You’re correct. 20 percent of them left last year to a more conservative branch because they feared their church would allow LGBT marriages and clergy. That fear turned out to be true, coincidentally.
Self-fulfilling prophecy;
A real possibility. If the 25 percent were the only ones in opposition then the change was certainly a good thing because the remaining members were all for it.
But I wonder if maybe some were on the fence about it and that change may have pushed them out.
A real possibility. If the 25 percent were the only ones in opposition then the change was certainly a good thing because the remaining members were all for it.
But I wonder if maybe some were on the fence about it and that change may have pushed them out.
Like I said, speculation.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
One of my more progressive ideas is that there really isn’t a hard absolute interpretation of the Bible. So the softness isn’t people interpreting the Bible incorrectly, it’s just people interpreting the Bible through their cultural lens.
Your progressive idea is not new - This idea, that you describe above, is found at the roots of Progressive Christianity and many Progressive churches and self described Progressive pastors - All of which have exploded in popularity in the west.
As evidence for this, I think you only have to look at the number of different churches that disagree on almost everything in the Bible. And how much the understanding of the Bible has changed over the millennia. But I can see how one would be able to justify some beliefs as being firmer and more absolute than others.
None of that is true.
Maybe I will get the courage to start a new thread.
A real possibility. If the 25 percent were the only ones in opposition then the change was certainly a good thing because the remaining members were all for it.
But I wonder if maybe some were on the fence about it and that change may have pushed them out.
Like I said, speculation.
Indeed, much of life is lived without peer reviewed double blind studies to back up every hypothesis and observation.
I’ve never looked up the data on if more men watch football than women, if women wear makeup more often than men, or if construction workers are less well educated than bankers. It would consume a heck of a lot of time.
So, none of the law of Moses is part of the whole thing that must be accepted as scripture?
It is accepted as scripture - It was a covenant made between God and specific people at a specific time in history.
Am I not understanding your question?
(I have no idea why my text is bolded.)
A sign from your Creator?
I think you understand. I’m trying to sort out something that has puzzled me, though it may be misunderstanding on my part. Does that mean that the acts that were prohibited by Mosaic law were not sinful in and of themselves, but only because they were violations of the covenant?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Indeed, much of life is lived without peer reviewed double blind studies to back up every hypothesis and observation.
I’ve never looked up the data on if more men watch football than women, if women wear makeup more often than men, or if construction workers are less well educated than bankers. It would consume a heck of a lot of time.
I’m sure you’re aware that evidence is not confined to peer reviewed double blind studies. You saw a snapshot of a congregation on one visit. You have no idea whether the congregation before the decision back in May was any different than on the day you saw it. Yet you concluded that this congregation was torn apart by the announcement dropping prohibitions against gay clergy and marriage. What is the factual basis for your conclusion that there was a significant change in the membership of the congregation you visited in the last five months?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
It is accepted as scripture - It was a covenant made between God and specific people at a specific time in history.
Am I not understanding your question?
A sign from your Creator?
I think you understand. I’m trying to sort out something that has puzzled me, though it may be misunderstanding on my part. Does that mean that the acts that were prohibited by Mosaic law were not sinful in and of themselves, but only because they were violations of the covenant?
Yes.
There were around 600 laws (I think) - They were laws given to the Israelites - from God through Moses - on how to live (Hygiene, civil justice, sacrifices, etc).
Indeed, much of life is lived without peer reviewed double blind studies to back up every hypothesis and observation.
I’ve never looked up the data on if more men watch football than women, if women wear makeup more often than men, or if construction workers are less well educated than bankers. It would consume a heck of a lot of time.
I’m sure you’re aware that evidence is not confined to peer reviewed double blind studies. You saw a snapshot of a congregation on one visit. You have no idea whether the congregation before the decision back in May was any different than on the day you saw it. Yet you concluded that this congregation was torn apart by the announcement dropping prohibitions against gay clergy and marriage. What is the factual basis for your conclusion that there was a significant change in the membership of the congregation you visited in the last five months?
Let’s imagine we ran the clock back to 2019 and the United Methodist church made the decision to uphold the ban on LGBT marriages and clergy. And they announced that this was never going to change, and their congregants believed it.
Would I on my visit have experienced a different congregation than the one I saw? I think it’s reasonable to make an informed guess that yes, there would probably have been a stronger congregation during my visit.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying I would likely have encountered the same sparse congregation because the religion was already in decline for other reasons unrelated to the LGBT issue.
