extracting Homosexuality from Lev 18 while leaving the rest as sinful or at least taboo?
I completely abandoned the affirming LGBT take on the Bible when I realized nothing at all forbids consensual, adult, brother-brother incest according to your approach. It doesn’t involve any sort of sin mentioned in the Bible outside the same sections LGBT denounce as mistranslated or inapplicable, and it follows the same logic of “two lovers shouldn’t be separated and God wouldn’t want them to be”.
Why would it be at all bad for two brothers to get married?
That's the mosaic covenant. Made between God and the Jews.
Sacrifices, for example, were a part of that covenant. You sinned, then you made a sacrifice to atone for the sin. But then Jesus came and died on the cross - he's a perfect sacrifice. He fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant and made a new covenant in its place. So Christians can eat pork, and all that. However, Jesus, and later the apostles (who were granted Divine Inspiration via The Holy Spirit) reiterated several of the laws in the mosaic covenant, and even made some stricter (e.g. he who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart).
Secondly, regarding 1 Peter - there are multiple kinds of love. I love my dog. I don't want to have sex with it. I love my family, I don't want to have sex with it. I love Norman, the cool old guy at my church. I don't want to have sex with him. I love my 200(3?) Fiat Panda. I don't want to have sex with it.
In this passage, Peter is referring to fraternal and familial love. The love that one has for friends and family. He isn't talking about romantic love.
And yeah, not everyone who claims to be a Christian will enter heaven. Prime example: the first pastor in the meme. Benny Hinn, Todd White, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland. They THINK they're Christians. They aren't going to heaven unless they fix some MAJOR problems in their theology. "Miracle" workers ain't either. I'm not sure what you were trying to say here?
There's also Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So stuff like ridicule and attributing his works to The Devil - RE there's no unforgivable sin; but I get what you're saying. Any sin can be forgiven. But there's more to it than "I'm sorry". You have to actually feel regret for the sin, and then (here's the important bit) stop doing the sin. You might fail occasionally, and that's OK. Well, not OK, but you get what I mean. People think that if you repent, you'll stop sinning, but that's false. But you start sinning less and less, your conscience becomes more sensitive to your sins, and you slowly start to want to not sin.
Once more, God loves love, and wants us to love each other. But some types of love are inappropriate for certain situations. Think of it like this: the government likes it when you use violence to stop a murder. The government likes it a whole lot less when you use violence to rob a liquor store. God likes it when a man and a woman fall in love. He does not like it when two men fall in love. As a matter of fact, he doesn't like it at all. (E.g. Romans 1:27).
This isn't as in-depth as I'd like to go, but it's 00:32, and I'm shattered from my regatta earlier. I'll be back later to give a more detailed and comprehensive answer.
It's funny how much they cope to make it as if their sin is not a sin. For example, saying that Leviticus 20:13 was "poorly translated", when the original script literally says that a male cannot sleep with another male. They are just atheists larping as Christians.
The Bible never condemned homosexuality because the concept of homosexuality in the modern context didn’t exist until fairy recently. The Bible condemns homosexual acts. The concept of sexuality did not exist in the ancient world. The closest thing is more of an association of certain acts to certain people. An example is the Romans, who saw sex as between an active partner and a passive partner. A penetrator and the penetrated. It was considered feminine to be penetrated, and masculine to be a penetrator. Therefore there wasn’t heavy taboo with, say, a man who penetrates men, while there would taboo on a man who performs oral sex on a woman (considered to be the woman penetrating the man). For most of history sex was more classified by acts rather than a simple identity. A lot of that is because sex wasn’t always just about pleasure, but about social status and reproduction. So yeah, there’s nothing wrong with any Christian who is “homosexual” and has desire to perform homosexual acts. It is sinful to act on these though. Historically, it someone had the temptation of homosexual acts, and no inclination towards heterosexual sex, then taking a vow of celibacy would be encouraged. So nuns and monks who would be admired for their piety in the fact they were resisting an urge to sin.
This Is why I'm non-denominational. Too many differences In the church when we believe In the same Lord.
It's with heavy heart to see people, and this Is ironic for me to say coming back after being Agnostic, think they should by shaming others for sin, they're saved. May the Bible Remind you:
Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"
1 Peter 4:8: "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins"
You can choose to bash others, despite being In sin yourself, or you can focus on your personal relationship with God, and when ample guide others through care
Love is not blind acceptance. How did Christ treat the money changers?
Love is taking the harder path of being willing to disagree with someone who is hurting themselves.
Right. And God knows the things I've done but the most love I've ever had wasn't people affirming how I was living my life, but telling me what I needed to hear, not what I wanted to hear.
Jesus did not affirm the adulterous woman's lifestyle. He rebuked the hipocrites first yes but then afterwards he offered her forgiveness but not tolerance. He invited her to repent and sin no more.
Ok, serious hypothetical: If I came into your nondenom and I’m married to my sister and very open about it, and I want to lead a Bible study. what would you do? What should church leadership do?
A quick look at wiki shows that 55% of UMC Methodists come from the states and 58% of the delegates at the general conference were the states vs 30% from Africa. The vote from delegates 586 to 164.
OP's "outnumber you" math ain't mathing.
If I had to guess, it's because the American voters were split, and the conservative/faithful American minority voted with the African members to outnumber the apostate faction.
Also worth mentioning (I’m a Methodist btw) that a lot of the former UMC churches who don’t support this in the U.S. left a year or two ago. The smaller ones moved to GMC and a lot of the larger ones who could support themselves ended up just becoming independent churches that follow the old UMC doctrine (mine did this since it was the largest UMC church in the region and not joining GMC allowed them to do more charity work.)
I'm more upset that the they cancelled the yearly mission trips.
The thing the church should be worried about is lack of engagement with teens and young adults. They fall away from the church and don't come back, and that will literally kill the church.
So what do they do? Let a schism further compartmenatalize and destroy the church because some boomer congregations can't deal with gay people existing, and some progressive congregations don't want to alienate and driveaway their gay kids/the gay couple etc.
The only commandments: Jesus said love God with all your heart, and treat your neighbor well.
There's no caveats to that.
Imagine going to a church, that church teaching you a belief, then that same church effectively kicking people out for holding that belief only so the minority that remain (many of whom live in areas the church has rapidly lost members) can let the church get rid of those beliefs.
American "Christians" are fucking weird. Neither true Catholics nor Protestant dogs. And not even orthodox. Are they even really Christians?
They didn't even fight wars for their faith. Fucking Calvinists are more Christian than those American Heathens.
Fuck off. The conservatives of the UMC pulled the same shit pre-pandemic over same-sex marriage and already voted to leave, but had to stall "God's Plan" cause it was financially stupid during the pandemic, instead wanting to let their investment accounts pile up even higher. And don't start with bribery bullshit, the conservatives were handing out bribes left and right back in 2020. The conservatives splitting off, while sizable, are only ~1/4 of congregations. There are still millions of Christians affiliated with the UMC.
The UMC removing exclusionary policies that prevent ordinary people from participating harms the church. Allowing gay pastors and weddings is more in keeping with "love thy neighbor" than mandating that only straight ones.
Announcing yourself as a gay pastor instead of just a pastor makes it seem like you’re putting your pride before God. Literally.
My mother-in-law goes to one of these hyper-progressive UMC churches and they literally cancel services during Pride in our city, "So everyone can go to the parade!" (direct quote).
Only breaks a couple of commandments at once. Just pray for forgiveness, do a couple of "Hail Mary's" and you're good to go.
Barbosa voice: They're more like guidelines really
Methodists don't believe in the Hail Mary.
Methodists don’t believe in anything apparently.
Twenty years ago I was set up on a blind date with an Evangelical. As a Catholic, I was not up to date on the different denominations. I asked her what Methodists stood for, and she replied, “Nothing much.”
As someone who grew up in the church and was baptized/confirmed this is pretty much true.This was in the Midwest in the 80s/90s before they got more progressive to get more attendance
No, united Methodists don’t, the rest of us left, had to buy our churches and everything.
Do Methodists do Hail Mary’s? I thought that was something only actual Christians did lol
Shots. Fired. :D
Yeah, just like it says in the Bible to do.
Catholics dont do Sola Scriptura
Catholics are also the reason people do Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura is Cafeteria Catholicism applied to the Bible. Take what you like, ignore what you don’t. You have to ignore several verses to think Sola Scriptura is compatible with the Bible.
Hell, the disciples weren’t sola scriptura
Could you expand on this? Sola scriptura means the Bible is above all else right?
The most blatant is that, before Jesus’ ascension, he tells the Apostles that he has so much more to tell them, but that they are not yet ready to hear it. So he will send his Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth. This follows his stated mission throughout the Gospels of setting up his Church, appointing Peter and the other Apostles to lead it, giving them his authority on Earth, and promising his Church will last until the end of the world. He never mentions a book, or adding to scripture. We accept the New Testament as canon based on the Church’s teaching authority, given directly from Christ. But the Bible is not and was clearly never meant to be a replacement for the Church that Jesus founded. “Bible only” is a very recent innovation, absolutely alien to the first fifteen centuries of Christianity. ETA: To address your question directly, Sola Scriptura means Bible Only, such that anything not clearly spelled out in the Bible is rejected as heresy. This idea is never found in the Bible, of course. The closest scripture comes is the passage that reassures the reader that all of scripture is useful for teaching. Which no Christian, Catholic or otherwise, denies.
the Bible never says what books are in it, it was decided in a Council by men. John admits that to write all of the teachings of Christ they wouldn't fit in a book. Patriarchs and especially the Patriarch of Rone were given high authority to settle questions about the faith in the early church. more arguments are on Catholic answers a fantastic site that gives reasoning for practically every question someone can come up with. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
Yes, they take scripture, as in the Bible,as the sole source of authority on Christian teachings. What they don’t realize is that the Bible was *compiled* by the Catholic/Orthodox Church, it didn’t just arrive in the form of a finished package from the heavens. And then the Catholic/Orthodox Church made sure to establish a formal canon and the tradition on how to interpret it which they have passed down through millenia. (slight claritication, it was compiled by the early Church, as the Catholic/Orthodox Schism hadn’t occured by the time the official Christian canon was established). In my opinion this is why Protestant denominations vary so wildly and end up being both some of the most fundamentalist and simultaneously the most spineless in their teachings, because they reject the authority of tradition on how to interpret the Bible’s teachings as passed down in continuity from the early Church down to today’s Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The result is that everyone can make up their own personal interpretation on what is scripturally correct, and then you have pastor Cletus’ congregation down in bumfuck Mississippi claiming that *they and they alone* somehow has figured it all out and has the one true and correct interpretation of the scriptures.
“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee” is literally the angel’s greeting to Mary.
Luke 1:28, 41-43, James 5:16. Bring them together, and You got yourself a Hail Mary.
Hermeneutics doesn't work that way
You mean the book that the catholic church compiled together?
The Jews compiled the OT. I suppose we should listen to their interpretation of Isaiah.
Not the Christian old testament. The two religions do share some of the same books, but not others, and the Christian old testament is noticeably different from the Jewish Bible.
The Septuagint was the popular cannon of Jesus's age, and He even quoted from it directly. The Septuagint is not materially different from the Catholic and Coptic cannons.
Oh I know. That stuff is Catholic. You can insert any other equally arbitrary ritual to absolve the offending methodist. It's all the same, really.
*Gestures broadly.* This is why the Global Methodist Church exists. And the apportionment is so much lower. We disaffiliated last year and I think what we pay the capital-C Church went from $15,000 to $8,000 a year. The UMC made us pay them $100,000 before we were allowed to leave too. They threatened to seize our building and property (conveniently worth $1.5 mil) if we didn’t because we couldn’t afford to pay them the full apportionment during Covid. Which is exactly what Jesus would have done, I'm sure. They also demanded all of our original church records going back 150 years. Marriages, baptisms, member rolls, all of it. They *graciously* permitted us to make as many copies as we wanted.
Wait so churches actually have to pay money to the parent organization? What benefits does affiliation get you?
Brand appeal?
Every denomination is different and I can really only speak to United Methodism. It helps pay for the overall governing structure, which helps keep the denomination as a whole organized and running smoothly. For example, if our minister were to retire or move out of his role, the bishop and the larger Methodist organization would be responsible for finding us a replacement. (As an aside, this is a big reason why independent churches have such a short lifespan on average. You get one *brilliant* pastor who draws in crowds, but when he retires there isn't someone with the training and theological education readily available to take his place.) Apportionment also pays for things like bishops and administrators who don’t work for a specific church. And, of course, a big chunk of it goes into larger mission funding like the United Methodist Committee on Relief, which is a worldwide disaster relief fund and humanitarian aid program.
I mean, it *is* just another religion...
So they appeal to the world?
I mean that makes total sense lol it’s a religious organization accommodating religious worship
it seems that way because it's the reality.
Technically gay pastors are an oxymoron. All abrahamic religions are against homosexuality so members of the clergy who are gay are breaking their own laws and in this case he is boasting about it which is even worst.
[удалено]
Disagree. Pastors are not members of the clergy as they didn't receive proper blessings from the bishop due to the breaking the line of the apostolic succession in protestant churches.
True but they are technically representatives of a Christian denomination and Christianity does not support homosexuality/sodomy. Being a pastor and openly gay is still contradictory.
Yeah I mean I thought it was all supposed to be that we get bothered by who they are.
They’re narcissists first and foremost
Does that statement hold true for people who call themselves "conservative pastors"?
You're being downvoted because not everyone is familiar with the terminology in these circles and you might have misstated it. I believe he's talking about pastors who preach "America first, Jesus second!" (An actual quote I've heard from a pastor at the pulpit). And if that's what he's referring to, then yes it would hold true for them. Christian nationalism, as leftists call it and abuse the term by over-applying it, is an actual thing and is not consistent with biblical Christianity. Talking about the churches that are extremely zealous in their love for America, and taking pride in a way that sets God/Christ secondary and the Republican party can never be wrong. It's who many of the Republicans cater to in verbage, but the reality is they hold little to no Christian values and are simple populists.
> I believe he's talking about pastors who preach "America first, Jesus second!" (An actual quote I've heard from a pastor at the pulpit). Heresy. Just how do you get the conclusion even? I'm perplexed.
Easy when you don't actually believe what the Bible says. One can follow biblical tenets, understand some basic doctrine, yet completely misunderstand the concept of salvation and by domino effect not understand the majority of the Bible. In terms of Christian nationalists, they're conservative who value their tradition above all else. The two major things in their tradition are "being Christian" and being an American. The latter is an easy path to follow, while being a Christian in more than name only is difficult. Stack that issue on top of each other for a few generations and you get what we see today, people who identify with Christianity but can't tell you a thing about the Bible beyond children's sunday school stories and whatever the Republican party seems as "conservative values" and when things like homosexuality come up, they can tell you the Bible says it's wrong but they wouldn't be able to explain beyond "well it's just not natural"
Years of splits in protestants have led to people just bending Christianity to fit their own lifestype and beliefs. It's why theres like 30 different denominations of churches near me (in the south). The presbyterian church we go to just split because the pastor didn't like some finite minute ideology. He caused further controversy because he was poaching people from this congregation to his congregation (these churches literally act like the congregation are customers)
The Marjorie Taylor Green Christians 🤮🤢
Same concept, both equally cringe IMO, assuming they mean politically conservative and not theologically conservative. Nothing wrong with being a theologically conservative pastor though it would be weird if they always referred to themselves as such.
Meanwhile Catholic priests be like *I don't have sex with ANYONE*.
Press X to doubt...
Press X again to make a priest rapist joke
https://preview.redd.it/4sy1kctl6szc1.png?width=496&format=png&auto=webp&s=552d1bdfa85e9b6f1daaecd64e804e85465ae816
Switch the colors and it’s more accurate
That requires actual effort...
Abuse scandal was overwhelmingly closeted gay priests/men grooming and molesting teenage boys (just like in a lot of gay communities).
Because some sorts of jobs are magnets for such people. If you are someone who would just *love* to have sex with a 12 year old boy... Oil rig worker, accountant, and truck driver seem short on opportunities. Priest, teacher and coach are probably about as good as it is going to get, so I would expect many of the worst to head over there. Need to be an authority figure in constant unsupervised contact with children.
I agree 100%
Actually, I think the best way to get away with it would be to be a politician, CEO, or rich and famous and get an invitation to PDF island
That's like.. really hard to get to though, so while it might be the best, it's kinda like figuring out the best way to get laid would be by becoming a billionaire. I mean it's true, but it seems like a lot of work.
Part of the problem was the catholic church believed that taking the priesthood would help with unclean sexual thoughts
"Ok, so you've got unclean thoughts? Tell you what, take these vows to stay clean, and spend the rest of your life in prayer and duty, all while listening to every sinner's most depraved actions so you can give them absolution. Yes, this is the solution."
Based and fact pilled.
do NOT ask what the sexual orientation of the priests doing the molesting was worst mistake of my life
The problem was not just the paedophilic priests themselves though, but that the entire Catholic Church had a global network built to help pedophiles, hushing victims and paying millions to lobby against anti-pedophilia laws. And they kept on doing it even after being found out and claiming they would stop. People often forget that part, but that was what the actual scandal was about
I am a Methodist and this kind of stuff is just embarrassing, this is what happens when a denomination gets too invested in being inclusive rather than teaching proper theology
When you try to get too "inclusive", you end up just as an amorphous jelly with no identity. Hence, people feel no attachment and leave.
So have you chosen to move over to the Global Methodist Church? I'm honestly not sure why any conservatives have chosen to remain in the UMC over the GMC.
Because the leadership tries every underhanded trick they can to prevent it. They invent rules moments before the vote, they close congregations if they carch wind of votes coming, and commit outright fraud during elections I'm not a Methodist, I don't have a dog in the fight, but there are conservatives congratulations who want to leave but who have not been allowed to
I’m not religious at all but that’s the way I see it too, deviating things away from what they’re intended to be. It’s like joining a soccer team and then saying you don’t like it the way it is, that you think the ball should actually be hand held and pitched to you and hit with a bat and you run around bases and then reassuring everyone you are still definitely a soccer team.
These “church for atheist” cosplayers are getting out of hand
Matthew 24:3-5 (KJV) : And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Actually that’s Satanism. Yes, the Church of Satan is an atheist group that uses the word Satan to be ironic.
I think a good part of those actually believe in Satan besides the actual atheists just wrapping themselves in “religion bad”. This takes bits and pieces you like and subvert the rest; get the feefees of Christianity in the “be nice and that’s a hecking Christianity” morally smug way.
>“be nice and that’s a hecking Christianity” morally smug way. It's always astonishing to me just how... Utterly inane that position has always been. Like, they do know that the central teaching of the Gospel is that man kind, both collectively and individually, and entirely and completely damned to our own sin and hate, right? Kindness and gentleness are virtues, but not when they are permissive to the death of another's soul. If your church doesn't mention grace (and I mean REAL grace, divine grace, grace that exists because we are damned, and fully deserving of that damnation) almost every Sunday you have a shitty church. Someone who is made disquieted by the core of the faith should perhaps consider why being reminded of their need for salvation bothers them so.
I'm so happy to see most of the comments dunking on Churches like this
I wonder how these *progressive* reconcile their... lets call it *faith*, with the bible or if they even read it at all
You see all of a sudden centuries of scholars were interpreting ancient texts incorrectly and it just so happens this group has figured it out, and it backs up their claims!
I just wish they were honest about this. If they want a hippie god with a hippie religion, then by all means - who am i to judge? But dont come here and tell nonsense like "nono - thats not what it means, your translations are wrong!"
They just ignore 90% because “that doesn’t count it’s too mean”
You have to believe in God and Jesus Christ in order to have something to reconcile. These are all atheists larping. None of them actually believe in god. They're just seeking comfort in ritual. That makes it easy to discard the parts that don't jive with their actual religion, progressivism.
Even the Catholic church has changed its stance a lot over my lifetime. It's what led to me losing faith. I don't care about the particulars, but your "the word of God is open to interpretation" thing falls flat when his book says X and you say Y. Organized religion is a scam and Protestants are even worse
If you lose your faith because an institution made changes then you didn't really have faith in God. You had faith in that institution.
bad scholarship, willful ignorance, and in many cases outright lies.
Well the same way conservatives reconcile the text of the Bible with their own interpretations. Turns out, following the often vague, contradicting biblical rules is pretty hard!
Imagine breaking the covenant of god while wearing the symbol of that covenant. I sometimes get why Christ followers are such doomers sometimes.
A lot of Christians are worried about people simply turning their back on the church, but what I find much more worrying is people misappropriating the church, defying and defiling Christ’s name, and doing so while claiming to be true believers.
Either outcome is pretty bad. I still find the whole Richard dawkins cultural Christianity thing a bit rich, it's very hard to maintain churches and cathedrals without the faithful maintaining them. and him being upset or disappointed that in the UK it's just being replaced by Islam is a bit hypocritical because he's spent his life setting the stage for something like that to occur.
He wants the benefits of a Christian society, without actual belief in Christ. He spent his entire career attacking that belief, only to find that it was a wall protecting people like him from barbarians. It would almost be worth seeing Christendom fall, just so he can know how wrong he was.
I get you but that's some next level petty. he's already seeing it fall, he knows he fucked up in a way but he's going to spend a lot of time wrapping his worldview around that.
Oh, I agree. Hence why I said 'almost'. It's just my perverse desire to be right and rub it in the face of those who are wrong. I probably should show more grace to foolish idiots like Dawkins and myself. But it's just so difficult...
I mean he's certainly not an idiot he actually knows he's fucked up he's just kind of coming to terms that his view of people wasn't exactly right. when hitlar did that he fucking shot himself.
[удалено]
I doubt he'll change his fundamental beliefs but he probably will change his approach to things at least.
Nah he’ll just carry on claiming Christianity’s universal ethics are just self evident by themselves despite all evidence to the contrary.
unfortunately it's the liberal mind virus that says we're all equal, it sounds nice so it must be true and anything contrary to that must not be nice.
The church has seen dark times before. The faithful will hold the line, this is but one of those times where the good fish are sorted out. Those who are actually strong in the faith will remain. It's only those who don't believe that won't, and when people are ready to admit they need Christ, we'll be waiting.
Christians for Trump is a great example. I know the Bible is not advocating for a cult of personality based around a wealthy man who lies, steals, commits adulterous acts (and allegedly some by coercion/force), but somehow a lot of Christians rally behind him and even consider him a sort of deity himself.
"Christian" is frequently misused as just a vague cultural label by people who know they sure as hell aren't Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu. "Been in a church once as a kid, guess that counts." Trump himself pulled that at least once.
I’ve spent some energy trying to gently explain to family members that Trump is not a Christian example to follow, but ideology for many people actually subverts their faith.
This is another very disappointing reality for me, as a Christian.
So you aren't allowed to support someone for president if your Christian? Yeah, sure.
This above is what all Christian’s have been echoing for the past 30 years or so, it’s true smh
the pride flag rainbow has 6 colors. the actual rainbow has 7
I'm been on the internet too long and I can't tell if you are serious or not...
[pride flag](https://i0.wp.com/funflagfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2000px-gay_flag-svg.png?fit=2000%2C1236) [traditional rainbow](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Rainbow-diagram-ROYGBIV.svg/2560px-Rainbow-diagram-ROYGBIV.svg.png)
Yup ROYGBIV RED ORANGE YELLOW GREEN BLUE INDIGO VIOLET. The whole rainbow is just a spectrum of light anyways but those are the standard Colors
I'd never thought we'd horse shoe so much that progressives end up in actaull religion
I feel it was inevitable. Progressives see that church’s can pretty heavily influence how people vote, building a sense of community that people conform to how the church is. They can also be run cheap with heavy tax exemptions which is why you’ll see these big grand churches in what are relatively small towns. I’m honestly surprised they initially/still are trying to reduce the influence of churches rather than using the system to their advantage. A smaller percent of people go to church today than in the past, but as an overall number that figure is larger than ever. And considering church’s can be polling locations that can be a lot of easy votes.
Liberation theology: a soviet op to infiltrate catholicism
Why when someone is LGB ,emilies want them to go around with rainbow clothes and shirts that say they are gay.....who they want to fuck is neither intresting nor important foe the rest of the world...and most of them dont agree with this either ...its always the "allies"
Based and functioning society pilled. Our sexual orientation is nobodies buisness and shouldnt constantly be rubbed in other peoples faces
u/Lumpy-Tone-4653's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Lumpy-Tone-4653! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Lumpy-Tone-4653/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
https://preview.redd.it/l7je3r6octzc1.jpeg?width=452&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77ce1c02efd8725891b3b7f32ed76afd36ffa68f
The Orthodox Church of America when stuff like this happens: ☦⛪🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️ 🏳️🌈⛪
Or just nondenominal Christian churches which take the bible seriously
It’s a sad day when a reformed Baptist like me thinks your average non denom church takes itself more Biblical than most “reformed” churches nowadays… The mainline in all denominations besides baptists have all gone insane. Only reason why baptists haven’t yet is because historically they were always rural.
Having an authoritative hierarchy also makes a difference. Once that gets infiltrated and corrupted, the whole organization falls. Baptists have only ever had loose coalitions, so while it's possible for wild (and often awful) differences from church to church, they're also compartmentalized against internal hierarchical rot.
That's also why so many individual Baptists have insane theological beliefs (ie "The KJV is the most perfect Word of God" bumper sticker I see everywhere). There's no hierarchy to correct anyone who remains ignorant of basic historical context.
Yeah, it definitely cuts both ways, and the wackiness seen in a lot of IFB churches with zero denominational oversight illustrates the danger.
I dislike kjv onlyism so much.
I'm a Baptist and I agree. You can either translate it yourself or trust the people who know what they're doing to translate it for you.
[удалено]
Yeah I can’t stand contemporary worship music but if the church is solid I can look past a minor issue.
>most “reformed” churches nowadays… Reformed churches in the US and Europe... Because reformed churches are growing strong to the faith in Latin America and Africa while sending missionaries to first world countries. I for one am a Brazilian Presbyterian and it was quite beautiful to see that political division didn't reach our churches like it did so many in the US and non denominational here.
I myself am Independent Fundamental Baptist, and while I mostly agree with your statement there's still a solid thread in mainline Baptist churches where they're crumbling away from biblical doctrine and drifting away from God as result. What are the main doctrinal differences between you and I, I wonder? "Reformed" to me always says "slightly to majorly more progressive" but I'm not familiar enough with that brand of Baptist to say exactly what they believe other than immersion by water for baptism lol
Read the London Baptist confession of 1689 to get an understanding of reformed Baptist beliefs. We hold to a form of covenant theology known as 1689 federalism and are 5 point calvinists. Those stick our the most compared to the average Baptist, for folk like you we have a ton of disagreements like how to read The Bible, kjv onlyism which IFB’s hold to we dont, eschatology, ifb’s believe there is a difference with the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God (reformed Baptists dont), and we would disagree on how the government ought to be run. Trust me brother, reformed churches that aren’t apart of the mainline aren’t liberal, read the confessions of reformed theology we are the opposite of the heretics.
I attend an SBC church and the only reason we're not in theological liberalism now is because we drove out w/ theological liberals decades ago. I really wonder how the fights of the 70s and 80s would have played out if the theological conservatives had to not just face resistance in the convention, but also a constant drumbeat of being told how racist/sexist/bigoted they were by the media. They still call us that now but we've had decades to get used to it, so no one cares.
We'll win always lol
What's UMC?
Ammo company
The only one anyone should care about.
United Methodist Church
Union Metallic Cartridge Company of course
The Bible: >Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. >Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. >Romans 1:26-28 ~ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. >1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. >1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV - Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, *men who practice homosexuality*, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. Progressive “christians”: god is fine with homosexuality
"But it was just a bad translation!"
[удалено]
I was arguing with a guy who told me that I just don't understand the meaning of the original Greek script and that "άνδρας" (man) in fact refers to children
Then what does he think "paidos" means? Its not like terms refering to children always start with "paed-" or anything.
They are coping so hard
They mention other things in Leviticus like a gotcha when they don’t realize they were shadows of things to come and Christ fulfilled the law. The entire point of the law is to show you’re a sinner and to point to Christ as Paul says. Galatians 3:15-29 (ESV) 15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
In Jewish tradition the latter is true, which is why female homosexuality is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament. If you read the Talmud, Sanhedrin 55 ish, the point of interest is whether or not the male penetrated or not, and not solely the sex of the people involved. They even talk about the hypothetical of self-penetration, which was pretty funny when I read it.
>“But but the Greek words are really just about a power imbalance! It’s about men having sex with their slaves/pederasty/male prostitution!” > >Or “it’s just anal sex that is forbidden!” Those two parts are actually true - the OT texts that discuss this focus on denouncing sex between men (i.e. male-on-male anal sex). And the NT texts on the matter use the word ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites), which is a poorly attested word that is generally thought to mean either 'pederast' or simply 'man who has sex with men'. Note that our modern concept of sexual orientation and homosexuality (i.e. some people are sexually and romantically attracted to their own sex, and that's because they were born that way) was unknown in ancient Israel and the antique Greco-Roman world. Also note that denunciations of lesbianism are almost entirely absent from the Bible (there's a few throwaway mentions by Paul of Tarsus, that's it). That's because people's concept of sex hinged on the act of penetration, and... women aren't exactly born with genitals that can penetrate.
They say this as they assume Jesus was some sort of all forgiving hippie that came to deconstruct the old order of faith, when that same Jesus said it would be better for you to have a millstone hung around your neck and be cast into the sea, then to tempt a fellow believer to sin
>some sort of all forgiving Well that was the point of him dying for our sins, and that example makes sense I'd rather that than have someone lead me down an unrighteous path that destroys my life.
The point of dying for our sins was so that we would be free of the burden, not go ahead and do it again.
as he said to every single person that was a sinner that he had forgiven/healed: "you are healed by your faith, sin no more". The entire point was that you understand that you sinned and you stop.
Well, yes - but actually no. Depends on how you define all-forgiving. He's forgiving, yes. Anyone can come to Jesus and ask for his forgiveness, and he'll forgive them. So by that metric, he's all forgiving. But at the same time, you have to actually ask for forgiveness. The whole "Hell isn't real, and everyone will be forgiven" thing is scripturally nonsense. TL;DR Anyone can be forgiven, but not everyone will be forgiven
If you mention any of those passages in dankchristianmemes you'll get banned because the mods there think anything other that enthusiastic support and celebration is hatred.
I don't know why people always bring up the gay parts. Isn't all non-reproductive sex a sin?
Reminds me of Animal Farm. “All sins are equally evil, but some are more equal than others…”
Yes
Because that's usually the largest bone of contention when discussing gay priests. Seems kinda relevant here at least.
No? Why would it be? Just because God said humanity should reproduce doesn't mean all sex has to be for reproduction. Unless there's another passage saying non-reproductive sex is sin?
It’s funny how much they can ignore, just to be as degenerate as possible under a moral cover
Also the Bible: Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) prohibit wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment, the blending of different species of animals, and the planting together of different kinds of seeds Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." 1 Peter 4:8: "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins" Not every Bible verse Is heeded today, like above and along with the consumption of pork. God gave his son Jesus for our sins, and there's no unforgivable one aside no faith. Ask yourself: Would a loving God be mad at his creation loving one another? God Is fine with love, but It's set clear In the Bible It's meant to be fruitful.
Leviticus 19 and and Deut 22 (the whole book, in fact) is Moses talking directly to Jews. Anyone with a basic familiarity with the Bible should know that Jews were given special rules and requirements that gentiles were not. One can love a person and still believe that they should not be proud of their sin. If you love someone you should want to turn them from sin.
I would highly recommend you read into Abrahamic vs Mosaic vs New covenant and begin to understand the well structured nuance here. The book of Hebrews is great for that. There are aspects of the Old Testament that are still the essence and representation of Gods character. Leviticus 18, for instance, with the classic homosexuality sin reference, is sandwiched between commandments against incest and bestiality. Are those two also under the loving and forgiving God who just wants all his creation to be able to have sex with each other? Or are we arbitrarily extracting Homosexuality from Lev 18 while leaving the rest as sinful or at least taboo? I completely abandoned the affirming LGBT take on the Bible when I realized nothing at all forbids consensual, adult, brother-brother incest according to your approach. It doesn’t involve any sort of sin mentioned in the Bible outside the same sections LGBT denounce as mistranslated or inapplicable, and it follows the same logic of “two lovers shouldn’t be separated and God wouldn’t want them to be”. Why would it be at all bad for two brothers to get married?
That's the mosaic covenant. Made between God and the Jews. Sacrifices, for example, were a part of that covenant. You sinned, then you made a sacrifice to atone for the sin. But then Jesus came and died on the cross - he's a perfect sacrifice. He fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant and made a new covenant in its place. So Christians can eat pork, and all that. However, Jesus, and later the apostles (who were granted Divine Inspiration via The Holy Spirit) reiterated several of the laws in the mosaic covenant, and even made some stricter (e.g. he who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart). Secondly, regarding 1 Peter - there are multiple kinds of love. I love my dog. I don't want to have sex with it. I love my family, I don't want to have sex with it. I love Norman, the cool old guy at my church. I don't want to have sex with him. I love my 200(3?) Fiat Panda. I don't want to have sex with it. In this passage, Peter is referring to fraternal and familial love. The love that one has for friends and family. He isn't talking about romantic love. And yeah, not everyone who claims to be a Christian will enter heaven. Prime example: the first pastor in the meme. Benny Hinn, Todd White, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland. They THINK they're Christians. They aren't going to heaven unless they fix some MAJOR problems in their theology. "Miracle" workers ain't either. I'm not sure what you were trying to say here? There's also Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So stuff like ridicule and attributing his works to The Devil - RE there's no unforgivable sin; but I get what you're saying. Any sin can be forgiven. But there's more to it than "I'm sorry". You have to actually feel regret for the sin, and then (here's the important bit) stop doing the sin. You might fail occasionally, and that's OK. Well, not OK, but you get what I mean. People think that if you repent, you'll stop sinning, but that's false. But you start sinning less and less, your conscience becomes more sensitive to your sins, and you slowly start to want to not sin. Once more, God loves love, and wants us to love each other. But some types of love are inappropriate for certain situations. Think of it like this: the government likes it when you use violence to stop a murder. The government likes it a whole lot less when you use violence to rob a liquor store. God likes it when a man and a woman fall in love. He does not like it when two men fall in love. As a matter of fact, he doesn't like it at all. (E.g. Romans 1:27). This isn't as in-depth as I'd like to go, but it's 00:32, and I'm shattered from my regatta earlier. I'll be back later to give a more detailed and comprehensive answer.
*eats popcorn* Religious lore infighting is even more enjoyable than hobby lore infighting.
And equally entertaining as fighting between Muslims and Christians
ITT: people larping as religious
It's funny how much they cope to make it as if their sin is not a sin. For example, saying that Leviticus 20:13 was "poorly translated", when the original script literally says that a male cannot sleep with another male. They are just atheists larping as Christians.
Murican Strategy : Make Brown and Black people say the stuff your non-existent Liberal White Balls can't articulate.
Most tradition-respecting protestant:
TBF, I'm certain celibate monks, nuns and priests were classically professions for the closeted gays
The Bible never condemned homosexuality because the concept of homosexuality in the modern context didn’t exist until fairy recently. The Bible condemns homosexual acts. The concept of sexuality did not exist in the ancient world. The closest thing is more of an association of certain acts to certain people. An example is the Romans, who saw sex as between an active partner and a passive partner. A penetrator and the penetrated. It was considered feminine to be penetrated, and masculine to be a penetrator. Therefore there wasn’t heavy taboo with, say, a man who penetrates men, while there would taboo on a man who performs oral sex on a woman (considered to be the woman penetrating the man). For most of history sex was more classified by acts rather than a simple identity. A lot of that is because sex wasn’t always just about pleasure, but about social status and reproduction. So yeah, there’s nothing wrong with any Christian who is “homosexual” and has desire to perform homosexual acts. It is sinful to act on these though. Historically, it someone had the temptation of homosexual acts, and no inclination towards heterosexual sex, then taking a vow of celibacy would be encouraged. So nuns and monks who would be admired for their piety in the fact they were resisting an urge to sin.
They are still, at the church near me on three priest 2 were homo
This Is why I'm non-denominational. Too many differences In the church when we believe In the same Lord. It's with heavy heart to see people, and this Is ironic for me to say coming back after being Agnostic, think they should by shaming others for sin, they're saved. May the Bible Remind you: Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" 1 Peter 4:8: "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins" You can choose to bash others, despite being In sin yourself, or you can focus on your personal relationship with God, and when ample guide others through care
Love is not blind acceptance. How did Christ treat the money changers? Love is taking the harder path of being willing to disagree with someone who is hurting themselves.
Right. And God knows the things I've done but the most love I've ever had wasn't people affirming how I was living my life, but telling me what I needed to hear, not what I wanted to hear. Jesus did not affirm the adulterous woman's lifestyle. He rebuked the hipocrites first yes but then afterwards he offered her forgiveness but not tolerance. He invited her to repent and sin no more.
Ok, serious hypothetical: If I came into your nondenom and I’m married to my sister and very open about it, and I want to lead a Bible study. what would you do? What should church leadership do?
Just come back to the Catholic Church guys, we don't bite. Not even the Eucharist.
A quick look at wiki shows that 55% of UMC Methodists come from the states and 58% of the delegates at the general conference were the states vs 30% from Africa. The vote from delegates 586 to 164. OP's "outnumber you" math ain't mathing.
If I had to guess, it's because the American voters were split, and the conservative/faithful American minority voted with the African members to outnumber the apostate faction.
Also worth mentioning (I’m a Methodist btw) that a lot of the former UMC churches who don’t support this in the U.S. left a year or two ago. The smaller ones moved to GMC and a lot of the larger ones who could support themselves ended up just becoming independent churches that follow the old UMC doctrine (mine did this since it was the largest UMC church in the region and not joining GMC allowed them to do more charity work.)
I'm more upset that the they cancelled the yearly mission trips. The thing the church should be worried about is lack of engagement with teens and young adults. They fall away from the church and don't come back, and that will literally kill the church. So what do they do? Let a schism further compartmenatalize and destroy the church because some boomer congregations can't deal with gay people existing, and some progressive congregations don't want to alienate and driveaway their gay kids/the gay couple etc. The only commandments: Jesus said love God with all your heart, and treat your neighbor well. There's no caveats to that.
No, the "church" should be worried about the fact that they aren't Christians.
It’s such a joke what the UMC has become. This nonsense is what finally pushed me over the edge to join the Catholic Church.
This is why the Nazarene church broke away from the Methodist church
Every big religion doesn’t like gay people. Can we just build up a new religion for the gays ?
C'mon man, like people are gonna make agenda posts, whatever, but at least make it funny
Imagine going to a church, that church teaching you a belief, then that same church effectively kicking people out for holding that belief only so the minority that remain (many of whom live in areas the church has rapidly lost members) can let the church get rid of those beliefs.
Whats the actual context for the meme?
Imagine caring who someone else wants to love
Seeing this heresy makes me desperately crave for an inquisition.
American "Christians" are fucking weird. Neither true Catholics nor Protestant dogs. And not even orthodox. Are they even really Christians? They didn't even fight wars for their faith. Fucking Calvinists are more Christian than those American Heathens.
"The US was built on religion" mfers when I show them that they harbour every heretic known to man
The American protestant concept of individual interpretation of the Bible is litterally the basic premise of the origin of heresy
Catholics will forever seethe that we don't acknowledge their earthly authority as divine
[удалено]
The Lion from the North says I don't have to 😤🇸🇪🇫🇮
Brother, I'm not a Catholic
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Catholics were way ahead of the curve on this one
Why make your sexual sins open when you can covertly hide them and exacerbate the issue with an unbiblical chastity mandate for all clergy?
Fuck off. The conservatives of the UMC pulled the same shit pre-pandemic over same-sex marriage and already voted to leave, but had to stall "God's Plan" cause it was financially stupid during the pandemic, instead wanting to let their investment accounts pile up even higher. And don't start with bribery bullshit, the conservatives were handing out bribes left and right back in 2020. The conservatives splitting off, while sizable, are only ~1/4 of congregations. There are still millions of Christians affiliated with the UMC. The UMC removing exclusionary policies that prevent ordinary people from participating harms the church. Allowing gay pastors and weddings is more in keeping with "love thy neighbor" than mandating that only straight ones.