Over One Million United Methodists Quit Church Overnight Over Sex Rule Change

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

I agree with all of that. Your sexuality is not a choice. Who you find attractive isn't something you consciously choose.
Your biological sex isn't a choice. Your gender isn't a choice.
I agree with literally every word you said

a reply to: Lazy88

I have an inkling on what point you're trying to make with this, but I'd rather have you explain the point you're trying to make instead of making assumptions. Can you explain the point you're trying to make with this?

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

It's rather odd to find myself agreeing with you, but I do.

I personally don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't feel that it fits into the greater narrative of how God is portrayed. Homosexuality is not a choice. But if it is a sin, then they were created to sin as a feature of their very nature. This seems wrong to me, but I don't claim to be a theologist.

Horny folks are what most people are who are normal or not. So, it is NOT going to be about being born to be gay, but to party with your sex organs. Being horny lets some people loosen their inhibitions. ''

BUT. (a huge metaphorical one if fact) If we are to survive as a species, then Darwin's laws say those animal species who don't or can't procreate will not be on the Earth for long. Mules are a fine example. As long as we have donkey's able to mate with horses, mules are possible. It has to be 100% animal instinct to have sex with the opposite sex. Perhaps the hormones in our food we don't know we are eating is causing an interruption in development spurring the Gay folks to be missing that set of hormones we use for procreation?

originally posted by: MrGashler
Who you find attractive isn't something you consciously choose.

And in some cases, we have laws against that behaviour.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are significant passages in the Bible about eunuch's which do not condemn them.

Scratches head..

Eunuchs would usually be servants or slaves who had been castrated to make them less threatening servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence.[5]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Why would the word of God condemn a servant or slave that had been castrated? Or other servants or slaves?

That is precisely my point.

Matthew 19:12 - "For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.".

Someone who has a sexual attraction, but by choice has abstained from sex, has not committed the sin.

The thing is that castrati and eunuchs still form emotional bonds with others. They cannot mate successfully, and their sex drives are reduced, but their sexuality remains in their minds.

One potential example from the Bible is that of Potiphar, who was 'captain (or eunuch) of Pharaoh's guard', despite the divergent translations into English, the word used to describe his rank 'sar' (strong's concordance H8269) is a contraction of the word 'saris' (Strong's 5631) meaning eunuch, namely, 'one who guards the bedchamber of the princesses'.

Additionally, 'sar' appears 45 times in the Canonical Old Testament books, and in the Septuagint (a Greek translation circa @ 500 BCE) in 31 of those 45 occurrences, the Septuagint translates the word to 'eunoukhos' (Strong's G2135) which means, specifically, 'eunuch'.

So it was likely that Potiphar was a eunuch, and yet he was married, and his wife tried to seduce Joseph and falsely accused Joseph when he turned her down (The story makes a great deal of sense when you delve into the specifics of the text).

So, sexuality, even in the Bible, in fact goes far beyond the binary-only definition used to vilify others by people who think they have a religious case to show.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ok?

Good for eunuchs. I’m glad they found a love. Love based outside sex?

Which has what to do with a man that can have true love of humanity for another man which is something more than a man loving another man out of misguided lust.


Let’s take god out of the equation.

Would you agree humankind has perverted many aspects of nature. Is that a false statement.


Back to appetite to eat to survive vs lust to drive species.

Do I think obese people are a natural “consequence” in a life of unprecedented leisure and excess. Yes. Do I think it’s a curse of a life of leisure and excess. Yes. I believe the homosexuality in the same terms. A form of sexual gluttony.

200 years ago, “obesity” was a problem for the upper 1 percent? Not many peasants worried about getting fat. 200 years ago, not many peasants had the time to struggle with sexuality. Nor had the time, energy, hygiene to make sex the sport it is today.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

It's rather odd to find myself agreeing with you, but I do.

I personally don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't feel that it fits into the greater narrative of how God is portrayed. Homosexuality is not a choice. But if it is a sin, then they were created to sin as a feature of their very nature. This seems wrong to me, but I don't claim to be a theologist.

From God's perspective, I imagine that he gave us sexuality to give impetus to reproduction and to form family like groups for mutual protection and love.

Homosexual predisposition is not a choice, but choosing to commit homosexual acts is. It is the decision to commit and commission of the act that is the sin.

One might appreciate the attractiveness of someone in an abstract sense, without desiring to perform sex acts with them. Indeed, there are people of both sexes that we can see as subjectively beautiful, but that doesn't mean we have a desire to mate with them or bond emotionally.

But sexual stimulation can be done mechanically, as many of our psychological needs can also be met outside of true lifetime bonds, and these defeat the intended purposes for which we were created, and so are sinful against the intention of God.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Isn't that what religion does. It picks and chooses what to follow.

Don’t eat animals with split hooves
Don’t eat animals that don’t have fins and scales
Don’t wear clothing made from two different types of fabric
Don’t trim off hair at your temples
Don’t trim your beard
Don't wear jewelry
Don't remarry after divorce
Don't mistreat foreigners
Don't get a tattoo

So many things that the God says don't do. But people do anyways. People pick and choose what they want to believe.

Kinda Old Testament there, there was a guy named Jesus that came to fulfill those laws.

a reply to: burritocat

Where have you seen that Christian morals are to be predatory, please explain this, as it doesn’t exist in any teachings that I’ve seen.

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok?

Good for eunuchs. I’m glad they found a love. Love based outside sex?

Philadelphia (in Greek - not the place) and later possibly Stoerge.

Which has what to do with a man that can have true love of humanity for another man which is something more than a man loving another man out of misguided lust.

Let’s take god out of the equation.

Would you agree humankind has perverted many aspects of nature. Is that a false statement.

Absolutely, yes.

But also those who are living those perversions are not likely to acknowledge the revealed intentions of a Creator. They just feel that way because that's what they feel.

If they have any moral disquiet about their sinfulness, they subvert the feeling as doing 'taboo' or depraved acts which heightens their mental state. They begin to take pleasure in the depravity of an act, more than the act itself. It's a psychological inversion similar to sadomasochism.

Back to appetite to eat to survive vs lust to drive species.

Do I think obese people are a natural “consequence” in a life of unprecedented leisure and excess. Yes. Do I think it’s a curse of a life of leisure and excess. Yes. I believe the homosexuality in the same terms. A form of sexual gluttony.

200 years ago, “obesity” was a problem for the upper 1 percent? Not many peasants worried about getting fat. 200 years ago, not many peasants had the time to struggle with sexuality. Nor had the time, energy, hygiene to make sex the sport it is today.

But we do know that obesity can be caused by incidents of disease that shift hormonal balances and damage neural pathways. Not to mention cultural and genetic predispositions.

So you can't just vilify people who have obesity problems as being due to gluttony.

You have to remember that there were parts of Roman and Greek high society who overate and then took emetics to cause themselves to throw up so that they could go back in to the feast and gorge themselves again.

Even now, I know of people who intend to party until they drink themselves sick. Surely that is an obvious type of gluttony?

200 years ago, there still were people who were obese even in subsistence communities because you can overeat or store fat for more reasons than gluttony. You also have to admit that with and average age of mortality of about 37 years, that they were not in a better place than the vast majority of people are now.

a reply to: chr0naut

Whatever.

With the possibility of WW III looming, and that things can go south for the human race in a heartbeat. You think the woke US military and pride month is going to mean much if only a handful of humans are trying to survive.

Off topic. But WW II. I hope there was a real difference between the axis and the allies. I’m to the point I really don’t think it much matters what corrupt government / bureaucracy I live under. Shrugs.

Good luck to ya

Strikingly, the incidence of obesity in the U.S. has increased by 70 percent over the last 30 years for adults and by 85 percent over the same time period for children.

www.tfah.org...#:~:text=Strikingly%2C%20the%20incidence%20of%20obesity,same%20time%20period%20for%20children.< br />

Similarly, rates of obesity among both U.S. men and women ages 20 and older have increased over the years, with the obesity rate slightly lower among women. According to the data, the rate of obesity increased from 20.2% in 1988-1994 to 43.5% in 2017-2018 among men, and from 25.4% in 1988-2018 to 42.1% in 2017-2018 among women.

www.advisory.com...

Worldwide adult obesity has more than doubled since 1990, and adolescent obesity has quadrupled.

Causes of overweight and obesity

Overweight and obesity result from an imbalance of energy intake (diet) and energy expenditure (physical activity).

In most cases obesity is a multifactorial disease due to obesogenic environments, psycho-social factors and genetic variants. In a subgroup of patients, single major etiological factors can be identified (medications, diseases, immobilization, iatrogenic procedures, monogenic disease/genetic syndrome).

The obesogenic environment exacerbating the likelihood of obesity in individuals, populations and in different settings is related to structural factors limiting the availability of healthy sustainable food at locally affordable prices, lack of safe and easy physical mobility into the daily life of all people, and absence of adequate legal and regulatory environment.

At the same time, the lack of an effective health system response to identify excess weight gain and fat deposition in their early stages is aggravating the progression to obesity.

www.who.int...

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: chr0naut



Do I think obese people are a natural “consequence” in a life of unprecedented leisure and excess. Yes. Do I think it’s a curse of a life of leisure and excess. Yes. I believe the homosexuality in the same terms. A form of sexual gluttony.

200 years ago, “obesity” was a problem for the upper 1 percent? Not many peasants worried about getting fat. 200 years ago, not many peasants had the time to struggle with sexuality. Nor had the time, energy, hygiene to make sex the sport it is today.

I love checking out this coloured footage from long ago. Here’s New York in the 1930s



Here is modern day New York



Folks do look a bit more trim in the old footage.

They also aren’t hunched over their devices.

If you're not directly deciphering the Ethiopian Bible or the original Aramaic texts... YOU ARE WRONG!! Fact. You only know what you've been brainwashed to believe by modern day transcriptions of the bible.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Another thing...who said anything about sex? I sure tf didn't! Get your mind out of the gutter.

-homosexuality

Actual Interpretations

I could go on, but I am NOT your teacher! Learn to read and actually STUDY the bibles and dive deep in to actual meanings. Our common day bible is a bastardization of everything. It's so far removed from the original texts that it's silly! And, to think, most people take the bible literally... It's sad.


a reply to: Lazy88

You're actually so wrong it's silly. I can't even respect all that gibberish you've posted. I've studied the bibles, Aramaic, Ethiopian, lost books of the bible, etc. for over 40 years. I'm done with your closed mind.

a reply to: FlyersFan

a reply to: FlyersFan

It is ALL relevant.

Perhaps it might seem so to a homophobic religious bigot casting desperately about for some scrap of news to substantiate their prejudice. Are you saying it seems relevant to you as well? Surely not in the same way?

The facts were clearly posted.

Did they include the fact that those ‘million Methodists’ only joined the UMC in 2008? Didn’t stay long, did they?

How about the fact that black Africa is notoriously homophobic and that other churches on the continent have struggled similarly with the intransigence of priests and congregations; the Anglican Church only narrowly avoided schism on the same issue recently.

How about the fact that lepers and albinos in these countries receive the same treatment as homosexuals, only worse?

Nauseating to see a citizen of (allegedly) the world’s most advanced country justifying their hatred and prejudice with the actions of a minority group in a war-torn, backward African country riddled with prejudice and conflict.

This woke horsesh*t might have a silver lining if it infiltrates religion. The world's been held back enough by it. I think we need to be spiritual people, not religious people.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Perhaps it might seem so to a homophobic religious bigot casting desperately about for some scrap of news to substantiate their prejudice.

You poor thing. Reduced to name calling.

No, I"m not a homophobic religious bigot. Not that it's any of your business, but I approve of gay marriage as a constitutional right in this country and I don't give a rats ass if anyone is gay or not. Gay people can go to the court house and get married ... it's a legal contract between two consenting adults.

What I am presenting is the fact that the bible states that homosexuality is a sin and that gay people can't get married, and that actively gay people can't be clergy ... but the United Methodists say that they can in their church therefore they are going against what the bible says and can no longer call themselves bible believing churches.

The facts were clearly posted.

Did they include the fact that those ‘million Methodists’ only joined the UMC in 2008? Didn’t stay long, did they?

I have no idea when those million Methodists joined the church. It's irrelevant. The point is ... they left. They left because the United Methodist Church no longer follows what the bible states. That's significant.

a reply to: FlyersFan

What you call name-calling, I call plain speaking. I didn’t refer specifically to you, but if the cap fits by all means put it on. As for your biographical information, please don’t waste your time. I am not interested in you.

The recent accession to UMC membership by Ivory Coast Methodists is obviously relevant, as is the disunity and casual bigotry of the third world society you are holding up as a model for Americans. Of course you can’t see it; I wouldn’t expect to.

originally posted by: inflaymes69
If you're not directly deciphering the Ethiopian Bible or the original Aramaic texts... YOU ARE WRONG!! Fact. You only know what you've been brainwashed to believe by modern day transcriptions of the bible.

originally posted by: inflaymes69
You're actually so wrong it's silly. I can't even respect all that gibberish you've posted. I've studied the bibles, Aramaic, Ethiopian, lost books of the bible, etc. for over 40 years. I'm done with your closed mind.

You haven't posted much so let me explain how things work. When you are in a discussion and want to make a point, you give EVIDENCE to support your position. You have not posted any information showing your position to be true. It's up to YOU to post the scripture quotes taken directly from the Greek, which the bible was originally written in. GREEK. And it's up to YOU to make the case. Simply posting that people are wrong, 'brainwashed', 'silly', and that they are posting 'gibberish' etc etc doesn't work. Making claims that you studied the bible on your own for 40 years but then not posting anything to prove that statement doesn't work either.

You may be correct. The original translations from the Greek may not use the term homosexual. OR the original Greek may have indeed said that it's 'homosexuals'. I have no idea. But the translations for today do say it. And that's what the churches accept. And that's what the Methodists just went against. So they can't call themselves bible Christians anymore.

The question of translation revolves around the words arsenokoitai and malakoi. Possibly translated to state that pedophilia of men on boys is wrong. However it doesn't change the wording such as this - "Thou shalt not lie with the male as one lieth with a woman: for it is abomination." - Leviticus 18:22. Or such as this - "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." Leviticus 20:1. When the wording is taken in full context and with keeping in mind that homosexuality was considered a sin by the people of that time and place, it is safe to say that the writers did indeed mean that homosexuality was a sin, not just man on boy pedophilia. But of course, like most things in the bible, it is unclear.

To be balanced, I will post some of the controversy that some people claim with the term 'homosexual'. Rese arch Gate - Use of the word 'homosexual' in bible translations