Gay minister didn't violate Methodist law, jury finds

[5stringJeff]

More on homosexual ministers... pretty sad, IMO.



Gay minister didn't violate Methodist law, jury finds
By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times staff reporter

DEAN RUTZ / THE SEATTLE TIMES
"I feel very good," said the Rev. Karen Dammann, left, hearing the verdict with partner Meredith Savage. "Something extraordinary has happened," Savage said.

In the end, the fate of the Rev. Karen Dammann, a lesbian pastor who was found not guilty yesterday of violating United Methodist Church law, appears to have hinged on a single word: "declared."

A jury of 13 fellow pastors found that while Dammann had engaged in homosexual activity, the church's Book of Discipline — a collection of the denomination's laws and teachings — does not clearly declare that such practice is incompatible with Christian teachings.

In returning the verdict yesterday afternoon at Bothell United Methodist Church, 11 jurors voted not guilty and the other two were undecided. Nine votes would have been needed for a conviction.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001884745_methodist21m.html

 

[Aquarian]

yeah, those homo's never amount to anything:

http://www.lambda.org/famous.htm

 

[_dmp_]

It's the dumbing-up of America. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see that a homosexual lifestyle is inconsistant w/ Christianity.

All ministers are people. People Sin. Homosexuality is a sin as much as, say, lying...or killing...or stealing. We expect our ministers to fall to sin on occasion, but a Minister unapologetically (sp?) touting her sin and getting away with it??

wow..

 

[5stringJeff]

I never said they didn't. But homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin by God in the Bible. For a church to claim to call itself Christian, yet tolerate an unrepentant sinner as a minister within its ranks, is hypocritical in my eyes.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Aquarian
yeah, those homo's never amount to anything:

http://www.lambda.org/famous.htm

:bs:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by dmp
It's the dumbing-up of America. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see that a homosexual lifestyle is inconsistant w/ Christianity.

All ministers are people. People Sin. Homosexuality is a sin as much as, say, lying...or killing...or stealing. We expect our ministers to fall to sin on occasion, but a Minister unapologetically (sp?) touting her sin and getting away with it??

wow..

Actually, until Thomas Aquinas made the missionary position between a man and woman and only for procreation de rigeur, anything went as far as sex was concerned. And it doesn't take much reading of his works to see that he was deeply in doubt as to his own sexual orientation.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I never said they didn't. But homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin by God in the Bible. For a church to claim to call itself Christian, yet tolerate an unrepentant sinner as a minister within its ranks, is hypocritical in my eyes.

Now, just how do you, or anyone else for that matter, know what God wants? Do y'all have a direct pipeline to the godhead? If so, why haven't you hit the lottery yet?

The last soul I saw who said he talked to God was sitting in dowtown San Diego staring at the sun.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Now, just how do you, or anyone else for that matter, know what God wants? Do y'all have a direct pipeline to the godhead? If so, why haven't you hit the lottery yet?

The last soul I saw who said he talked to God was sitting in dowtown San Diego staring at the sun.

You keep using this same (tired) line, and I keep ignoring it... but here you go, Bully.

I believe in Christianity because I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus was raised from the dead. Because of this, I believe His claims about who He said He was - namely the Son of God. Therefore, I believe His claims about God and God's word - namely the Bible. Therefore, I take the Bible, as a whole, as gospel truth (pardon the pun). Therefore, when the Bible tells me numerous times, from before the Mosiac Law, in the Mosaic Law, and in the New Testament, that homosexuality is a sin, I conclude that it is a sin.

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Now, just how do you, or anyone else for that matter, know what God wants? Do y'all have a direct pipeline to the godhead? If so, why haven't you hit the lottery yet?

The last soul I saw who said he talked to God was sitting in dowtown San Diego staring at the sun.

where did he state that he knew what god wanted? i see where it says its clearly defined, but not that god said.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
You keep using this same (tired) line, and I keep ignoring it... but here you go, Bully.

I believe in Christianity because I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus was raised from the dead. Because of this, I believe His claims about who He said He was - namely the Son of God. Therefore, I believe His claims about God and God's word - namely the Bible. Therefore, I take the Bible, as a whole, as gospel truth (pardon the pun). Therefore, when the Bible tells me numerous times, from before the Mosiac Law, in the Mosaic Law, and in the New Testament, that homosexuality is a sin, I conclude that it is a sin.

here's the problem w/ the bible, in my opinion...

when the catholic church was deciding what to put in and keep out of the bible they took a vote. (that in and of itself is wrong, why leave in or keep out God's word or Jesus' word) I believe there are 2(?) gospels left out of it, among other things. And, when they were voting, they were voting for what was in THEIR best interest and what THEY wanted in.

well, my brain just blanked out and I can't remember what else I was gonna say, i'll try and think of them...

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dmp
:bs:

not quite right, nuryev was gay and joplin was Bi :ali:

 

[Aquarian]

my apologies for the earlier post, it was end of day and my tooth was hurting, wasn't reading correctly...

I'll have to re-research new testament references to homosexuality (pretty sure jesus said the old testament no longer applied). Still I believe that the new testament has admonitions against it as well (tho not as strongly worded as leviticus) so it strikes me as odd that a christian church would allow a minister to be a practicing homosexual. Then again, i'm not methodist so I guess it's really up to them ain't it?

re the list i linked, there's a few on it I question also (ie hoover, pope julius) but make it a new thread if you want to talk about it's validity, it didn't belong on this thread to begin with.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by deciophobic
here's the problem w/ the bible, in my opinion...

when the catholic church was deciding what to put in and keep out of the bible they took a vote. (that in and of itself is wrong, why leave in or keep out God's word or Jesus' word) I believe there are 2(?) gospels left out of it, among other things. And, when they were voting, they were voting for what was in THEIR best interest and what THEY wanted in.

well, my brain just blanked out and I can't remember what else I was gonna say, i'll try and think of them...

First, there was no such thing as the Catholic Church at the time. The NT was canonized in the fourth century AD, well before the Great Schism, in which the Orthodox Church split from what is now the Catholic Church.
Second, If you read some of the gospels that were left out (the Gospel of Thomas is the most commonly alluded to), you will find many teachings that are contrary to the rest of Scripture. For example, in the GoT Jesus is supposed to have said something like, 'For a woman to get to heaven, she must first become a man.' There are a few other quotes as weird as that one, I'll have to go look them up, but I'm about to leave work, so it might be a while.
Anyhow, the votes were a) prayerfully considered, meaning that they were not voting out of self interest or the "church's" interest, but what they felt God was leading them to do with regards to the particular book; and b) we primarily concerned with the question of whether a book could be considered divinely inspired, based on its teachings, its influence, etc.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
You keep using this same (tired) line, and I keep ignoring it... but here you go, Bully.

I believe in Christianity because I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus was raised from the dead. Because of this, I believe His claims about who He said He was - namely the Son of God. Therefore, I believe His claims about God and God's word - namely the Bible. Therefore, I take the Bible, as a whole, as gospel truth (pardon the pun). Therefore, when the Bible tells me numerous times, from before the Mosiac Law, in the Mosaic Law, and in the New Testament, that homosexuality is a sin, I conclude that it is a sin.

It's your belief, not mine. And just because one believes a thing does not make it so. The general garment of one's religious faith is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. What one person finds comfortable, another might chafe at, or find too loose. Practice your faith freely and with joy, but do not impose it upon others a risk of becoming a dogmatic proselyte...or worse.

As for the Bible, no matter the source of its attribution or inspiration, it is...was...and will always be, solely the product of human cognition. Thus it is subject to the limitations of human cognition as well as the limitations of the authors.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Anyhow, the votes were a) prayerfully considered, meaning that they were not voting out of self interest or the "church's" interest, but what they felt God was leading them to do with regards to the particular book; and b) we primarily concerned with the question of whether a book could be considered divinely inspired, based on its teachings, its influence, etc.

If one looks closely at the history of the Church, in general, one finds that it has always acted in its own interest. The problem with divining the "Will of God" is that it is a purely subjective process wholly dependent upon the will and intent of the diviner. And while there are many who more intent upon walking the walk, far to many of those in the Church hierarchy are more interested in their own self-agrandizment than in serving their ministry. Their message becomes purely ego driven, and is no longer the true message of scripture, but rather their own disguised in scripture. We need look no further than the current crop of helmet-haired televangelists for proof of that pudding.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'll have to re-research new testament references to homosexuality (pretty sure jesus said the old testament no longer applied). Still I believe that the new testament has admonitions against it as well (tho not as strongly worded as leviticus) so it strikes me as odd that a christian church would allow a minister to be a practicing homosexual. Then again, i'm not methodist so I guess it's really up to them ain't it?

Romans 1. 1 Corinthians has some good info on sexual immorality as well. not sure it specifies homosexual behavior but since the scriptures are clear that all sexual activity outside marriage is wrong i dont know where they get these arguments. God created marriage for a reason. I dont think He is going to go about changing that now simply because people dont want to live in that covenant. They just simply wont get the blessings that are being offered.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
It's your belief, not mine. And just because one believes a thing does not make it so. The general garment of one's religious faith is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. What one person finds comfortable, another might chafe at, or find too loose. Practice your faith freely and with joy, but do not impose it upon others a risk of becoming a dogmatic proselyte...or worse.

As for the Bible, no matter the source of its attribution or inspiration, it is...was...and will always be, solely the product of human cognition. Thus it is subject to the limitations of human cognition as well as the limitations of the authors.

You just dont understand the point of religion. Its to teach Spiritual truth. Truth doesnt change simply because people arent comfortable with it.

Also how does one force a religion on anyone? Ive never understood that. Because even if faced with death one could choose not to believe. It doesnt make sense. People cant force others to do anything.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
You just dont understand the point of religion. Its to teach Spiritual truth. Truth doesnt change simply because people arent comfortable with it.

Also how does one force a religion on anyone? Ive never understood that. Because even if faced with death one could choose not to believe. It doesnt make sense. People cant force others to do anything.

The point of religion is control of others. Spiritual truth, is a profoundly individual experience which cannot be extrapolated, successfully, to the populace as a whole. But I believe you're speaking of some absolute, changeless truth which is valid in all places and all times. Look to physics for that, and even then...don't be too sure.

And if you think forced conversions don't happen, read your history of the Spanish Inquisition where Jews either converted or were slaughtered. People can be, and are, forced to do things they don't want to all over the world. The punishment for failure is death, for the individhual and, probably, their families as well. You are incredibly naive.