Largest US Protestant churches on gay...

Largest US Protestant churches on gay clergy

There are 311 comments on the The Oregonian story from Feb 28, 2010, titled Largest US Protestant churches on gay clergy. In it, The Oregonian reports that:

A look at where the largest Protestant churches in the United States stand on gay clergy: ?UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: 7.9 million U.S. members.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Oregonian.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#186 Nov 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You did write...
"And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be."
The above statement as you wrote it, implies you believe what the pope teaches. That would insinuate you're a RCC. Understand your own statement and it's implications?
The only thing it shows is you assume things before you know if they are true. The fact that the R.C.C. finally came to believe the same thing I've believed for 40 years only shows the even the R.C.C can change it's views.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>"Who should we believe, you or the Pope who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when this change happened."
The above again implies you're leaning on the teaching/preaching of the pope.
Again it's doesn't imply that at all. It only means I agree with that part of Catholic doctrine. It's interesting you are now trying to claim I'm a Catholic when previously I stated I once described myself as a theosophical Christian Deist and had to go through 4 pages of debate over that with someone.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text> That insinuates to the reader not knowing you that you're a RCC, even if you later state you aren't, understand?
I see your point yes. But that doesn't mean you're correct. Maybe you need to remember that old adage about assuming.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>By the way, a personal opinion isn't a doctrine. You shouldn't confuse the two.
I didn't. Neither should you.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#187 Nov 28, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>The only thing it shows is you assume things before you know if they are true. The fact that the R.C.C. finally came to believe the same thing I've believed for 40 years only shows the even the R.C.C can change it's views.
I'm in for a good argument/debate, let's discuss the implications of that statement you aren't considering that invalidate it's reasoning, "And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be.".:)

Teaching something is one thing. Validating it is another thing and tough to do usually.
If it be true that we are born the way God intended us to be, that statement has a never ending application. Because it's virtually impossible to take such a statement and prove what it's applicable to and in the same moment also prove what's it's not applicable to.
Neither can you prove the exact point of where God began us to be what he intended us to be.
Point being, your statement can be shown to prove of it's own reasoning that for as much that God created some to be saint like, he would also have created some to be devil like. Some to make great choices and some to make wrong and horrendous choices. And would well establish that we weren't created with free choice. But that our choices were previously created for us by God.
That would leave us to ask why a god that knows all would create things to act in a specific manner where freedom of choice didn't exist. What purpose of creating such a robotic existence for himself and those he'd call his children, what purpose would it serve him? How could such a preplanned purpose serve him? Well the RCC would now state that it's one of the mysteries of God and his purpose that we don't comprehend.
Unfortunately for the RCC and other religions that teach that saying, God said nothing that they are claiming of him. They don't understand God, so it's easier for them to complicate what God is in an explanation then to claim God has revealed to them what his nature is and why he created us.
According to the writings of ancient prophets and leaders, the nature of God and our reason for being was made manifest to them so they would know what was true from the many false teachings that were out there about God. But in my opinion, the RCC has not a clue to God's nature or our reason for being because they don't understand it and statements like you stated prove my point.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#188 Nov 29, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm in for a good argument/debate, let's discuss the implications of that statement you aren't considering that invalidate it's reasoning, "And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be.".:)
Teaching something is one thing. Validating it is another thing and tough to do usually.
If it be true that we are born the way God intended us to be, that statement has a never ending application. Because it's virtually impossible to take such a statement and prove what it's applicable to and in the same moment also prove what's it's not applicable to.
Neither can you prove the exact point of where God began us to be what he intended us to be.
Point being, your statement can be shown to prove of it's own reasoning that for as much that God created some to be saint like, he would also have created some to be devil like. Some to make great choices and some to make wrong and horrendous choices. And would well establish that we weren't created with free choice. But that our choices were previously created for us by God.
That would leave us to ask why a god that knows all would create things to act in a specific manner where freedom of choice didn't exist. What purpose of creating such a robotic existence for himself and those he'd call his children, what purpose would it serve him? How could such a preplanned purpose serve him? Well the RCC would now state that it's one of the mysteries of God and his purpose that we don't comprehend.
Unfortunately for the RCC and other religions that teach that saying, God said nothing that they are claiming of him. They don't understand God, so it's easier for them to complicate what God is in an explanation then to claim God has revealed to them what his nature is and why he created us.
According to the writings of ancient prophets and leaders, the nature of God and our reason for being was made manifest to them so they would know what was true from the many false teachings that were out there about God. But in my opinion, the RCC has not a clue to God's nature or our reason for being because they don't understand it and statements like you stated prove my point.
Good. Now you're starting to understand the problems I had being raised in the Presbyterian faith which believes in "pre-determination" or what is also called "pre-destination".

Under such a concept, the church teaches that all things are the result of God's plan from the beginning of creation. If it has already been determined by God who will gain salvation and who won't, in my opinion that negates the idea that Jesus died as payment for all our sins.

It renders the entire Crucifixion and Resurrection as pointless.

I hope now you can start to see why I believe reason is just as important as faith when it comes to religious questions.

As you know I've pointed out many parts of the Bible where it says God created everything.

Because of that it's not all that unreasonable to say God created evil.

I'm glad we are having a civil dialogue now and hope it continues.

I've spent 40 years learning Bible verses that counter many of the verses hateful people use to justify using Christ or the Bible or God as a weapon against their fellow human beings.

I sometimes even get criticized privately when I use Paul's writings to refute claims made by so-called knowledgeable Christians.

Titus 3:1-2 is one of my favorite examples. Paul is very clear we should obey secular laws and entities.

Colossians 1:16 is another.

Paul then says in other places we have a duty to ignore those laws in favor of God's law.

So which part of Paul's teaching is the correct one?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#189 Nov 29, 2012
yep.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#190 Nov 30, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove what I claim? The rev and I had been discussing Jesus's position on same sex relationships. He stated at one point...
"Not according to the Gospel of John.
He wrote that Jesus spoke about many things and that there was much too much to write about.
One thing that Jesus did regularly and repeatedy insist upon, including claiming that He Himself embodied the very principle:
Truth."
The rev was insinuating that Jesus could have said something positive about same sex relations though we have no record of it.
And he is correct, it's a possibility.
But my previous position as it is now, is that Jesus/God has had 6000 "supposed" Bible years to say something positive about same sex relations and he hasn't. That is my evidence/proof of God's position on the matter. He doesn't have one. He doesn't need to have a position on same sex relations.
God had one position on human relationships and established it in Genesis and made laws for it for 4000 supposed Bible years. It is my opinion from what the Bible says and doesn't say of the varied relationships we humans engage ourselves in, that God gave specific directions for us to follow and left it up to us to follow them or chose not to follow them.
My proof of this information lays in what humans have chosen to do for 6000 supposed Bible years in spite of specific instructions of what relationship he wants us to be engaged in.
That information forms my opinion, not a doctrine. The rev believes God is well and okay with same sex relationships and that is his opinion, not a doctrine. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't support his opinion.
Dear No Surprise,

I understand that you would like to define "Truth" as coinciding with the bible.

I would like to define "Truth" as truth. In my opinion, where truth has been found to be at odds with the bible, truth has to prevail.

Is there any place or story in the bible where truth is found to be at odds with the bible? Sure.

But, like you have said, and I agree, there are stories in the bible that are mythical or allegorical, but are still based upon actual historical events. To what extent are we supposed to take these stories and allegories to be "Truth" or truth?

The answer is to be found in the very substance of the gray areas between truth and "Truth." Do these areas actually exist? Do differences actually exist between "Truth" in the bible and truth as a matter of the facts of everyday reality and is there a way to reconcile these two concepts of relevance in our daily lives?

Of course they do and yes, we can. However, the fundamentalist/literalist asks a very pertinent and significant question. That is, that if the bible presents myth and allegory and differences from factual truth right alongside factual truth and even spiritual truth, where does one start and the other stop? How does one distinguish one from the other?

Where in the bible can we definitively say that the bible presents an untruth or even a distortion of fact?

Because, if the bible presents distortion of fact or if the bible presents myths and allegories that describe events that have never actually, physically occurred, then what can anyone trust in the bible to be either truth or "Truth?" It ALL becomes questionable, at that point - if the premise is accepted that some of what the bible presents is not true.

Rev. Ken

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#191 Nov 30, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither did he speak about many things according to the NT, does that justify doing them or not doing them because there's no record of him giving an opinion?
This is why God gave us BRAINS, using yours would be a good thing, a new thing and a holy choice.

There's also this little thing called the Rukha d'Qudsha, the breath of God that still breathes today for those with ears to hear....

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#192 Nov 30, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear No Surprise,
I understand that you would like to define "Truth" as coinciding with the bible.
I would like to define "Truth" as truth. In my opinion, where truth has been found to be at odds with the bible, truth has to prevail.
Is there any place or story in the bible where truth is found to be at odds with the bible? Sure.
But, like you have said, and I agree, there are stories in the bible that are mythical or allegorical, but are still based upon actual historical events. To what extent are we supposed to take these stories and allegories to be "Truth" or truth?
The answer is to be found in the very substance of the gray areas between truth and "Truth." Do these areas actually exist? Do differences actually exist between "Truth" in the bible and truth as a matter of the facts of everyday reality and is there a way to reconcile these two concepts of relevance in our daily lives?
Of course they do and yes, we can. However, the fundamentalist/literalist asks a very pertinent and significant question. That is, that if the bible presents myth and allegory and differences from factual truth right alongside factual truth and even spiritual truth, where does one start and the other stop? How does one distinguish one from the other?
Where in the bible can we definitively say that the bible presents an untruth or even a distortion of fact?
Because, if the bible presents distortion of fact or if the bible presents myths and allegories that describe events that have never actually, physically occurred, then what can anyone trust in the bible to be either truth or "Truth?" It ALL becomes questionable, at that point - if the premise is accepted that some of what the bible presents is not true.
Rev. Ken
Wouldn't in be something to know the truth is alive and well, living outside a revised condensed modernized etc. book?

;-)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#193 Nov 30, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't in be something to know the truth is alive and well, living outside a revised condensed modernized etc. book?
;-)
You must let him answer.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#194 Nov 30, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Good. Now you're starting to understand the problems I had being raised in the Presbyterian faith which believes in "pre-determination" or what is also called "pre-destination".
Under such a concept, the church teaches that all things are the result of God's plan from the beginning of creation. If it has already been determined by God who will gain salvation and who won't, in my opinion that negates the idea that Jesus died as payment for all our sins.
It renders the entire Crucifixion and Resurrection as pointless.
I hope now you can start to see why I believe reason is just as important as faith when it comes to religious questions.
As you know I've pointed out many parts of the Bible where it says God created everything.
Because of that it's not all that unreasonable to say God created evil.
I'm glad we are having a civil dialogue now and hope it continues.
I've spent 40 years learning Bible verses that counter many of the verses hateful people use to justify using Christ or the Bible or God as a weapon against their fellow human beings.
I sometimes even get criticized privately when I use Paul's writings to refute claims made by so-called knowledgeable Christians.
Titus 3:1-2 is one of my favorite examples. Paul is very clear we should obey secular laws and entities.
Colossians 1:16 is another.
Paul then says in other places we have a duty to ignore those laws in favor of God's law.
So which part of Paul's teaching is the correct one?
That's easy, the one in which he states this is what God says/commands and not I. lol ;)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#195 Nov 30, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear No Surprise,
I understand that you would like to define "Truth" as coinciding with the bible.
I would like to define "Truth" as truth. In my opinion, where truth has been found to be at odds with the bible, truth has to prevail.
Is there any place or story in the bible where truth is found to be at odds with the bible? Sure.
But, like you have said, and I agree, there are stories in the bible that are mythical or allegorical, but are still based upon actual historical events. To what extent are we supposed to take these stories and allegories to be "Truth" or truth?
No that isn't what I meant. There are two truths and they both get intermingled. One is the truth of a theistic philosophy and the other is of normal non-religious thinking as takes place in daily living.
When we use the Bible and discuss it's subjects, the truth being discussed is of the Bible because we are discussing religious truths and if we agree or disagree with them. Religious truths vary according to their interpretations. But the truth(s) of what the Bible "contains" as far as what has been recorded doesn't change much from one century to the next.
The other truth you mentioned comes from daily life. In one tribe, a truth for them is a wife having multiple husbands. In another area, their truth is a husband having multiple wives. Yet in another area their truth is a husband having one wife and vice-versa. So non-theism truths are subjective to change from one generation to the next and are not actual "truths" but "present beliefs."
Truth is subjective to belief and because belief can do a 360 degree turn from one decade to the next, I don't find a lot of reliance in how you stated it.:)

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#196 Dec 3, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You must let him answer.
He responds without an answer, as usual....

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#197 Dec 3, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
He responds without an answer, as usual....
Yep.

That is because, as you are well aware, the correct answer is the one that crumbles his foundation.

Truth is simply truth.

Rev. Ken

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#200 Dec 4, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
That is because, as you are well aware, the correct answer is the one that crumbles his foundation.
Truth is simply truth.
Rev. Ken
Amen my brother.......

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#201 Dec 5, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't in be something to know the truth is alive and well, living outside a revised condensed modernized etc. book?
;-)
Truth (outside of a book) is subjective to popular opinion by one or more societies voicing a similar opinion of a topic/subject.
Need examples?
At one time, truth was the earth was flat. Dictators were a god. Sacrificing humans made the weather better for crops. Having seizures meant you were possessed. Being a homosexual was an abnormal mentality. Marriage was only between a man and woman. Men worked, women stayed at home, etc, etc.
There is no such factual thing as truth as all things are subjective to change from decade to decade, century to century and era to era.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#202 Dec 5, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
That is because, as you are well aware, the correct answer is the one that crumbles his foundation.
Truth is simply truth.
Rev. Ken
There is no such thing as truth. Truth has never been and has never existed. Truth is a word to describe a popular opinion of the present living society that views a "thing"/"idea " as a truth.
Your thinking of what truth is crumbles all around you like the dust of the centuries that has came and went in it's various forms.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#203 Dec 6, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth (outside of a book) is subjective to popular opinion by one or more societies voicing a similar opinion of a topic/subject.
Need examples?
At one time, truth was the earth was flat. Dictators were a god. Sacrificing humans made the weather better for crops. Having seizures meant you were possessed. Being a homosexual was an abnormal mentality. Marriage was only between a man and woman. Men worked, women stayed at home, etc, etc.
There is no such factual thing as truth as all things are subjective to change from decade to decade, century to century and era to era.
When you find the truth it will knock you on your ass.

Obviously you're still looking and you won't find it on Kolob...

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#204 Dec 6, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
When you find the truth it will knock you on your ass.
Obviously you're still looking and you won't find it on Kolob...
That No Surprise guy is certainly looking in the wrong spot.

He professes to be a Christian - that would be a follower and disciple of Christ Jesus, wouldn't it? Yes. It would.

But, he says there is no such thing as truth.

Well,.... maybe according to Pilate.

But, certainly not according to Jesus.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#205 Dec 6, 2012
May be off topic but saw this today.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/cbs-ceo-les-moonves-...

Seems the child star of "Two and a Half Men" is a true christian. So true that he's telling other true christians the show is filth and no true christian would have anything to do with it.

He gets $300,000 per episode.

Guess it's pretty clear how much his "true Christianity" is worth.

P.S. this story is now on the Religion forum. I thought it would be good for people to see just what the real priority is in Angus T. Jones's life.

I notice a lot of "Christians" will take money over their principle convictions nearly every time.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#206 Dec 6, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
When you find the truth it will knock you on your ass.
Obviously you're still looking and you won't find it on Kolob...
Your perverted truth is being a religious bigot. Your perverted truths are based elevating your religious convictions on your belittling one or more other religions.
And a religious bigot as yourself would be the one person I wouldn't depend on knowing a thing about what truth is. You know how to be a religious bigot, that's a present truth I'll even admit exists :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#207 Dec 6, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
That No Surprise guy is certainly looking in the wrong spot.
He professes to be a Christian - that would be a follower and disciple of Christ Jesus, wouldn't it? Yes. It would.
But, he says there is no such thing as truth.
Well,.... maybe according to Pilate.
But, certainly not according to Jesus.
lol...the wrong spot?? And that comes from a self made reverend that adds and takes away from the Bible at will you believe in?
Next, I said I believe in God. What people like you profess to be is a shame to what Jesus was 2000 years ago. You deny much of what he taught and you add to him what he didn't speak about.
You don't know truth. As long as you add and take away from what the Bible says that you say you believe in, you don't have an idea of what truth is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 min Gaybriel 34,814
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 1 min DaveinMass 1,047
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 1 min DaveinMass 256
News Gays in Military = Sex in Barracks (Mar '10) 1 min Victor Hugo 65
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 min Poof1 25,622
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 1 min Wisdom 2,933
News Prosecutors say sex-abuse charges against gay r... 13 min Flordia Gator 4
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 8,765
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 6 hr too lazy to log in 198
More from around the web