Methodist split - Florida update

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
My point here is...and frankly it might be a distinction without a difference in the context of this discussion...is that we as men should not get too far up on our spiritual high horse when it comes to women. I think the general prohibition on women being placed in positions of spiritual authority (specifically over men, not in general) is based on their flesh handicap rather than some spiritual superiority or election on our part. I believe pretty firmly that once we depart the earthly flesh, the ladies are going to be every bit our equals in every single way, no longer bound by their weaker earthly constitution. My personal belief is that no woman should be placed in a position of spiritual authority where a willing and qualified man is available for that role, because as a general rule, women are more easily swayed, and once led astray, have tremendous power to take men with them, as Adam learned the hard way. But I've seen an awful lot of men who probably should have deferred to the spiritual wisdom of some of the women around them over the years...so it really isn't that simple a matter to address.
Flesh handicap? Being more easily swayed? Wasn't Adam as equally swayed? I can see women being the weaker sex in muscle build but not in being more easily swayed.
The devil just knew it would be easier for Adam's spouse to sway him than the devil himself in that particular instance.
The devil could sway me easier than Adam so he just goes directly to me and bypasses my spouse. It could work either way really depending on the individual man. I would think I'm weaker than my wife to be swayed by the devil.
 

SemperFiDawg

Senior Member
Yes. You can also feed someone without them knowing it.

Yeah, I can't recall how many times over the course of my life I've heard Yiddish and not understood a word of it, mainly because I've never heard Yiddish, only to come to a deep intellectual comprehension of it later. Happens all the time really.facepalm:

I think it's more synonymous with

If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

but yeah, I get it: bread, rock; fish, serpent; egg, scorpion. The latter of the pairs have that secret "spiritual" sauce that only the super intelligent, spiritually elite appreciate.
 

gemcgrew

Senior Member
Yeah, I can't recall how many times over the course of my life I've heard Yiddish and not understood a word of it, mainly because I've never heard Yiddish, only to come to a deep intellectual comprehension of it later. Happens all the time really.facepalm:
Somebody left the analogy.
 

brutally honest

Senior Member
suicide.gif
 

Madman

Senior Member
Perhaps a better question might be, will there be males and females in Heaven, and if so...to what end?
Why would there not be? We are created male and female, I see no evidence God would change that.

Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.
 

jrickman

Senior Member
Why would there not be? We are created male and female, I see no evidence God would change that.

Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.

...because the woman was created FOR the man? I guess it just strikes me as odd that so many assume our new and incorruptible bodies will remain fully equipped with the primary means of corruption here on earth even though it no longer serves the purpose of bearing fruit. One almost has to ascribe to the belief that we still marry and produce children in Heaven to follow that line of thinking.
 

Madman

Senior Member
...because the woman was created FOR the man? I guess it just strikes me as odd that so many assume our new and incorruptible bodies will remain fully equipped with the primary means of corruption here on earth even though it no longer serves the purpose of bearing fruit. One almost has to ascribe to the belief that we still marry and produce children in Heaven to follow that line of thinking.
and it strikes me as odd that some believe the perfected body would be ..... I don't know, .... other...... What exactly would it be?

I don't understand, are you saying sexual organs are the "primary means of corruption"? I am not sure that is true.

I am not sure what a 'perfected body" looks like, but I see no reason that it should not look much like what we have now. Nothing in Holy Scripture nor reason would lead us to to believe such. Perhaps sexual desire is absent from the glorified body just as sin is absent from the glorified mind.
 

brutally honest

Senior Member
Sounds like it’s going swimmingly:

“The Mediation Team members who took part in the Protocol negotiations, pressured traditionalists into making all kinds of unreasonable concessions, and now are openly breaking their promises in apparent hopes of gaining even more advantages for themselves are Virginia pastor Tom Berlin, the Rev. Egmedio “Jun” Equila, Jr. of the Philippines, Reconciling Ministries Network chief Janet Lawrence, West Ohio pastor David Meredith, and liberal caucus activist Randall Miller.

No one should ever again make the mistake of trusting any of these individuals to keep their word, at least not after they see some personal advantage in breaking it.”

https://juicyecumenism.com/2022/09/08/bishop-bickerton-on-the-umc-protocol/
 

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
and it strikes me as odd that some believe the perfected body would be ..... I don't know, .... other...... What exactly would it be?

I don't understand, are you saying sexual organs are the "primary means of corruption"? I am not sure that is true.

I am not sure what a 'perfected body" looks like, but I see no reason that it should not look much like what we have now. Nothing in Holy Scripture nor reason would lead us to to believe such. Perhaps sexual desire is absent from the glorified body just as sin is absent from the glorified mind.
I agree but only after the resurrection. Perhaps another reason to believe we don't go to Heaven until then. Christ is our example and I'm pretty sure he still has gender.
 

GunnSmokeer

Senior Member
I think the NAME of the UMC needs to be preserved, or I should say "should have been" preserved, and all the liberal homosexual coddlers and those who embrace a lifestyle of sin and celebrate and champion that should've been kicked out-- no matter how many there are!

If, hypothetically, 60% of UMC members want a gay (sinful) church and 40% want a true Christian church that follows God's instructions....
.... the 40% should stay 60% gets to pack up their bags and leave.

Not because the conservatives have more votes, but because they aren't the ones who changed.
They didn't start the trouble or pick a fight.

The troublemakers should be the ones who are forced to leave and start their own denomination.

The ones remaining true to the roots of the faith get to keep both the buildings and the name.


P.S. If, after the Unrepentant Sinners and their apologists have left en masse,

and the remaining faithful few do not generate enough money from tithing to keep the building operating, and they rattle around like a few marbles in a giant can,


then they should offer the building for sale and use the money to move into a smaller church facility that suits their smaller congregation.
 

GunnSmokeer

Senior Member
It's like saying that Jack and Jill are a married couple ....
..who now want to each bring in a different lover into the marriage, to have a new marriage of four people!


I say "no, you don't do that" - you have a divorce and announce to the world that Jack and Jill are no longer married.

Then, if newly-single Jack and Jill and Susan and Bob want to get together and have their orgies in a pagan house of sin ....that's fine; just don't call it a "marriage" and don't ask either the Church or the State to bless that and give it any special status!
 
Top