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

originally posted by: Lazy88
Then what is there? Your own moral code?

Well actually yes, in terms of humans, that is to say "non-random" reproduction has certainly been a determining factor in our evolution, as it is in a number of other species, and we of course have, because we are human, taken that to the next level and have created structures, generally governed by a morality, which we have used to restrict sexual behaviour and to control reproduction.

originally posted by: burritocat

originally posted by: Topcraft
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.

Are you serious? Have you ever read the Bible? On top of information of how to buy and sell slaves and rape virgin war captives, it has tons of verses and stories involving rape, incest, murder, child abuse, all of which god seems to be pretty cool with, except in the some cases he is not.

I’m as serious as a heart attack. Let me try to explain this to you as you are a bit confused. I have read the Bible, more than once. I don’t believe you have however. It’s either that, or you’re in there cherry-picking and not understanding what the bible is, or how to read it. I’m going to explain once more, as you may have missed this in previous posts.

The Bible was compiled from the Jewish traditional books, gospels and scraps of text from contemporary accounts. Anything they could find. This was gathered sifted sorted, and what they couldn’t verify, was rejected. The result was translated into Latin. This is what Roman Catholics and all other Christian religions accept as the inspired word of God.

They did this to define what it was to be a Christian, and what the beliefs were. People were all over the place before that. Christ is God, no he’s not, that sort of thing.

This was the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Others, as I have said used it as well. The Old Testament is there for background, and to show the prophecy of the coming Jewish Messiah. The New Testament deals with the life of that Messiah, Jesus Christ. The New Testament is where “Christian Morals” come from. The Jewish Messiah Jesus Christ.

Find me one place in that New Testament, that teaches how to rape virgins, or anything else you have stated. It doesn’t exist. It’s obvious you don’t like something in the Bible, but please don’t make things up to prove to yourself you are right.

You can’t use the Old Testament for that, as Christ’s coming fulfilled the Old Testament laws, and prophesies. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Did I help you with your understanding? Or do I need to do more. I will address any of your concerns, I’ve got the time.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: Lazy88
Then what is there? Your own moral code?

Well actually yes, in terms of humans, that is to say "non-random" reproduction has certainly been a determining factor in our evolution, as it is in a number of other species, and we of course have, because we are human, taken that to the next level and have created structures, generally governed by a morality, which we have used to restrict sexual behaviour and to control reproduction.

Which has nothing to do with my examples.

I think everyone agrees individuals have the right to physically defend themselves.

But I would think that right has been corrupted into war, mass killings, and the industrial military complex. Is that a false statement. Where you were trying to justify behavior supposedly only found in humans?

If you remove god out of the equation and there is only natural selection which includes extinction level events and radiation? What can be corrupted in the no god / no spiritual authority scenario.

You posted this..

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis


Are we as human susceptible to being led by misguided ideas and ideals, yes, totally

There is only natural selection, lead from what? What are we being misguided from if there is no spiritual moral authority and only natural selection. If there is only survival, any species that can survive no matter its behavior is justified.


What are we being lead from? That the strongest male should only get to mate? That females should have drones or eat their mates?

originally posted by: Lazy88
Which has nothing to do with my examples.

Your "examples" didn't bear any relevance to the discussion so I attempted to politely skip past them.

originally posted by: Lazy88
I think everyone agrees individuals have the right to physically defend themselves.

But I would think that right has been corrupted into war, mass killings, and the industrial military complex. Is that a false statement. Where you were trying to justify behavior supposedly only found in humans?

What was I trying to "justify" exactly? I don't think that modern war is a corruption of self-defence instincts or behaviours, no. So, yes, that would be a false statement. It could be argued that military recruitment practices are a distortion, or manipulation, of those instincts though but the motivations of war mongers and profiteers has little to nothing to do with their own defence needs.

originally posted by: Lazy88
If you remove god out of the equation and there is only natural selection which includes extinction level events and radiation? What can be corrupted in the no god / no spiritual authority scenario.

Again, natural selection is not the only determining factor in evolution. I don't understand your second question, perhaps if you define what you mean by "corruption".

originally posted by: Lazy88
There is only natural selection, lead from what? What are we being misguided from if there is no spiritual moral authority and only natural selection. If there is only survival, any species that can survive no matter its behavior is justified.

But there isn't only natural selection. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, it won't make it true - however much you choose to believe in it.

Spiritual, moral authorities have been, and are, utilised to control reproductive behaviours in humans. By humans, upon humans. These spiritual, moral authorities appear in human societies as part of their social development and provide a means by which to maintain cohesion but as societies become more complex, or larger, they are employed to maintain control over the actions of individuals in service to the whole. Generally, following the development of social stratifications.

originally posted by: Lazy88
What are we being lead from? That the strongest male should only get to mate? That females should have drones or eat their mates?

Perhaps it's more about what you have been led to, not from

To the case in point, marriage is a human invention intended as a contract between two people which affords the rights of ownership to a male over a female's reproductive capacity. The purpose was to ensure the legitimacy of heirs. Obviously, two males, or two females would have no need to enter into such a union. But that is not how most would now define marriage, though it may remain as such in some circles because it does what it does, legally bind - anyhoo - That orginial concept has, over time and with the help of art, literature and spirituality contesting religions, been corrupted to represent a public avowal of love and lifelong commitment between two people. Marrying for love being a relatively modern adaptation of the contractual marriage arrangement, though love has certainly been an element of humanity for very, very much longer, and it seems fair enough that two people of the same sex, who love each other, might also want to do that.

Now, on the flip-side of that,in terms of human behaviours, is why do the same-sex couples want to be married within institutions that have developed the belief that they are "wrong"? What is driving them do you think? As Christians?

Strictly based on science, there are only two "natural" genders.
Anything claimed over and above that is fiction and "wishful" thinking.

This is the way life evolved on Earth. There are creatures ( emphasis on 'creatures' ) that currently produce asexually, but these are clearly lesser species for the moment.

Perhaps in ten million years, humans will evolve to reproduce this way. As it stands, that is not the case.
We are locked into our current biology based on peer reviewed and substantiated science.
Denying or even trying to refute that is ignorance in its highest form.

originally posted by: WADITE
Strictly based on science, there are only two "natural" genders.
Anything claimed over and above that is fiction and "wishful" thinking.

This is the way life evolved on Earth. There are creatures ( emphasis on 'creatures' ) that currently produce asexually, but these are clearly lesser species for the moment.

Perhaps in ten million years, humans will evolve to reproduce this way. As it stands, that is not the case.
We are locked into our current biology based on peer reviewed and substantiated science.
Denying or even trying to refute that is ignorance in its highest form.

The same folks thinking we are nuts for thinking that there are two real genders, think they are following the science in other areas. They just don't even know what that means when we get down to it. Science is not what some guy on TV says and we are done with needing to learn again is it? NO, it is about truthful data or it is crap.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Actually it is. The bible, both Old and New Testament, shows people going to Gods anointed to confess their sins and be assured of forgiveness -

Jesus tells his apostles, the first priests, John 20:23 - “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”.

The biblical case for confession

And Old Testament - 2 Samuel 12:13-23 -

Then David confessed to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “Yes, but the Lord has forgiven you, and you won’t die for this sin. 14 Nevertheless, because you have shown utter contempt for the word of the Lord[a] by doing this, your child will die.”

The priest, or any human today, is not a prophet like Nathan was back in ancient Israel. And he pointed out the sin to David, who then was crushed by the weight of his own sin, and repented.

The second instance you're quoting is Jesus talking to the apostles. A priest is not an apostle.

The rest of the new testament has a good amount to say about the handling of sins, with the goal helping the individual to repent, but does not give authority to a human who actually does not follow the scriptures to issue a proclamation of forgiveness.

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are significant passages in the Bible about eunuch's which do not condemn them. You figure out what that means.

I'm not following - can you explain what you find objectionable about eunuchs?

The Bible is unequivocally unambiguous about every single sin.

Unpossible! It doesn't list every single sin.

And to be specific, these are the 7 deadly sins:
- Lust
- Gluttony
- Greed
- Sloth
- Wrath
- Envy
- Pride

sure, i'll play along. which one do you think sexual activity outside of marriage falls under? it includes both heterosexual adultery and fornication as well as homosexuality. I'll give you a hint - it starts with L and ends with UST.

And here are the 10 Commandments:

- You shall have no other gods before Me.
- You shall make no idols.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
- Keep the Sabbath day holy.
- Honour your father and your mother.
- You shall not murder.
- You shall not commit adultery.
- You shall not steal.
- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
- You shall not covet.

you do know what adultery is, right?

originally posted by: inflaymes69
There's absolutely NO WHERE in the bible that mentions being gay. The man shall not lay with another man is taken out of context.

true. being gay is a modern euphemism, the expression didn't exist when the Bible was written.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Did anyone bother to get the facts? ‘The one million Methodists’ are all living in Cote D'iviore in West Africa, and they ‘left’ the church not as individuals but because the Methodist governing body in that country decided to secede.

that's the unfortunate reality of today's reporting or posting - context is lacking, and is often to manipulate the emotions of the masses.

None of the stuff being discussed in this thread is at all relevant. This is about a bunch of old homophobes in a small, poor African country making decisions on behalf of people who weren’t, as far as I can tell, given much say in the matter.

Christian Post, 1 June 2024

isn't that how protestantism arose?

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.

a reply to: FlyersFan

wrong! unless you heard the prophets directly or Jesus himself, everything is wrong!

/sarcasm

yeah, but, no. plenty of scholarly work compared modern translations to ancient text and remarkably found little difference - and certainly not difference in meaning.

originally posted by: burritocat

originally posted by: Topcraft
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.

Are you serious? Have you ever read the Bible? On top of information of how to buy and sell slaves and rape virgin war captives, it has tons of verses and stories involving rape, incest, murder, child abuse, all of which god seems to be pretty cool with, except in the some cases he is not.

How do you talk about fight club if you can't talk about fight club?

Just because something is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that it is approved, or is an instruction.

The Bible is fairly clear about things we are, and are not, to do.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Bible is fairly clear about things we are, and are not, to do.

Bearing false witness is one on the naughty list. Just saying...

originally posted by: WADITE
Strictly based on science, there are only two "natural" genders.

Please link to the scientific papers on that.

I think that science has identified that there is a spectrum of sexuality in humans, and many animals have been observed trying to 'mate' with the same sex.

Even in human biology there are babies born with indeterminant sex. Some children go through spontaneous sex change. Some go through puberty at ages younger than 7. Some are born with dual genitalia. Some are born without genitalia.

Anything claimed over and above that is fiction and "wishful" thinking.

This is the way life evolved on Earth. There are creatures ( emphasis on 'creatures' ) that currently produce asexually, but these are clearly lesser species for the moment.

Perhaps in ten million years, humans will evolve to reproduce this way. As it stands, that is not the case.
We are locked into our current biology based on peer reviewed and substantiated science.
Denying or even trying to refute that is ignorance in its highest form.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

The Bible is fairly clear about things we are, and are not, to do.

Bearing false witness is one on the naughty list. Just saying...

Precisely.

So that would mean that someone who doesn't tell the whole truth, or who twists a situation implying that something was happening, that wasn't, in order to get a shocking headline, is doing something bad. Like in the source article referenced in the OP.

a reply to: chr0naut
Will you go forward from here looking at the facts without spinning them to protect evil now?


I hope you did look right in the mirror while typing that. You who constantly try to prove things we have repeatedly disproved. But then, you have amnesia. Acting as if you know better when we already proved it over and over that it was something totally different. Often appearing to be an intentional sin.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: chr0naut
Will you go forward from here looking at the facts without spinning them to protect evil now?

I hope you did look right in the mirror while typing that. You who constantly try to prove things we have repeatedly disproved. But then, you have amnesia. Acting as if you know better when we already proved it over and over that it was something totally different. Often appearing to be an intentional sin.

You hardly ever post links, or even reference a Bible verse, or something that isn't just purely your opinion. How can you claim you have disproved something without evidence?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: chr0naut
Will you go forward from here looking at the facts without spinning them to protect evil now?

I hope you did look right in the mirror while typing that. You who constantly try to prove things we have repeatedly disproved. But then, you have amnesia. Acting as if you know better when we already proved it over and over that it was something totally different. Often appearing to be an intentional sin.

You hardly ever post links, or even reference a Bible verse, or something that isn't just purely your opinion. How can you claim you have disproved something without evidence?

Yes, for when I want to bring something NEW I do that. I am not wasting my time on those things with some who proved they are not willing to be open to actual facts. I am the old baseball umpire.

I just call them as I seem them.


I ask again why do you play for the evil ones when you seem to want the truth right up until we bring it up here?

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: chr0naut
Will you go forward from here looking at the facts without spinning them to protect evil now?

I hope you did look right in the mirror while typing that. You who constantly try to prove things we have repeatedly disproved. But then, you have amnesia. Acting as if you know better when we already proved it over and over that it was something totally different. Often appearing to be an intentional sin.

You hardly ever post links, or even reference a Bible verse, or something that isn't just purely your opinion. How can you claim you have disproved something without evidence?

Yes, for when I want to bring something NEW I do that. I am not wasting my time on those things with some who proved they are not willing to be open to actual facts. I am the old baseball umpire.

I just call them as I seem them.

I ask again why do you play for the evil ones when you seem to want the truth right up until we bring it up here?

The disease started killing people in vast numbers before the immunizations against it existed.

After the implementations of the immunization around the world, the severe outcomes of the disease turned from increasing, to decreasing, even while the number of cases of the disease grew arithmetically.

The excess mortality statistics, around the world, show that the immunizations are not killing more people, and in fact the excess mortality numbers while fluctuating, have returned to pre-pandemic levels.

So the allegedly deadly immunizations just aren't, and something turned the trajectory of COVID-19 around.

But that means that everyone who dissuaded people from taking a potentially life-saving medicine, are the ones who have contributed to the existing death toll of the disease. They are the evil ones, and you are one of them.

I did provide proof if you see my other comments. I could post proof after proof but it does not matter because you all take the modern day bible as proof, even though hit was shortened and twisted by the church to control.

also,
The Ethiopian Bible is considered by some to be the oldest, most complete, and original Bible in the world. It is written in Ge'ez, an extinct Ethiopian language, and is about 800 years older than the King James Version (KJV). The Ethiopian Bible also includes texts that the KJV does not, such as the Books of Enoch, Esdras, Buruch, and Three Books of Maccabee.



a reply to: FlyersFan