United Methodist Church expected to disunite over gay marriage

[RestoreTheJoy]

No, it assumes that the never proven "nothing but a wicked lifestyle choice" theory is bogus.

That's false. It assumes on its face that born that way is a given. It isn't. It isn't proven. It will never be proven. It's all theory.

The birth rate for same-gender sex is 0. The birth-rate of homosexual people is not. Sometimes it's from a previous heterosexual marriage, sometimes from a surrogate situation of some kind.

 

[Speedwell]

That's false. It assumes on its face that born that way is a given. It isn't. It isn't proven. It will never be proven. It's all theory.

But my point is that "born that way" and "entirely voluntary" do not exhaust all of the possibilities.

The birth rate for same-gender sex is 0. The birth-rate of homosexual people is not. Sometimes it's from a previous heterosexual marriage, sometimes from a surrogate situation of some kind.

Or a sperm bank.

 

[Belk]

The birth rate for same-gender sex is 0. The birth-rate of homosexual people is not. Sometimes it's from a previous heterosexual marriage, sometimes from a surrogate situation of some kind.

Not zero, just really low.

This Week in Sex: How a Lesbian Couple Literally Made a Baby Together - Rewire.News

 

[Belk]

That's false. It assumes on its face that born that way is a given. It isn't. It isn't proven. It will never be proven. It's all theory.

The birth rate for same-gender sex is 0. The birth-rate of homosexual people is not. Sometimes it's from a previous heterosexual marriage, sometimes from a surrogate situation of some kind.

No, it is not


This Week in Sex: How a Lesbian Couple Literally Made a Baby Together - Rewire.News

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are the Baptists upholding gluttony as good and right, as the pride groups do? Is the pride IN the gluttony itself or is it a byproduct of a legalistic society?

Are they merely indulging in bad habits, peculiarly American habits, since about half or more are overweight today? I think you know the answer.

There is a difference.

As I stated...yes, they are.

Hosting those types of events and actively inviting everyone to participate, chip-in, and "bring a dessert" is encouragement to partake. (Unlike gay rights movements, who aren't encouraging anyone to go from straight-to-gay, but rather just encouraging people who are already gay to "be themselves" and fight for their own rights.)

If they didn't think it was "good and right", they wouldn't be hosting the event in the first place.

That'd like saying "Well, I realize I'm hosting this poker tournament where people are gambling, and encouraged everyone to attend and said, c'mon, it'll be a great time...but because I didn't explicitly use the words I think gambling is great...I didn't technically endorse gambling"


Thus far, apart from semantics games (which I've been able to easily refute at every turn), I've yet to get a single reply in this thread that adequately explains why evangelicals are more vehemently opposed to homosexuality, but seem to take a lax view of gluttony.

I've (multiple times) listed out the ways that they check all of the same boxes with regards to both societal and religious objections.

I've listed the ways in which the bible declares both as obstacles/barriers to faith

I've listed the ways that there are societal movements aimed at normalizing (and restricting criticism from others) for both


My original assertion still stands, an evangelical who opposes homosexuality (if they're truly opposing for the reasons they claim they are, and it isn't just a personal bias) should be showing equal opposition to the sin of gluttony (which is a far more prevalent sin in our society than homosexuality)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Because not all sins are equal.

Never said they were...

Bigger portion size doesn't automatically equal gluttony. Jesus told a parable of a great banquet.
Parable of the Great Banquet - Wikipedia
Was Jesus promoting gluttony?

Also, I have seen others point out, poor people often buy fast food rather than healthier foods because fast food is often cheaper. They might buy these foods to feed their families more. Would you call these people gluttons?

It seems like you're using a very loose definition of gluttony.

Bigger portion size ≠ Gluttony.

Bigger portion sizes don't...bigger waistlines do.

I'm assuming you mean the monster burger/baconator/chocolate explosion stuff.

Like I said, bigger portion size doesn't equal gluttony.

If you look at my previous post about the numbers, and how they relate to certain denominations of Christianity, gluttony is definitely being promoted.

Because sexual sins are seen as worse by Christians. 1 Corinthians 6:18

That one verse just indicates that it could be worse than certain other forms of sin, not worse than all other sin.

In my previous post (that I referenced above), it includes a link to some verses that describe gluttony in the same ways as the "sex sins".

It describes it as a barrier to faith, it even equates it to worshiping a false god "Destruction, because their god is their stomach"


Here's the link to my previous posts that address a lot of what you're questioning:

United Methodist Church expected to disunite over gay marriage

United Methodist Church expected to disunite over gay marriage

 

[FireDragon76]

The reality of course is that the UMC is an independent religious institution that is, for the most part, not committed to a fundamentalist hermeneutic of the Bible. That they differ with Christians who do use a fundamentalist hermeneutic is not surprising.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

As I stated...yes, they are.

Hosting those types of events and actively inviting everyone to participate, chip-in, and "bring a dessert" is encouragement to partake. (Unlike gay rights movements, who aren't encouraging anyone to go from straight-to-gay, but rather just encouraging people who are already gay to "be themselves" and fight for their own rights.)

If they didn't think it was "good and right", they wouldn't be hosting the event in the first place.

That'd like saying "Well, I realize I'm hosting this poker tournament where people are gambling, and encouraged everyone to attend and said, c'mon, it'll be a great time...but because I didn't explicitly use the words I think gambling is great...I didn't technically endorse gambling"


Thus far, apart from semantics games (which I've been able to easily refute at every turn), I've yet to get a single reply in this thread that adequately explains why evangelicals are more vehemently opposed to homosexuality, but seem to take a lax view of gluttony.

I've (multiple times) listed out the ways that they check all of the same boxes with regards to both societal and religious objections.

I've listed the ways in which the bible declares both as obstacles/barriers to faith

I've listed the ways that there are societal movements aimed at normalizing (and restricting criticism from others) for both


My original assertion still stands, an evangelical who opposes homosexuality (if they're truly opposing for the reasons they claim they are, and it isn't just a personal bias) should be showing equal opposition to the sin of gluttony (which is a far more prevalent sin in our society than homosexuality)

Please point me to the Baptist doctrinal statement on their policy on gluttony, demonstrating that it is held to be good and right and to be respected. Any Baptist church policy will do.

Any family, church, school - pretty much any group - has occasional potluck dinners. The onus is on YOU to eat what you should eat, to make wise food choices, not on others to control your food choices. This is your responsibility, not the responsibility of the church or pastor. Bet I can guess your political persuasion.

Thou shalt not gamble is not in scripture, by the way, so I'm not sure why you are trotting out a gambling party. Not something I will do because I'm too intelligent to simply throw money away. Now if someone has a problem with it, he needs to take responsibility and realize that while "all things are lawful for me, not all things are profitable." He can choose to not go to such events.

You've refuted nothing. You are simply playing word games, trying to trot out examples that don't fit and analogize them to abominations.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

No, it is not


This Week in Sex: How a Lesbian Couple Literally Made a Baby Together - Rewire.News

Still the erroneous assumption of "born that way". It simply isn't true.

And no. There was still a female egg and a male sperm in there, as is always required and always will be. Two lesbians did not and cannot and will not ever be able to make babies, no matter what kind of creepy, weird, invasive, expensive hoops they jump through. Ugh.

"With the device, the harvested eggs and sperm (harvested from some man) spend the first five days in the small, plastic device inserted high in a woman’s vagina."

 

[MrMoe]

Never said they were...

I never said you did. I was simply giving you an answer to the question you were asking:

"I simply asked, if the evangelical objection to homosexuality is rooted in the fact that it's "a sin that people are not only engaging in, but gleefully celebrating without repent" (which is what the other poster mentioned as the distinction between homosexuality and idolatry/lying/adultery), then why aren't they objecting equally to hot dog eating contests?"

I gave you a possible reason why.

Bigger portion sizes don't...bigger waistlines do.

You seem to have ignored the part were not all weight gain is caused by overeating.

Causes of Weight Gain That's Not Due to Overeating — Healthy Builderz

You can't conclude someone is a glutton just by looking at their waistline.

If you look at my previous post about the numbers, and how they relate to certain denominations of Christianity, gluttony is definitely being promoted.

I read your previous posts and found no evidence of gluttony being promoted. I do see it not being talked about as much as other sins and it being overlooked.

Overlooking something (at least unintentionally) isn't the same as promoting it.

That one verse just indicates that it could be worse than certain other forms of sin, not worse than all other sin.

Which is exactly why I said 'worse' not 'the worst'.

In my previous post (that I referenced above), it includes a link to some verses that describe gluttony in the same ways as the "sex sins".

It describes it as a barrier to faith, it even equates it to worshiping a false god "Destruction, because their god is their stomach"

I assume you mean Philippians 3:19.

The context is talking the "enemies of the cross of Christ."
When someone makes something their god, their world revolves around that thing. Christians do not do this, at least not wittingly.

Here's the link to my previous posts that address a lot of what you're questioning:

United Methodist Church expected to disunite over gay marriage

United Methodist Church expected to disunite over gay marriage

The problems with these links is that they don't show what the primary cause is. The reason may not be as simplistic as your fat = gluttonous way of thinking. Also they are only done on a specific denomination.

The contemporary church culture has unwittingly contributed to the rise in overweight and obese parishioners. Today it is rare to hear a sermon preached on the stewardship of the physical body and even more rare on the vice of gluttony; it has become a secret and acceptable vice in the modern church.

From my perception I agree with this statement. I even made a thread about it a while ago.

Is Gluttony The Most Overlooked Sin Today?

Tables at potlucks strain under the weight of pound cakes, pizza, fried chicken and cheesecake and fellowship is not considered complete without these rich, decadent –and yes addictive foods.

The sacred Sunday ritual between services is donuts, bagels and cream cheese, and coffee with cream and sugar.

Eating junk food ≠ gluttony. Weight gain could easily be explained by eating the wrong kinds of foods and inactivity. Most junk foods are loaded with unhealthy fats and sugar. These foods are loaded with calories and take longer to burn off.
Eating the wrong foods is not the same as the overeating of food.

Some of the feasts in the bible would put the "Tables at potlucks" to shame.
Banquet Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

Just to recap:
Gaining weight ≠ gluttony
Bigger portion size ≠ gluttony
Eating junk food ≠ gluttony

I gave you several reasons why there is more focus on homosexuality than gluttony but they don't seem to be the answers you wanted.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You seem to have ignored the part were not all weight gain is caused by overeating.

Causes of Weight Gain That's Not Due to Overeating — Healthy Builderz

You can't conclude someone is a glutton just by looking at their waistline.

Just to recap:
Gaining weight ≠ gluttony
Bigger portion size ≠ gluttony
Eating junk food ≠ gluttony

I gave you several reasons why there is more focus on homosexuality than gluttony but they don't seem to be the answers you wanted.

Well, there are always those who make the genetics claim, "there's this medication I take that causes the weight gain", etc...

However, given that the average American is consuming roughly ~3700 calories per day, and is also sedentary (meaning their target should be closer to 1800-2000), I think it's fair to table the "non-gluttonous" causes of weight issues. I've always felt that the non-eating causes of obesity are and invocation of the exception in attempts to negate the rule.

In 99% of cases, you can accurately surmise that over-eating is the cause when you see someone who's > 300 pounds. (or over a BMI of 32)

You did provide answers, but they appeared to be rooted in how a Church encouraging overweight people to "stick around for the luncheon afterwards" isn't technically 'promotion' and then honed in on some outlier scenarios that can cause obesity. We disagree on that. (which is fine, everyone is entitled to their own assessment)

If I hosted a wine tasting and encouraged a group of 100 people to attend, knowing that 30 of that 100 have issues with alcohol abuse, I wouldn't be given a pass simply because I didn't explicitly say "Alcoholism is good, you should try it". It'd be very clear that my actions were potentially problematic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Please point me to the Baptist doctrinal statement on their policy on gluttony, demonstrating that it is held to be good and right and to be respected. Any Baptist church policy will do.

Looking for "specific denomination written endorsement" is moving the goalposts.

This conversation was about Evangelical objections to certain activities based on biblical teachings against said activities.

Any family, church, school - pretty much any group - has occasional potluck dinners. The onus is on YOU to eat what you should eat, to make wise food choices, not on others to control your food choices. This is your responsibility, not the responsibility of the church or pastor. Bet I can guess your political persuasion.

I typically vote libertarian, so if you're guess was democrat, you'd be mistaken. This isn't about my opinion of personal responsibility, as my personal position on any of these topics aren't what's being discussed here.

But that aside...

In a lot of the southern-rooted evangelical churches, these aren't "occasional" events, they're a regular weekly thing.

Now if someone has a problem with it, he needs to take responsibility and realize that while "all things are lawful for me, not all things are profitable." He can choose to not go to such events.

...and a person can decide not to act on homosexual feelings if they choose.

If the bar you're setting for "denominational endorsement" as simply a stance of acceptance/tolerance of something or participating in events that would normalize such conduct, then the Methodist group in question is simply choosing to accept & tolerate homosexuality (and not make that a barrier to membership) and perform gay marriages much like some Southern Baptist groups are doing with gluttony for the reasons I mentioned in previous posts.


So, if scenario that dismisses the gluttony aspect is "if the church is facilitating some event, or normalizing some type of behavior that's problematic for you, personally, then it's up to you to make the choice not to engage in it if it's something that's a problem for you or acts a barrier to your personal faith"...why can't that logic be applied to this as well?

You've refuted nothing. You are simply playing word games, trying to trot out examples that don't fit and analogize them to abominations.

No, I haven't been playing the word games, I've asked for reasons why it's justified to disproportionately oppose one sin over others that the bible puts in a similar category and has had nearly identical manifestations in both a Church and secular context when people have tried to point out why "the gay stuff is different", I've pointed out why it's not.

The word games getting played are from people who have proceeded to move the goalposts, or try to delve into contextual minutiae in order to grasp for reasons why they have the stance they have that "gay stuff-related" sins are somehow worthy of disproportionate fixation or are somehow this unique "attack on faith" that others (that are actively being engaged in or normalized in Churches) supposedly aren't.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Looking for "specific denomination written endorsement" is moving the goalposts.

This conversation was about Evangelical objections to certain activities based on biblical teachings against said activities.



I typically vote libertarian, so if you're guess was democrat, you'd be mistaken. This isn't about my opinion of personal responsibility, as my personal position on any of these topics aren't what's being discussed here.

But that aside...

In a lot of the southern-rooted evangelical churches, these aren't "occasional" events, they're a regular weekly thing.



...and a person can decide not to act on homosexual feelings if they choose.

If the bar you're setting for "denominational endorsement" as simply a stance of acceptance/tolerance of something or participating in events that would normalize such conduct, then the Methodist group in question is simply choosing to accept & tolerate homosexuality (and not make that a barrier to membership) and perform gay marriages much like some Southern Baptist groups are doing with gluttony for the reasons I mentioned in previous posts.


So, if scenario that dismisses the gluttony aspect is "if the church is facilitating some event, or normalizing some type of behavior that's problematic for you, personally, then it's up to you to make the choice not to engage in it if it's something that's a problem for you or acts a barrier to your personal faith"...why can't that logic be applied to this as well?



No, I haven't been playing the word games, I've asked for reasons why it's justified to disproportionately oppose one sin over others that the bible puts in a similar category and has had nearly identical manifestations in both a Church and secular context when people have tried to point out why "the gay stuff is different", I've pointed out why it's not.

The word games getting played are from people who have proceeded to move the goalposts, or try to delve into contextual minutiae in order to grasp for reasons why they have the stance they have that "gay stuff-related" sins are somehow worthy of disproportionate fixation or are somehow this unique "attack on faith" that others (that are actively being engaged in or normalized in Churches) supposedly aren't.

Whoa, hold on. I asked you if Baptists uphold gluttony as a good and right value and you said yes. It is incumbent upon you to prove what you assert so authoritatively. Saying, "Well, they eat, don't they?" isn't proof of upholding gluttony as a good and right value, is it?

Everyone with the slightest understanding of health today understands that gluttony is bad and those with any scriptural understanding know full well it a sin, though like every sin, some people will still engage in it to their detriment. People need to be set free.

I typically vote Libertarian as well, and you do not speak as any Libertarian I know. But that's fine.

"then the Methodist group in question is simply choosing to accept & tolerate homosexuality (and not make that a barrier to membership) and perform gay marriages much like some Southern Baptist groups are doing with gluttony for the reasons I mentioned in previous posts."

You know darn well that performing same sex marriages goes far past "acceptance and tolerance" and well into enthusiastic approval and engagement in what scripture condemns. At least I think you know. Maybe not. You can find it if you actually want to know.

No one claimed that it is fine to normalize sins. Any sins. Over each one, the individual has autonomy.

In your secular groups, do whatever the heck you want. Engage in gluttony, or same sex behavior, or adultery, or alcoholic binges or whatever you want. But don't slap God behind it, legitimize it by the Church, and engage in what He has called abomination.

 

[FireDragon76]

Please point me to the Baptist doctrinal statement on their policy on gluttony, demonstrating that it is held to be good and right and to be respected. Any Baptist church policy will do.

Any family, church, school - pretty much any group - has occasional potluck dinners. The onus is on YOU to eat what you should eat, to make wise food choices, not on others to control your food choices. This is your responsibility, not the responsibility of the church or pastor. Bet I can guess your political persuasion.

Your bigoted attitude towards anybody who isn't in lockstep with your political-religious ideology is downright repulsive. If that's the sort of attitude that your beliefs produce, who would want to follow them?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Whoa, hold on. I asked you if Baptists uphold gluttony as a good and right value and you said yes. It is incumbent upon you to prove what you assert so authoritatively. Saying, "Well, they eat, don't they?" isn't proof of upholding gluttony as a good and right value, is it?

They are upholding it as good, if they weren't, then they wouldn't be inviting a group (that's already disproportionately unhealthy and overweight - see the previous stats I posted about how they compare to Catholics, Jews, Hindus, and Mormons in that category) to stick around for pizza, fried chicken, and cheesecake every week after Sunday Service.

They'd all have grilled chicken and broccoli, then encourage their members to join them for a hike in the park instead of sitting down to a buffet.

The behavior of "a social gathering means stuffing our faces with decadent foods" is clearly being promoted. If it weren't, there wouldn't be the massive disparity (by denomination) that exists per the previously posted stats.

Are you implying that it's a coincidence that the people that just so happen to end up selecting the Baptist flavor of Christianity have obesity and heart disease rates that outpace other religions (and even other denominations of Christianity) by 30%?

You know darn well that performing same sex marriages goes far past "acceptance and tolerance" and well into enthusiastic approval and engagement in what scripture condemns. At least I think you know. Maybe not. You can find it if you actually want to know.

Again, you haven't demonstrated a difference between that and gluttony. Personally speaking? Yes, I would say that performing a same sex marriage goes beyond tolerance and into the realm of endorsement. But I say the same for encouraging overweight people to stick around for Pizza, cake, & fellowship.

No one claimed that it is fine to normalize sins. Any sins. Over each one, the individual has autonomy.

...and yet, here we are, with two different denominations, normalizing different forms of sin that the bible speaks equally harshly about. (in fact, there are more verses chastising gluttonous behavior than homosexual behavior)

The core questions was, and still is, why is one drawing so much more ire than the other when both are equally chastised from a biblical perspective, and both have efforts of normalization coming from both society and from specific denominations of Christianity?

In your secular groups, do whatever the heck you want. Engage in gluttony, or same sex behavior, or adultery, or alcoholic binges or whatever you want. But don't slap God behind it, legitimize it by the Church, and engage in what He has called abomination.

Actually, I don't do any of those things... I'm a straight 36 year old male, that's 6'1" 175lbs, runs 10's & 15k's and hits the gym 3-4 times a week, doesn't binge drink, eats a very healthy diet, and I've never committed adultery...but I appreciate your concern.


Like I noted before, this whole conversation could be over if someone would just acknowledge that the harsh opposition to homosexuality is rooted in societal and personal objections just as much as it it biblical objections.

The fact still remains, there are many sins that the bible speaks very harshly about...yet, there's only 1 or 2 that the right-wing evangelical community gets disproportionately bent out of shape over.

Thus far, no ideologically consistent reason has been given for that anomaly.

 

[FireDragon76]

The fact still remains, there are many sins that the bible speaks very harshly about...yet, there's only 1 or 2 that the right-wing evangelical community gets disproportionately bent out of shape over.

The most concise statement on the issue I have heard in some time. And it explains why the Christian right no longer has any moral credibility with most of the population.

 

[MrMoe]

Well, there are always those who make the genetics claim, "there's this medication I take that causes the weight gain", etc...

You mean those claims by doctors and health experts?

However, given that the average American is consuming roughly ~3700 calories per day, and is also sedentary (meaning their target should be closer to 1800-2000), I think it's fair to table the "non-gluttonous" causes of weight issues.

You're failing to take into account that some foods are loaded with calories. So a person doesn't have to be a glutton to consume that much calories.

What the Chipotle Calorie Counts Look Like for Every Single Menu Item

"For burrito bowls, this is the caloric baseline, clocking in at about 705-1250 total calories, depending on your guac, protein selection, and additional fixings.

For burritos, add a flour tortilla (300 calories), and you're looking at a range of about 1085-1550 total calories, depending on topping selections.

For salads, you might want to add the Chipotle vinaigrette (270 calories), for a baseline of about 1010-1530 calories, again, depending on topping selections."

So according to your flawed logic, if a person was to eat just two of these meals a day and nothing else that would still make them a glutton. So your conclusion is faulty.

I've always felt that the non-eating causes of obesity are and invocation of the exception in attempts to negate the rule.

No, it's to disprove the fat = glutton false dichotomy.

In 99% of cases, you can accurately surmise that over-eating is the cause when you see someone who's > 300 pounds. (or over a BMI of 32)

What method did you use to come up with that 99% being due to overeating?

You did provide answers, but they appeared to be rooted in how a Church encouraging overweight people to "stick around for the luncheon afterwards"

Where is that quote from?

isn't technically 'promotion'

You're basically admitting that you used the word incorrectly. Either it's promotion or it isn't. You haven't shown any evidence that Christians are promoting it.

and then honed in on some outlier scenarios that can cause obesity. We disagree on that. (which is fine, everyone is entitled to their own assessment)

Yet you are using an outlier. It's not just the Baptist Christians that condemn homosexuality and it's not just US Christians that condemn homosexuality. So why are you using an article about obese Baptists in the US and applying to all Christians who condemn homosexuality.

If I hosted a wine tasting and encouraged a group of 100 people to attend, knowing that 30 of that 100 have issues with alcohol abuse,

1. You are not responsible for other people's lack of self control.

2. Why would you encourage those 30 of that 100 to attend in the first place if you knew they had issues with alcohol abuse? Why not just encourage those 70 that you know won't abuse alcohol?

The obvious problem with using this example and applying to others is that they don't know. Unless they live with the people or personally know the people that come there, they have no way of knowing who has issues with alcohol abuse.

Or do you expect someone to be at the door at every wine tasting festival, asking "Excuse me, are you an alcoholic?"

I wouldn't be given a pass simply because I didn't explicitly say "Alcoholism is good, you should try it".

Yes you would, and you should be given a pass. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

It'd be very clear that my actions were potentially problematic.

So is it clear that the creators of music festivals actions are problematic? A lot of lazy people and people who use drugs show up there. They shouldn't be given a pass either?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You mean those claims by doctors and health experts?

Yes, and those doctors (if they know the research) will say those scenarios are outliers.

You're failing to take into account that some foods are loaded with calories. So a person doesn't have to be a glutton to consume that much calories.

...no, I took that into account.

No, it's to disprove the fat = glutton false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy. It would be if there were a large percentage of people who were substantially overweight, who weren't over-indulging in both calories and quantities.

What method did you use to come up with that 99% being due to overeating?

The 99% was just the "figure of speech usage" for effect to convey that it's the overwhelming majority. However, if you're looking for the more precise numbers

Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones at Northwestern University about heart disease ( a major outcome of obesity), he points out that "your lifestyle and behavior choices can trump much of genetics." As far as thyroid conditions or hormonal imbalances, the number of people with thyroid or hormonal problems averages about 16% of the total population. And some thyroid conditions actually make you lose weight.

Yet you are using an outlier. It's not just the Baptist Christians that condemn homosexuality and it's not just US Christians that condemn homosexuality. So why are you using an article about obese Baptists in the US and applying to all Christians who condemn homosexuality.

It's not an outlier, it's highlighting a specific example of a group that's playing with two sets of rules.

Baptists are hardly an outlier with regards to the American religious landscape.

Where is that quote from?

...an article I linked a few pages back.

So is it clear that the creators of music festivals actions are problematic? A lot of lazy people and people who use drugs show up there. They shouldn't be given a pass either?

If their goal is to put on a Phish concert, and sell a bunch of merch that they know appeals to pot users, then they should't be given a pass if they're claiming to be part of an ideology that's anti-pot.


If a group is going to vehemently oppose one thing due to the rationale of "this is what the scripture says about it", then if there's another thing, that the scripture refers to very similarly, that has all of the same societal (and certain churches) normalization efforts around it, that's even more pervasive in society, and they don't see to be all that concerned with it (and certain denominations are even engaging in it at a disproportionate rate), it sure comes across as inconsistent.

It seems like more of a case where they're using the scripture as a justification for them opposing something they don't personally like.

 

[MrMoe]

Yes, and those doctors (if they know the research) will say those scenarios are outliers.

And are still valid reasons for weight gain that should not be dismissed as you are doing.

...no, I took that into account.

And yet you said: "I think it's fair to table the "non-gluttonous" causes of weight issues." That isn't taking what I said into account.

It's not a false dichotomy. It would be if there were a large percentage of people who were substantially overweight, who weren't over-indulging in both calories and quantities.

Then you clearly don't understand what a false dichotomy is. Whether something is a false dichotomy isn't dependant on the percentage size.

The 99% was just the "figure of speech usage" for effect to convey that it's the overwhelming majority. However, if you're looking for the more precise numbers

So you're admitting you pulled that stat out of thin air to make your argument seem stronger.

Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones at Northwestern University about heart disease ( a major outcome of obesity), he points out that "your lifestyle and behavior choices can trump much of genetics." As far as thyroid conditions or hormonal imbalances, the number of people with thyroid or hormonal problems averages about 16% of the total population. And some thyroid conditions actually make you lose weight.

Are these stats in reference to Christians or the general population?

It's not an outlier, it's highlighting a specific example of a group that's playing with two sets of rules.

That specific example of a group you highlighted doesn't represent the whole group or even the majority of the group. I have found articles that go against your narrative.

Report: Christians Live Healthier, Longer

Are Religious People Healthier?

So unless you can show obesity is widespread around all of Christianity then it's an outlier.

Baptists are hardly an outlier with regards to the American religious landscape.

Now you are moving the goal posts. Before you were talking about Christians in general now you are talking specifically about American Christians.

...an article I linked a few pages back.

How does he know that's what's happening in churches?

If their goal is to put on a Phish concert, and sell a bunch of merch that they know appeals to pot users, then they should't be given a pass if they're claiming to be part of an ideology that's anti-pot.

You would need to prove that is their motivation first. Innocent until proven guilty.

How would you go about proving it?

If a group is going to vehemently oppose one thing due to the rationale of "this is what the scripture says about it", then if there's another thing, that the scripture refers to very similarly, that has all of the same societal (and certain churches) normalization efforts around it, that's even more pervasive in society, and they don't see to be all that concerned with it (and certain denominations are even engaging in it at a disproportionate rate), it sure comes across as inconsistent.

You've already been given a perfectly rational explination why this is the case. You've spent most of this thread clutching at straws, using anecdotes, using a lot of "It seems like" "It feels like" statements and accusing Christians churches of promoting gluttony without any proof.

It's like you want there to be a sinister ulterior motive.

It seems like more of a case where they're using the scripture as a justification for them opposing something they don't personally like.

Then prove it. A lot of people think they are Professor X these day and can read minds. The truth is you can't know the motives of over a billion Christians around the world and also other members of other religions such as Islam and Judaism who condemn homosexulality, because you're not a mind reader.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And are still valid reasons for weight gain that should not be dismissed as you are doing.

And yet you said: "I think it's fair to table the "non-gluttonous" causes of weight issues." That isn't taking what I said into account.

If you're looking to actually address an issue, does it make sense to focus on the majority of what's causing the issue, or the small slice of the pie?

For instance, if we were having a conversation about how to reduce instances of lung cancer, would it be more advantageous to focus on smoking cessation (considering smoking is the cause of 80% of lung cancer deaths, and increases lung cancer risk by 20x), or radon exposure which is only responsible for 3-5%?

If we were having a medical round table about the best way to reduce lung cancer, and the first thing I brought up was "what about occupational radon exposure???" Everyone else at the table would rightfully say "let's table that aspect and focus on the smoking and come back to it once we get the smoking addressed"

Then you clearly don't understand what a false dichotomy is. Whether something is a false dichotomy isn't dependant on the percentage size.

I stand corrected on that...I was thinking of a different logical fallacy. +1 point MrMoe.

Are these stats in reference to Christians or the general population?

General population.

So unless you can show obesity is widespread around all of Christianity then it's an outlier.

I didn't, I said from the beginning that it was referring specifically to baptists.

However, "gay acceptance" isn't widespread across Christianity either. Keeping in mind, this thread is specifically referring to the "United Methodist Church" which has only 12 million people. Baptist has nearly 100 million with just Southern Baptist & Freewill Baptists making up > 16 million.

So, if it's morally justified to be angered over a group of 12 million not actin in accordance with scripture, then it should be morally justified to make similar criticisms directed at a group of 16 million, yes? United Methodists are more of an "outlier" than Baptists are.

Now you are moving the goal posts. Before you were talking about Christians in general now you are talking specifically about American Christians.

...if you look at my earlier posts (and the info I linked), it was pretty clear I was addressing Baptists (in particular, Southern Baptists).

How does he know that's what's happening in churches?

Any of us who came up in Southern Baptist households know that to be the case.

Apart from that, the data doesn't lie.

Do you have an alternate theory why a group of people, living the same region, but simply are members of a different denomination of Christianity would have that kind of disparity in terms of obesity and heart disease rates?

Per the link I provided a few pages back, it's actually been studied. A study was done from back in the late 90's that took numerous people from each of the following religious groups (broken out into two groups, some who go at least once a month, and those who go once a week), living in the same region of the country. W1 designates Wave 1: People who attend at least once a month, W3 designates Wave 3: People who attend at least once a week.

If it were anything other than lifestyle habits, that'd be one heck of a coincidence, wouldn't you agree? To suggest that would be to suggest that the people with bad genetics/hormonal imbalances/thyroid issues just so happened to end up in one particular denomination more than the others.

The more likely scenario is that there's a different cultural aspect (pertaining to "what you do at social gatherings") within the denominations.

...and like I said, for any of us who grew up in a Southern Baptist household, we know what that culture is. After Sunday Service, everyone is encouraged to stick around for a BIG potluck lunch and fellowship which includes tables loaded up with all kinds of unhealthy food and desserts.