Methodists Close Meeting; No Action on Transgender Issues

United Methodists refined their mission statement to infuse a mission directive into the life and work of the church.

[Kerdy 1]

At least there is still a little hope for fundamental Christian values. It wont be long before this is forced on them.

[Dasein9]

Yeh, it's not as though we're human. Or children of God. Or bretheren and sisteren of Jesus.

Oh, wait...

[Kerdy 1]

Dasein9 wrote:

Yeh, it's not as though we're human. Or children of God. Or bretheren and sisteren of Jesus.
Oh, wait...

The argument is that homosexuality is and always has been against scripture and now there is a movement to have it acceptable with scripture, which it cannot be. Nothing anywhere said that people were not children of God. Nice play at attempting to put words in someones mouth.

[Kerdy 1]

Dasein9 wrote:

Yeh, it's not as though we're human. Or children of God. Or bretheren and sisteren of Jesus.
Oh, wait...

Not to mention that by changing Christian doctrine away from its fundamental/scriptural foundation and origins, you create something different than Christianity. I call it Pseudo-christianity. That or cult, either way, it isnt true Christianity. God loves people, but hates our sin. Its His call on what constitutes as sin, not ours.

[Dasein9]

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
The argument is that homosexuality is and always has been against scripture and now there is a movement to have it acceptable with scripture, which it cannot be. Nothing anywhere said that people were not children of God. Nice play at attempting to put words in someones mouth.

Erm... The article's about transgender issues, not homosexuality.

[Kerdy 1]

Dasein9 wrote:

<quoted text>
Erm... The article's about transgender issues, not homosexuality.

You dont know where all these new sexuality classes came from? Homosexuality.

Considering the precise definition for transgender remains in flux, I somehow am not suprised that the church doesnt take hold to it. How can they be expected to accept something that no one has a clear picture of what it means other than confusion?

[Eboni T-Girl]

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to mention that by changing Christian doctrine away from its fundamental/scriptural foundation and origins, you create something different than Christianity. I call it Pseudo-christianity. That or cult, either way, it isnt true Christianity. God loves people, but hates our sin. Its His call on what constitutes as sin, not ours.

There seems to be alot of confusion in Christianity, but not in Islam. In a country such as Iran they have passed a "fatwa for transexuals". This means that the so-called conservative country that we should all fear, has just accepted trans men and women. Not only that, the government pay for the operations. Yeah you hear right, that bad bullt called the Hamas government is paying for sexual SRS for tansexuals.

A fatwa is a law that is based soely on information from the scriptures. This was brought about by the Ayatollah Khomeini. These right wingers have studied the scriptures, and came to the conclusion that God nowhere states that being transgender is a sin.

However, here is the catch. They are still executing homosexuals and lesbians in Iran. Why?......becuase they also stated that the bible speaks out agianst homosexuality and lesbians.

So if the world's most conservative followers of God's law can understand transexuals, then why is it so hard for the western religious communities to understand them by biblical and medical definition? I fail to see where the west is getting lost in this debate.

Go to google and type in "Fatwa for transexuals Iran".

[Kerdy 1]

Eboni T-Girl wrote:

<quoted text>There seems to be alot of confusion in Christianity,

For those who half-heartedly attempt it, yes, but not for those who seriously study it.

[Kerdy 1]

Eboni T-Girl wrote:

<quoted text>There seems to be alot of confusion in Christianity,

What is there to be confused about? Its simple stuff. God created Man and Woman. They marry and have children. Not confusing at all. Men are men and women are women. Everything else is outside of Gods design.

[Eboni T-Girl]

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
What is there to be confused about? Its simple stuff. God created Man and Woman. They marry and have children. Not confusing at all. Men are men and women are women. Everything else is outside of Gods design.

You are refering to procreation. Not every person has to create life on this planet. That is not everyone's responsibilty. I assume that you are Christian. Are you not aware of what Christ had to say in relation to Eunochs? Ofcourse that was the term that had to be used, becuase the science of endocrinology was not a thought at that present time.

However, Christ made it perfectly clear about this issue. Notice he use the word "Eunoch". It is obvious here he is not talking about homosexuals(gays), becuase he would of used the more common terms that we have come to know that describes this group of people in the bible. If you look in India, the old world still refer to trans people as eunochs or Hijra. All of this you can look up on the internet.

Read Mathew 19:12- In this verse Christ speaks of Eunochs who are "made this way by man", and others for the "sake of the kingdom of heaven". But notice in the verse it also says that, "some where made that way from their mother's womb". So obviously Christ is showing you that not all people will fit neatly into your gender binary system.

[Bud]

Kerdy 1 wrote:

At least there is still a little hope for fundamental Christian values. It wont be long before this is forced on them.

I welcome it. It helps further distinguish to UMC from the right-wing bigots.

[Bud]

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to mention that by changing Christian doctrine away from its fundamental/scriptural foundation and origins, you create something different than Christianity. I call it Pseudo-christianity. That or cult, either way, it isnt true Christianity. God loves people, but hates our sin. Its His call on what constitutes as sin, not ours.

Tell that to the Council of Nicaea. Did they or did they not define what Christianity was by their editing of the texts, and exclusion of some parts that could have been in the Bible?

People interpret the Bible according to their perspective and zeitgeist every day. Even the fundamentalists Biblical literalists do this, though they would never admit it.

[Bud]

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You dont know where all these new sexuality classes came from? Homosexuality.
Considering the precise definition for transgender remains in flux, I somehow am not suprised that the church doesnt take hold to it. How can they be expected to accept something that no one has a clear picture of what it means other than confusion?

This is tantamount to admitting that there are people who are born homosexual.

It's ok - we already know it is true.

So - why does God hate hermaphrodites, by the way?

[Eboni T-Girl]

Bud wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell that to the Council of Nicaea. Did they or did they not define what Christianity was by their editing of the texts, and exclusion of some parts that could have been in the Bible?
People interpret the Bible according to their perspective and zeitgeist every day. Even the fundamentalists Biblical literalists do this, though they would never admit it.

Well you know what the funny thing is? If this whole LGBT issue was so fundemently unsound and perverse, then why has it not been seen among the heiarchy of every list created. I'll explain..........

Why is this not mentioned in the 10 commandments?

Why is this not mentioned in the 7 deadliest sins?

Why is this not mentioned in the 5 things God hateth the most?

Why is it not printed in any of Jesus words in red?

Yet when wright wing individuals want to bash gays, lesbians, and transgender, they all run to text that was created by the Apostle Paul, who himself never had any children. Paul never even had a relationship with a woman. And this is the man who is going to give us the all and all on how to live in sexual relationships?.........the irony

[Bud]

Eboni T-Girl wrote:

<quoted text>Well you know what the funny thing is? If this whole LGBT issue was so fundemently unsound and perverse, then why has it not been seen among the heiarchy of every list created. I'll explain..........
Why is this not mentioned in the 10 commandments?
Why is this not mentioned in the 7 deadliest sins?
Why is this not mentioned in the 5 things God hateth the most?
Why is it not printed in any of Jesus words in red?
Yet when wright wing individuals want to bash gays, lesbians, and transgender, they all run to text that was created by the Apostle Paul, who himself never had any children. Paul never even had a relationship with a woman. And this is the man who is going to give us the all and all on how to live in sexual relationships?.........the irony

It has never really been about religion in the apiritual sense for them. It's about control. It's about them telling you how to live.

Not going to happen in this country no matter how much they press their pancake-makeup faces into the camera. I will enjoy watching their eventual extinction over the next few decades.

[Wayne]

Eboni T-Girl wrote:

<quoted text>Well you know what the funny thing is? If this whole LGBT issue was so fundemently unsound and perverse, then why has it not been seen among the heiarchy of every list created. I'll explain..........
Why is this not mentioned in the 10 commandments?
Why is this not mentioned in the 7 deadliest sins?
Why is this not mentioned in the 5 things God hateth the most?
Why is it not printed in any of Jesus words in red?
Yet when wright wing individuals want to bash gays, lesbians, and transgender, they all run to text that was created by the Apostle Paul, who himself never had any children. Paul never even had a relationship with a woman. And this is the man who is going to give us the all and all on how to live in sexual relationships?.........the irony

Well, you were making a little sense until you started bashing Paul.

[Wayne]

Bud wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell that to the Council of Nicaea. Did they or did they not define what Christianity was by their editing of the texts, and exclusion of some parts that could have been in the Bible?
People interpret the Bible according to their perspective and zeitgeist every day. Even the fundamentalists Biblical literalists do this, though they would never admit it.

Why don't YOU get EDUCATED on the Council of Nicea?

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/council_of_ni...

I was reminded how often the phrase "the Council of Nicea" is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.2 And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the "beginning of the Trinity" or the "first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching." Others see it as the beginning of the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.

[Eboni T-Girl]

Bud wrote:

<quoted text>
It has never really been about religion in the apiritual sense for them. It's about control. It's about them telling you how to live.
Not going to happen in this country no matter how much they press their pancake-makeup faces into the camera. I will enjoy watching their eventual extinction over the next few decades.

Your right, it has always been about control. It took my going to college recently to better understand that. Now i'm starting to see things for what they truly are.

[Eboni T-Girl]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you were making a little sense until you started bashing Paul.

I do not beleieve in bashing anyone. Paul loved Jesus Christ as well as i do, so therefore we have something in common. There were Apostles in the bible who disagreed with Paul, such as Peter. Infact the only strong hand paul had by his side was Barnabas.

It is one thing to have disagreement among Christians, and another to openly bash each other. I hope you do not misinterpret my message as bashing him. I'm just questioning his experience in a certian feild. No more......no less.

[Bud]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don't YOU get EDUCATED on the Council of Nicea?
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/council_of_ni...
I was reminded how often the phrase "the Council of Nicea" is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.2 And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the "beginning of the Trinity" or the "first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching." Others see it as the beginning of the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.

And what, exactly, did I get wrong such that I need to be educated?

Seems to me I got it pretty much right, Wayne.