Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Redemption: Being saved or born again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    The "Methodist communion" had "women in the pulpit" from its origins in the 1700s.
    Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2003 and the UMC is in the midst of a a schism over recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships and non-celebrate gay clergy where 5,800 churches have disaffiliated.

    The AG and Foursquare churches have had "women in the pulpit" for a hundred years or more, and AFAIK have not slid down the supposed slippery slope.
    It seems gay-affirming Pentecostals have been around since 1968.

    The C&MA has bounced around a bit on the issue. Under Simpson, men and women had similar if not identical ministerial status. Later they went very much into male leadership. Recently, they have allowed more liberty, albeit inconsistently; women may hold the title of "pastor" but not "elder," if I understand correctly, and I think individual congregations can decide whether or not to allow women in leadership.

    I think to at least some extent the alleged slippery slope depends on the basis of the denomination or communion allowing women in leadership (or "in the pulpit") in the first place. If it's "Wah! It's so unfair!" then they are more likely to slide further. But if it's an honest desire to reconcile apparently competing passages of Scripture, not so much.
    The Presbyterian USA church had an openly gay "pastor" in 2011. Don't really have the time to look into dissent from the C&MA.
    P1) If , then I win.

    P2)

    C) I win.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

      Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2003 and the UMC is in the midst of a a schism over recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships and non-celebrate gay clergy where 5,800 churches have disaffiliated.
      Even churches with women as pastors drew the line at ordaining LGBTQ+ pastors and bailed.

      It seems gay-affirming Pentecostals have been around since 1968.
      Pentecostals don't seem to be alone in slotting into the time frame. The first churches (in 1946) to embrace LGBTQ+ were in fact started by members of the Church of Rome; hardly a bastion of "progressive" (for want of a better word) theologies.

      The Presbyterian USA church had an openly gay "pastor" in 2011. Don't really have the time to look into dissent from the C&MA.
      The PCA, opposed to ordination of women, split from the PCUSA 48 years ago. PCUSA extended the opportunity for ordination to LGBTQ+ church members in 2012. That sparked another exodus, and the formation of ECO, which allows the ordination of women.

      Evidence for the existence of a slippery slope doesn't seem to be particularly strong.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

        And my opinion matters.
        Only to you.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          Even churches with women as pastors drew the line at ordaining LGBTQ+ pastors and bailed.
          Individual congregations yes, but the issue has become extremely divisive.

          Pentecostals don't seem to be alone in slotting into the time frame. The first churches (in 1946) to embrace LGBTQ+ were in fact started by members of the Church of Rome; hardly a bastion of "progressive" (for want of a better word) theologies.
          Sedevacantists would disagree to the conservative nature of Rome. I'll wait for the citation.


          Evidence for the existence of a slippery slope doesn't seem to be particularly strong.

          If you're going to lie, fin.
          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
            Individual congregations yes, but the issue has become extremely divisive.
            Holding to the teachings of scripture is always divisive - the condition is even remarked upon by New Testament writers.

            Sedevacantists would disagree to the conservative nature of Rome. I'll wait for the citation.
            According to Sedevacantists, there has been no valid pope since Pius XII. That was quite a while after 1946. Your argument fails.

            If you're going to lie, fin.
            So - an ad hominem in an attempt to paper over the holes in your argument.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              Holding to the teachings of scripture is always divisive - the condition is even remarked upon by New Testament writers.
              With that I am in agreement.


              According to Sedevacantists, there has been no valid pope since Pius XII. That was quite a while after 1946. Your argument fails.
              The Sedes are seen as the conservative element within Roman Catholicism, nothing fails. You also did not give any citation for the 1946 regard the Church of Rome in general.

              So - an ad hominem in an attempt to paper over the holes in your argument.
              Staring that you're lying given that the second largest Protestant denomination is in the process of fracturing over the issue of gay "clergy" after already having accepting women "clergy" is not attacking your person, so no as hom.

              The Anglicans are fracturing, the UCC accepts gay "clergy", Baptists who accept women "clergy" are accepting gay "clergy", multiple Jewish denominations have gay "rabbis", there are Pentecostal off shoots that accept gay "clergy". Algeria has had women "imams" since 1993 and Canada since 2003 and guess from where one of the first openly gay "imams" hails.

              So no, calling out blatant deception is not an ad hom.
              Last edited by Diogenes; 02-07-2024, 05:53 AM.
              P1) If , then I win.

              P2)

              C) I win.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                Only to you.
                Sure.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  With that I am in agreement.




                  The Sedes are seen as the conservative element within Roman Catholicism, nothing fails. You also did not give any citation.
                  I gave as many citations as you did, unless I missed something.

                  Staring that you're lying given that the second largest Protestant denomination is in the process of fracturing over the issue of gay "clergy" after already having accepting women "clergy" is not attacking your person, so no as hom.
                  And where are the citations backing up your claims in the particular post that I am now responding to - or do I have to hunt for verification of your assertions yet again? Admittedly though, it didn't take any time at all to find the article that shows gay friendly groups splitting off from the Catholic Church in 1946. Note - the groups didn't start with the desire for women clergy, they started with accepting gay relationships: your argument fails. Correlation does not evidence causation.

                  One Anglican archdiocese here accepts women clergy, another doesn't. They aren't at war with each other. Neither has (to date) ordained active homosexuals. Both accept active homosexuals as members: and that is where the problems begin. The activity is prohibited, people engaging in that activity are given a say in church affairs and use it as an opportunity to agitate for "reforms."

                  Any transgressions, not just sexual, disqualify unrepentant people engaging in such activity from membership in the body of Christ. That includes wilful and unrepentant slanderers. Given your demand for citations: Romans 1:28-32.

                  The Anglicans are fracturing,
                  American society itself seems to be fracturing, and not just about sexuality issues. If congregations are reflecting the general state of society, maybe it is time for them to take stock of what they are about by comparison with what they are supposed to be about.

                  the UCC accepts gay "clergy", Baptists who accept women "clergy" are accepting gay "clergy", multiple Jewish denominations have gay "rabbis", there are Pentecostal off shoots that accept gay "clergy". Algeria has had women "imams" since 1993 and Canada since 2003 and guess from where one of the first openly gay "imams" hails.
                  Which indicates the possibility that general society is having an undue influence on the churches, and not only on the churches, but on other faith systems as well. It's not a particularly strong argument against women clergy in Christian churches when the same problems exist in other faith systems.

                  So no, calling out blatant deception is not an ad hom.
                  No deception involved on my part - none of that information was in your earlier submission. And the submission to which I am responding still does not meet with the standard that you demand re citations.

                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                    I gave as many citations as you did, unless I missed something.
                    One church in Atlanta is hardy news enough to find as opposed to the MCC or to know others as common knowledge, but my apologies or my haste, language, and failure to cite the MCC.



                    Note - the groups didn't start with the desire for women clergy, they started with accepting gay relationships: your argument fails. Correlation does not evidence causation.
                    Both stem from the accommodation of the world.


                    Any transgressions, not just sexual, disqualify unrepentant people engaging in such activity from membership in the body of Christ.
                    It seems that lost on the UMC and Anglicans in the least.


                    That includes wilful and unrepentant slanderers. Given your demand for citations: Romans 1:28-32.
                    I'll admit to my failure on the issue of the demand for citations and would repent.


                    American society itself seems to be fracturing, and not just about sexuality issues. If congregations are reflecting the general state of society, maybe it is time for them to take stock of what they are about by comparison with what they are supposed to be about.
                    It's a lamentable situation regarding both, but such is the effect of provocateurs.


                    Which indicates the possibility that general society is having an undue influence on the churches, and not only on the churches, but on other faith systems as well.
                    Agreed.

                    No deception involved on my part - none of that information was in your earlier submission. And the submission to which I am responding still does not meet with the standard that you demand re citations.
                    Trying to gaslight that the division over the acceptance of gay "clergy" or blessing same sex domestic partnerships has followed the majority of denominations that accepted women "clergy" is something I would certainly call deception.

                    P1) If , then I win.

                    P2)

                    C) I win.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                      Trying to gaslight that the division over the acceptance of gay "clergy" or blessing same sex domestic partnerships has followed the majority of denominations that accepted women "clergy" is something I would certainly call deception.
                      Someone else pointed out, quite a few posts back, that there are two reasons for a congregation to accept women clergy.

                      The overwhelming majority will simply be looking for a way to look good to the general community, along with being influenced by lobbying from within, and will naturally accept any number of weird ideas in pursuit of that goal.

                      The remainder will base the decision on a close examination of scripture, and determine that women can be ordained (while allowing that enough ambiguity might exist to permit the opposite conclusion*). They will also conduct a close examination of scripture to determine whether LGBTQ+ people can be ordained, and find that no justification is possible.

                      It is not accepting women as pastors that is the problem, but the reason for that acceptance.

                      A necessary corollary to accepting women as clergy would be taking care to avoid accepting a rabid feminist for the position, which would also preclude some men.


                      (* I personally believe that a modern day apostle or prophet with the requisite bona fides would knock dis-allowance out of the running.)
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
                      22 responses
                      94 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                      Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
                      25 responses
                      150 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Cerebrum123  
                      Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
                      103 responses
                      560 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post tabibito  
                      Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
                      39 responses
                      251 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post tabibito  
                      Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                      154 responses
                      1,017 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post whag
                      by whag
                       
                      Working...
                      X