Pastor Kicked Out by His Congregation Over Transphobic Church Sign

[Shadow Wolf]

Is the response to Hoke's sign a "sign of the times" (pun shamelessly intended)?

Questions? Comments?

A sign that it's past time for Christianity to be abandoned and left in the past as even Christians are finding what the Bible actually teaches and instructs unacceptable, inhumane, and intolerable for a society that prizes individual liberty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A sign that it's past time for Christianity to be abandoned and left in the past as even Christians are finding what the Bible actually teaches and instructs unacceptable, inhumane, and intolerable for a society that prizes individual liberty.

I would not go that far. It is time to abandon the literal interpretation of the Bible. Especially when telling others how they should act. What none of these believers will admit it that all Christians pick and choose when it comes to the Bible. Don't pick the parts where you attack the rights of other people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Bruce Jenner is still a man" are "the Bible's words?"

It's very easy to get that from the Bible. Not as anything as direct as "still a man," but man shall not wear that which pertains unto a woman, god made them male and female, it is stated god knew us before we were born and made us as we are to be in accordance to his Will, and it is explicitly stated that eunuchs are not to enter into the tabernacle of the Lord and that the effeminate will not inherit the Kingdom.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would not go that far. It is time to abandon the literal interpretation of the Bible. Especially when telling others how they should act. What none of these believers will admit it that all Christians pick and choose when it comes to the Bible. Don't pick the parts where you attack the rights of other people.

Then where do we draw the line between what is metaphor and what is instruction? And if you're going to water it down and ignore and neglect to follow parts of it, why follow any of it all as clearly such a person is not fully committed to it. It is, allegedly, the "Word of God," after all, and it comes complete with warnings against changing the meaning and contenting, adding or subtracting from it, and telling people what it says is sin and wrong isn't actually sin and wrong. Those Liberal Christians who do not accept homosexuality as a sin are guilty of some very grave sins just as Conservative Christians are for the same reasons of twisting the Bible to suit their own ends.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then where do we draw the line between what is metaphor and what is instruction? And if you're going to water it down and ignore and neglect to follow parts of it, why follow any of it all as clearly such a person is not fully committed to it. It is, allegedly, the "Word of God," after all, and it comes complete with warnings against changing the meaning and contenting, adding or subtracting from it, and telling people what it says is sin and wrong isn't actually sin and wrong. Those Liberal Christians who do not accept homosexuality as a sin are guilty of some very grave sins just as Conservative Christians are for the same reasons of twisting the Bible to suit their own ends.

The Bible does not make that claim for itself. The "word of god" claims comes from quote mining.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Bible does not make that claim for itself. The "word of god" claims comes from quote mining.

It comes from the idea that the OT was penned by the prophets under the direction of god, and that the NT was written by god's hand picked few. The debate in the Evangelical world tends to revolve around whether the authors of the Bible where possessed by the Holy Spirit who then used the physical vessels to pen the Bible, or rather the authors were moved/influenced by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It comes from the idea that the OT was penned by the prophets under the direction of god, and that the NT was written by god's hand picked few. The debate in the Evangelical world tends to revolve around whether the authors of the Bible where possessed by the Holy Spirit who then used the physical vessels to pen the Bible, or rather the authors were moved/influenced by the Holy Spirit.

Moved but no claim of perfect. Look at the myths of Genesis and how God screwed up left and right. How would that God using imperfect humans write a perfect book?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Look at the myths of Genesis and how God screwed up left and right.

How did god screw up left and right? And your question of how would god use imperfect humans to write a perfect book, do you think such a thing matters when a huge part of the religion includes human parthenogenesis and resurrection after extensive bodily decay? Moses wasn't a perfect human, but god still entrusted him with many tasks including taking notes with very specific rules and construction objects of very specific measurements. Noah wasn't perfect either, but through God's Will the shriveled bag of bones of an old man built an impressive-sized arc in accordance with the measurements god gave him. The Bible is filled with examples, especially in Genesis, of how god works to influence human affairs in order to see that his will is done.

 

[JJ50]

Moved but no claim of perfect. Look at the myths of Genesis and how God screwed up left and right. How would that God using imperfect humans write a perfect book?

Most of the Biblical 'heroes' were far from perfect. That guy Solomon had wives and concubines, I bet some of those relationships weren't consenting!

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did god screw up left and right? And your question of how would god use imperfect humans to write a perfect book, do you think such a thing matters when a huge part of the religion includes human parthenogenesis and resurrection after extensive bodily decay? Moses wasn't a perfect human, but god still entrusted him with many tasks including taking notes with very specific rules and construction objects of very specific measurements. Noah wasn't perfect either, but through God's Will the shriveled bag of bones of an old man built an impressive-sized arc in accordance with the measurements god gave him. The Bible is filled with examples, especially in Genesis, of how god works to influence human affairs in order to see that his will is done.

Start with the Adam and Eve myth. God made them without the knowledge of right and wrong and then punished them for his mistake. They Noah's Ark myth is more of the same.Let's forget right now how we know that it never happened. God's creation, again his work, is so bad that he relies on genocide. Killing guilty and innocent alike. No wonder that Noah got drunk as soon as he could. Supposedly a lot of the troubles came from another creation of his, the angels that bred with man. There could not be a more incompetent or evil designer than the God of Genesis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Start with the Adam and Eve myth. God made them without the knowledge of right and wrong and then punished them for his mistake. They Noah's Ark myth is more of the same.Let's forget right now how we know that it never happened. God's creation, again his work, is so bad that he relies on genocide. Killing guilty and innocent alike. No wonder that Noah got drunk as soon as he could. Supposedly a lot of the troubles came from another creation of his, the angels that bred with man. There could not be a more incompetent or evil designer than the God of Genesis.

The Bible on several occasions describes that when sin entered the world all of creation was corrupted. Of course it's a bad argument, but it's logically sound and is how the state of the world is explained in the Bible. Of course when there are problems with a group the fault lies at the one leading them, but Christianity has a very strong sense of self-guilt, self-shame, and self-doubt to the point it's very difficult to see how it could be a fault of god when it's so heavily ingrained into the ideology that all of sin is the fault of us and all of the world's problems are a result of sin, making us responsible for these problems.

 

[JJ50]

The Bible on several occasions describes that when sin entered the world all of creation was corrupted. Of course it's a bad argument, but it's logically sound and is how the state of the world is explained in the Bible. Of course when there are problems with a group the fault lies at the one leading them, but Christianity has a very strong sense of self-guilt, self-shame, and self-doubt to the point it's very difficult to see how it could be a fault of god when it's so heavily ingrained into the ideology that all of sin is the fault of us and all of the world's problems are a result of sin, making us responsible for these problems.

Many of those Christians of the 'born again' sect think are 'saved' whatever they do thereafter, and are a cut above everyone else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Many of those Christians of the 'born again' sect think are 'saved' whatever they do thereafter, and are a cut above everyone else.

True, but that doesn't change that it's basically viewed as it all being our own fault for sinning. The world is violent and filled with evil because we sin. And we are utterly incapable of not sinning. And every time we sin we fail. The deck isn't stacked against us, we aren't strong enough to resist our sinful nature.
Having that ingrained into your way of thinking makes it practically impossible to even accidentally stumble upon the thought that it's god's fault, that just maybe this loving and merciful being could have done something other than kill people. When that isn't your life it's as plain as the sun to see on a clear day. But when that's all you know, when it's what you believe and embrace it, god is beyond reproach and utterly blameless.

 

[JJ50]

True, but that doesn't change that it's basically viewed as it all being our own fault for sinning. The world is violent and filled with evil because we sin. And we are utterly incapable of not sinning. And every time we sin we fail. The deck isn't stacked against us, we aren't strong enough to resist our sinful nature.
Having that ingrained into your way of thinking makes it practically impossible to even accidentally stumble upon the thought that it's god's fault, that just maybe this loving and merciful being could have done something other than kill people. When that isn't your life it's as plain as the sun to see on a clear day. But when that's all you know, when it's what you believe and embrace it, god is beyond reproach and utterly blameless.

If god exists it should take ultimate responsibility for wrong doing as it is supposed to have created human nature. Maybe human suffering gives it an orgasm!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If god exists it should take ultimate responsibility for wrong doing as it is supposed to have created human nature.

I agree. After all, it's not the programs fault when a faulty line of code makes the program crash, it's the fault of the programmer. But that isn't how many Christians view it, and even occasionally here on RF on of them will go on about how our sinful nature ruined and is ruining everything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's very easy to get that from the Bible. Not as anything as direct as "still a man," but man shall not wear that which pertains unto a woman, god made them male and female, it is stated god knew us before we were born and made us as we are to be in accordance to his Will, and it is explicitly stated that eunuchs are not to enter into the tabernacle of the Lord and that the effeminate will not inherit the Kingdom.

I'm sure you recognize this, but it takes a lot of added stuff not in the Bible to get from any of that to "it's bad to be trans."

For instance, "male and female he created them" seems a bit dismissive of intersex people, but to make it anti-trans, we'd need assumptions about the relationship between sex, gender identity, gender expression, etc., that just aren't spelled out in the Bible.

"Male and female he created them" can just as easily be used to support transgender people. I think it takes way fewer logical leaps to get from that text to "God really did mean for this woman to be male" than it does to get to "God made this person male, so he doesn't think they're a woman."

 

[dianaiad]

People who lust after leadership are always complaining that liberalism won’t get you followers. I say let such shallow preachers beware the moral fibre of congregations like this one

He needs to change religious affiliations. Presbyterians (at least where I live) tend to be considerably more liberal, culturally, than other evangelicals.

 

[danieldemol]

He needs to change religious affiliations. Presbyterians (at least where I live) tend to be considerably more liberal, culturally, than other evangelicals.

Well done Presbyterians I say.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When a person follow a religion they adapt toward what the religion teach, and no they should not "fix" the teaching to fit them self, it is the other way around.
For those who are not following a religion does not need to think of this things.

Even the teaching are many thousand years old it is still a spiritual teaching that is right for those who choose to follow it. for those who do not follow it they dont need to see it as the truth.

And do you feel that a consensus among the religion's body of leaders/members should not affect the overall teaching coming from that religious body?

Keep in mind, if you answer that "no, consensus should not dictate the teachings", then I'd present as evidence all the times when this sort of change has happened. Such as the great many changes and addenda to the Islamic religion made by Muhammad. The addition to the whole canon of Mormon Christianity by Joseph Smith. The many times the Catholic chuch (even in modern times) has reached a "verdict" on some issue they deem a moral imperative and come out with a public address as to their thoughts on the matter, and the teaching that should propagate from that moment forward throughout the Catholic church. The whole of Christianity (which itself is an adaptation of Judaism), and in modern times, the very Christian adaptation to coffee bars within churches, secularly-styled, live music played from a "stage" by a "band", and other things.

My point being, it is incredibly naive... and I mean "incredibly" - as in, you afford yourself absolutely no credit... to think that religions don't already adapt to the times. They just do so entirely too reluctantly, to the point that they seem to always be playing "catch up". Things change. You fall too behind, and you become irrelevant. Think Greek and Roman religions, now considered "mythologies" by the vast majority of people. And that's just an extreme example. As far as I have seen and heard news of, Christianity itself is seeing something of a crisis in our time. Churches closing, people leaving in droves. Their teachings ending up still being a bit too rigid for the liking of new generations, who have developed a different understanding of whether or not someone is allowed to dictate to you what is "sin" if the activity in question isn't hurting anyone directly involved. There is a foolish notion that "God will provide" even if they decide to turn their backs on anyone who believes differently than they do. I honestly hope they keep it up. I'd love to see Christianity go the way of the dodo. Perhaps it could be a wake up call to all religions to get their acts together, and start understanding that they don't, at all, hold the keys to knowledge and wisdom.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And do you feel that a consensus among the religion's body of leaders/members should not affect the overall teaching coming from that religious body?

Keep in mind, if you answer that "no, consensus should not dictate the teachings", then I'd present as evidence all the times when this sort of change has happened. Such as the great many changes and addenda to the Islamic religion made by Muhammad. The addition to the whole canon of Mormon Christianity by Joseph Smith. The many times the Catholic chuch (even in modern times) has reached a "verdict" on some issue they deem a moral imperative and come out with a public address as to their thoughts on the matter, and the teaching that should propagate from that moment forward throughout the Catholic church. The whole of Christianity (which itself is an adaptation of Judaism), and in modern times, the very Christian adaptation to coffee bars within churches, secularly-styled, live music played from a "stage" by a "band", and other things.

My point being, it is incredibly naive... and I mean "incredibly" - as in, you afford yourself absolutely no credit... to think that religions don't already adapt to the times. They just do so entirely too reluctantly, to the point that they seem to always be playing "catch up". Things change. You fall too behind, and you become irrelevant. Think Greek and Roman religions, now considered "mythologies" by the vast majority of people. And that's just an extreme example. As far as I have seen and heard news of, Christianity itself is seeing something of a crisis in our time. Churches closing, people leaving in droves. Their teachings ending up still being a bit too rigid for the liking of new generations, who have developed a different understanding of whether or not someone is allowed to dictate to you what is "sin" if the activity in question isn't hurting anyone directly involved. There is a foolish notion that "God will provide" even if they decide to turn their backs on anyone who believes differently than they do. I honestly hope they keep it up. I'd love to see Christianity go the way of the dodo. Perhaps it could be a wake up call to all religions to get their acts together, and start understanding that they don't, at all, hold the keys to knowledge and wisdom.

Keeping the answer as before. Humans should not change the religious texts to fit human beings, Human beings should make the change within them self to more adapt the teaching.

That there are human beings who fall for the immoral lifestyle is not the religions fault, it is the lack of insight to what is right or wrong accoding to spiritual life. The people who are priest or pastors or other title within the religions are also falling for the "presure" of the moral failing.