I am surprised...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well, according to Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...hip_statistics), the largest denominations of groups in the US that identify as Christian are, in order, rounded to the nearest million:
1. Catholic Church (71 million)
2. Southern Baptist Convention (15 million)
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (7 million)
4. United Methodist Church (7 million)
5. Church of God in Christ (5 million)
6. National Baptist Convention, US (5 million)
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (3 million)
8. National Baptist Convention of America (3 million)
9. African Methodist Episcopal Church (3 million)
10. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (2 million)

I suppose someone might object to some of these (most obviously #3) as being counted Christian denominations, but again for this we are focusing on groups that identify themselves as Christians, in order to avoid theological squabbles as to what counts as a Christian.

The United Methodist Church is presumably going to drop down in membership a decent amount whenever they get around to sorting out the planned split between the conservative and liberal factions--the split was supposed to be hashed out in 2020 but COVID put it on hold.


I don't know if I'd call the NALC (the group that split from them, the North American Lutheran Church) "conservative." Sure, they found the ELCA too liberal, but that makes them conservative relative to them. The NALC on their own website describes themselves with this: "The NALC embodies the theological center of Lutheranism in North America and stands firmly within the global Lutheran mainstream." The LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which is in the above list) would be what I would call conservative; the NALC falls somewhere between the ELCA and LCMS.

Thank you very much for that information.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No I didn't miss that. I'm pointing out that this entire thing is coming from a reply to cowpoke that doesn't address his comment at all.

My reply was directed to a request made by mossrose. Now that is clear to you, there is no further reason for you to to continue commenting on it.

[tabibito]

NorrinRadd The Koine Greek doesn't allow for "having one spouse." This text addresses circumstances for a man who want's to be episkopos. It does not address the circumstances of a woman who wants to be an episkope.

1TIM 3:2
δει	δει　Prs actv Indctv 3rdSing　***	it is necessary	it is necessary, it is proper✧ought, should 　 δει
ουν	cnjnctn	so then	③ Signifies one or more conditions in combination ✧ Consequentially: "so then". ✧ Confirms that matters foreknown or foreshadowed occurred. ✧ As a concession "it is granted that ・ I grant that". ✧ In relative clauses, "even/just as" 　 ουν
τον	def art: acc masc sgl	the (+ dir obj)	MASC DEF ART ✧ SGL: nom ο; acc ΤΟΝ; dtv τω; gtv του ✧ Plural: nom οι; acc τους; dtv τοις; gtv των
επισκοπον	τον noun: acc masc sgl	‡ 　 supervisor (dir obj)	a person being in charge: bishop, overseer, superintendent, guardian, supervisor, inspector 　επισκοπος
ανεπιληπτον	adj τον: acc masc sgl	‡ 　 irreproachable (+ dir obj)	inculpable, blameless, irreproachable 　 ανεπιληπτος
ειναι	Pres・… ・Infntv	to be	PRINCIPLE PARTS: prs ειμι ftr εσομαι aor ημην 　 ειμι
μιας 1	της noun: gtv fem sgl	one (1)	a, an, any, a certain one, unique 　 εις
γυναικος	της noun: gtv fem sgl	of? ‡ 　 woman, wife	① 　 γυνη
ανδρα	τον noun: acc masc sgl	‡ 　 man, husband (dir obj)	adult male human, husband 　 ανηρ

[CivilDiscourse]

My reply was directed to a request made by mossrose. Now that is clear to you, there is no further reason for you to to continue commenting on it.

Now that that's clear, lets get back to my original question. After all, You immediately derailed your own thread and Mossrose's question for defining "christian" came from that initial derail that started below.


Cow poke posted this:

Why should we be surprised that a denomination that had already started their Slouching Towards Gomorrah has taken yet another step?

You responded such:

Oh of course I keep forgetting that some Baptists do not consider themselves to be Protestants.

What do you consider yourself to be? What denominational group would you class your beliefs under?

Which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what Cow poke posted.

I pointed that out here:

This response does not actually address what he said. He never said anything about Baptists not considering themselves to be protestants.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Now that that's clear, lets get back to my original question. After all, You immediately derailed your own thread and Mossrose's question for defining "christian" came from that initial derail that started below.


Cow poke posted this:


You responded such:



Which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what Cow poke posted.

I pointed that out here:

It was an extension to the question. If some Baptists do not consider themselves to be of the protestant persuasion I merely enquired under what denominational group he, and by extension Baptists who thought as he did, would classify their beliefs. He replied "Christian" but that does not really answer my question given the doctrinal differences between various Christian denominations.

[CivilDiscourse]

It was an extension to the question. If some Baptists do not consider themselves to be of the protestant persuasion I merely enquired under what denominational group he, and by extension Baptists who thought as he did, would classify their beliefs. He replied "Christian" but that does not really answer my question given the doctrinal differences between various Christian denominations.

So, you never bothered to answer his question then?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Closest would be

Scripture Verse: Deuteronomy 22:5

“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

© Copyright Original Source

Where does that leave modern women wearing pants?

And IIRC, the word used by Paul in I Corinthians 6:9 that gets translated as male prostitutes or homosexuality, literally means "effeminate men."

This is a slightly edited account from Boswell on the subject.

Prostitution was manifestly of greater concern to Saint Paul than any sort of homosexual behavior: excluding the words in question, there is only a single reference to homosexual acts in the Pauline writings, whereas the word πόρνοςand its derivatives are mentioned almost thirty times. The second word, ἀρσενοκοῖται is more difficult to deal with. Saint Paul appears to have been the first author to use the word, and it appeared very infrequently after him. The authors of most lexica, including all the standard English ones, have traditionally contented themselves with corroborating the inference of biblical translators by giving the definition as "sodomite." [...] The claim that this word "obviously" means "homosexual" defies linguistic evidence and common sense. The second half of the compound is a coarse word, generally denoting base or licentious sexual activities (see Rom. 13: 13), The prefix simply means "male" but it is not clear whether "male" designates the object or the gender of the second half. The English expression "lady killer," when written, conveys the same ambiguity: in speech, emphasis would indicate whether" lady" designates the victim or the gender of the" killer," but in print there is no way to distinguish whether the phrase means" a lady who kills," or "a person who kills ladies." This is a particularly revealing parallel, since a third and largely unrelated meaning (i.e., "wolf," or "Don Juan") is actually the most common sense of the term but could not be deduced from the constituent parts, a telling example of the inadequacy of lexicographical inference unsupported by contextual evidence. [John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. 1980, Chicago University Press, pp. 341, 342]

He goes on to detail that other Greek phrases, seemingly analogous to ἀρσενοκοῖται may be misleading.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, you never bothered to answer his question then?

Looking through the pages of this thread [to date], I cannot find a direct question made by Cow Poke to me. Perhaps you can provide it for me.

[CivilDiscourse]

Post 2. Very hard to miss.

And in the summary I provided earlier in our exchange, I quoted that already.

You suck at looking through threads.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Post 2. Very hard to miss.

And in the summary I provided earlier in our exchange, I quoted that already.

You suck at looking through threads.

Post #2 is not addressed to me. Nor does it quote the OP.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Post 2. Very hard to miss.

You suck at recognising a rhetorical question.

[CivilDiscourse]

You suck at recognising a rhetorical question.

Was it? "I can only go by what is written".

[CivilDiscourse]

Post #2 is not addressed to me. Nor does it quote the OP.

Post #2, who do you think it was addressed to. Post # -85?

[Ronson]

And being born with a defect is quite a bit different than deforming one's own body because of a problem in the mind.

They were born with a defect of the mind.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Was it? "I can only go by what is written".

It is the manner in which it is written. I might also contend that you "suck" at basic tenth grade comprehension skills.

A rhetorical question is a question asked to make a point, rather than get an answer. Read this https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topic...ticles/z7dyvk7