First Baptist Church members must now sign sexuality oath opposing LGBTQ freedoms

[Traci_Momof2]

In the Catholic Church, being a member of a specific church gets you on their mailing list. So we get the collection envelopes every month (put your check or cash in the little envelope and then put the envelope in the collection plate as it comes around during mass). And actually the benefit of those envelopes is that they keep track of it by member ID and then send you a statement at the end of the year telling you how much you donated for tax purposes. But the mailing list also gets you all of the pleas from the church or the diocese for donations to specific drives etc. Depending on your specific church, it can get you nice mailings too. During Covid when none of us could go to church for months on end, our priest sent out a letter every week along with a nice picture taken of the priest and both deacons. When we couldn't go and see them it was nice to read about them and hear how they were doing. But membership can also get you on a watch list for when some people are looking for volunteers.

Probably sounds more like misery than perks, right? Pleas for money, pleas for volunteers... Honestly I'm trying to think of a genuine reason to be a member rather than just go and attend and I'm having a hard time (except when our kids were in Catholic school and being a member of the church got us a discount on tuition). But I think it's just about that sense of belonging, and maybe because we've always been told to. But there's also no penalty with membership either. You might get some undesirable mail but you can just toss it and no one will hound you about it. They don't take attendance and come knocking on your door like truancy officers. Really, it's way too easy to be a "bad Catholic" and no one is going to do anything about it. And that's the way I like my religion - if I'm a bad religious person, that's between me and my deity. Even my priest is only there to answer my questions and give me guidance when I ask for it. He's not my religious parole officer.

I've never understood the concept of being a "member" of a church vs not being one.

Admittedly, I can be naive about some things, and this has always been one. So me going to a specific church and putting some money into the offering tray being passed around as the organist plays a hymn on a Sunday morning doesn't qualify me as a member? Do members get extra perks like coupon books to local businesses and a parking spot with their name on it only? And what's this ridiculous "contract" business?

In truth, the way I see this is that it's still about personal choice to attend a church that has such a narrow-minded view of the world.

No one has to go or sign.

[WellPreserved]

In the Catholic Church, being a member of a specific church gets you on their mailing list. So we get the collection envelopes every month (put your check or cash in the little envelope and then put the envelope in the collection plate as it comes around during mass). And actually the benefit of those envelopes is that they keep track of it by member ID and then send you a statement at the end of the year telling you how much you donated for tax purposes. But the mailing list also gets you all of the pleas from the church or the diocese for donations to specific drives etc. Depending on your specific church, it can get you nice mailings too. During Covid when none of us could go to church for months on end, our priest sent out a letter every week along with a nice picture taken of the priest and both deacons. When we couldn't go and see them it was nice to read about them and hear how they were doing. But membership can also get you on a watch list for when some people are looking for volunteers.

Probably sounds more like misery than perks, right? Pleas for money, pleas for volunteers... Honestly I'm trying to think of a genuine reason to be a member rather than just go and attend and I'm having a hard time (except when our kids were in Catholic school and being a member of the church got us a discount on tuition). But I think it's just about that sense of belonging, and maybe because we've always been told to. But there's also no penalty with membership either. You might get some undesirable mail but you can just toss it and no one will hound you about it. They don't take attendance and come knocking on your door like truancy officers. Really, it's way too easy to be a "bad Catholic" and no one is going to do anything about it. And that's the way I like my religion - if I'm a bad religious person, that's between me and my deity. Even my priest is only there to answer my questions and give me guidance when I ask for it. He's not my religious parole officer.

I've never understood the concept of being a "member" of a church vs not being one.

Admittedly, I can be naive about some things, and this has always been one. So me going to a specific church and putting some money into the offering tray being passed around as the organist plays a hymn on a Sunday morning doesn't qualify me as a member? Do members get extra perks like coupon books to local businesses and a parking spot with their name on it only? And what's this ridiculous "contract" business?

In truth, the way I see this is that it's still about personal choice to attend a church that has such a narrow-minded view of the world.

No one has to go or sign.

I can't speak for the Catholic church but in the Episcopal church, an accurate "headcount" of membership is important for annual fiscal planning. Minister's salary is based often on it, contributions to retirement funds are based on it, and of course, reliance on "pledges" is based on it. The church passes around the collection plate every Sunday but those funds are directed towards dioceses-wide endeavors, not to the individual church. So, for example, if you occasionally go and put a lot of money in the plate, that money may be going overseas to a denomination project (in the Episcopal Church, sponsoring Christian churches in South Sudan) but they don't go to the overall working budget of that parish.

It's kind of like any other membership non-profit as your membership dues to the running of the institution and extra donations are just that, extra. Unlike other membership non-profits, you don't necessarily have to pay dues (depending on the church) but the anticipation that you will contribute something again goes into the financial planning.

[Valentina327]

people are "either male or female

Are angels not individual thinking beings, as much "people" as humans are?

Not biblically, no.

Well… Satan was, but angels exerting free will fall from heaven.

Not for exerting free will. Free will is His gift to us. Lucifer was challenging G-d for dominion over everything, thus he was tossed down from Heaven because he wouldn't defer to G-d.

[Valentina327]

They use the right to vote to pass legislation based on what they belief is right or wrong. Much as you do, I do and everyone else does. Everyone has that same right.

It would be nice if they didn’t seem to think the rest of society should be forced to live like them though:

“First Baptist Church has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights, including strenuous opposition of the city's Human Rights Ordinance. The HRO, which prohibited people from being fired or evicted simply because of their sexual identity, did eventually pass after several years. But after an early failed vote in August 2012, councilmembers who voted against it were honored at a First Baptist Church church service. The church also sent shuttlebuses full of church members to speak against the HRO at meetings.”

Of course they have that right. It would simply be nice if they recognized that much of the rest of society has no interest in living according to their religious ideals and didn’t try to impose them on them. There are lots of things I think are wrong, bad or gross that I’m not trying to make illegal for everyone else.

And they don't have any interest in living as the secular people do. Why is how you live right and how they live wrong? That's why we have religious freedom, so that people can live how they want to live.

[Della]

They use the right to vote to pass legislation based on what they belief is right or wrong. Much as you do, I do and everyone else does. Everyone has that same right.

Of course they have that right. It would simply be nice if they recognized that much of the rest of society has no interest in living according to their religious ideals and didn’t try to impose them on them. There are lots of things I think are wrong, bad or gross that I’m not trying to make illegal for everyone else.

And they don't have any interest in living as the secular people do. Why is how you live right and how they live wrong? That's why we have religious freedom, so that people can live how they want to live.

Their religious freedom shouldn't be allowed to be imposed on society as a whole. That's the other side; freedom FROM religion.

[Francee89]

They use the right to vote to pass legislation based on what they belief is right or wrong. Much as you do, I do and everyone else does. Everyone has that same right.

Of course they have that right. It would simply be nice if they recognized that much of the rest of society has no interest in living according to their religious ideals and didn’t try to impose them on them. There are lots of things I think are wrong, bad or gross that I’m not trying to make illegal for everyone else.

And they don't have any interest in living as the secular people do. Why is how you live right and how they live wrong? That's why we have religious freedom, so that people can live how they want to live.

Their religious freedom entitles them to go to a church that preaches homosexuality is wrong and freely hold that view themselves. I don’t agree, but I didn’t say a thing about how they live being wrong or it being something to interfere with. They, however, appear very interested in legislating their religious views on everyone else and not letting other people freely live how they want to live by advocating for their religious views to dictate secular law.

[Valentina327]

Of course they have that right. It would simply be nice if they recognized that much of the rest of society has no interest in living according to their religious ideals and didn’t try to impose them on them. There are lots of things I think are wrong, bad or gross that I’m not trying to make illegal for everyone else.

And they don't have any interest in living as the secular people do. Why is how you live right and how they live wrong? That's why we have religious freedom, so that people can live how they want to live.

Their religious freedom entitles them to go to a church that preaches homosexuality is wrong and freely hold that view themselves. I don’t agree, but I didn’t say a thing about how they live being wrong or it being something to interfere with. They, however, appear very interested in legislating their religious views on everyone else and not letting other people freely live how they want to live by advocating for their religious views to dictate secular law.

My point is that many people want their views to be the predominant way of life. So what makes one way wrong and the other way right?

These people think they're right. I heartily disagree with them on many points, but who says I'm right? The radical liberals fight to change things, not for the better in my opinion, and try their best to cram their views down everyone's throat. I greatly disagree with them. But they think they're right.

So, the point is that we need counter points out there to balance each other out, to present the other side of the coin, since we live in a huge, unrelenting tug of war.

Hopefully we end up in the middle of the road somehow.

[Francee89]

And they don't have any interest in living as the secular people do. Why is how you live right and how they live wrong? That's why we have religious freedom, so that people can live how they want to live.

Their religious freedom entitles them to go to a church that preaches homosexuality is wrong and freely hold that view themselves. I don’t agree, but I didn’t say a thing about how they live being wrong or it being something to interfere with. They, however, appear very interested in legislating their religious views on everyone else and not letting other people freely live how they want to live by advocating for their religious views to dictate secular law.

My point is that many people want their views to be the predominant way of life. So what makes one way wrong and the other way right?

These people think they're right. I heartily disagree with them on many points, but who says I'm right? The radical liberals fight to change things, not for the better in my opinion, and try their best to cram their views down everyone's throat. I greatly disagree with them. But they think they're right.

So, the point is that we need counter points out there to balance each other out, to present the other side of the coin, since we live in a huge, unrelenting tug of war.

Hopefully we end up in the middle of the road somehow.

What makes one way wrong and the other way right? In the option where they don’t force their religious views on everyone else, they can hold and live by whatever view they want personally, and anyone who doesn’t want to doesn’t have to. In the option where they do force their views on everyone else, gay people are treated unequally due to some stranger’s religious beliefs that they don’t share and have no interest in practicing. The middle of the road is them holding their views and practicing their faith without trying to legislate them onto everyone else.

[Momto2boys973]

But then, the other side shouldn’t try to legislate their views onto everyone else, either. It goes both ways. Either we ALL have the right to try to make legislation based on our views or we ALL don’t. But you can’t say that only those you agree with have the right and those you don’t like don’t.
I personally share your opinion on equal treatment myself, but that doesn’t mean that those who disagree shouldn’t have the right to vote and propose laws according to their views. In a democratic country, it’ll be up to the people to choose which view they side with.

Their religious freedom entitles them to go to a church that preaches homosexuality is wrong and freely hold that view themselves. I don’t agree, but I didn’t say a thing about how they live being wrong or it being something to interfere with. They, however, appear very interested in legislating their religious views on everyone else and not letting other people freely live how they want to live by advocating for their religious views to dictate secular law.

My point is that many people want their views to be the predominant way of life. So what makes one way wrong and the other way right?

These people think they're right. I heartily disagree with them on many points, but who says I'm right? The radical liberals fight to change things, not for the better in my opinion, and try their best to cram their views down everyone's throat. I greatly disagree with them. But they think they're right.

So, the point is that we need counter points out there to balance each other out, to present the other side of the coin, since we live in a huge, unrelenting tug of war.

Hopefully we end up in the middle of the road somehow.

What makes one way wrong and the other way right? In the option where they don’t force their religious views on everyone else, they can hold and live by whatever view they want personally, and anyone who doesn’t want to doesn’t have to. In the option where they do force their views on everyone else, gay people are treated unequally due to some stranger’s religious beliefs that they don’t share and have no interest in practicing. The middle of the road is them holding their views and practicing their faith without trying to legislate them onto everyone else.

[Francee89]

But then, the other side shouldn’t try to legislate their views onto everyone else, either. It goes both ways. Either we ALL have the right to try to make legislation based on our views or we ALL don’t. But you can’t say that only those you agree with have the right and those you don’t like don’t.
I personally share your opinion on equal treatment myself, but that doesn’t mean that those who disagree shouldn’t have the right to vote and propose laws according to their views. In a democratic country, it’ll be up to the people to choose which view they side with.

My point is that many people want their views to be the predominant way of life. So what makes one way wrong and the other way right?

These people think they're right. I heartily disagree with them on many points, but who says I'm right? The radical liberals fight to change things, not for the better in my opinion, and try their best to cram their views down everyone's throat. I greatly disagree with them. But they think they're right.

So, the point is that we need counter points out there to balance each other out, to present the other side of the coin, since we live in a huge, unrelenting tug of war.

Hopefully we end up in the middle of the road somehow.

What makes one way wrong and the other way right? In the option where they don’t force their religious views on everyone else, they can hold and live by whatever view they want personally, and anyone who doesn’t want to doesn’t have to. In the option where they do force their views on everyone else, gay people are treated unequally due to some stranger’s religious beliefs that they don’t share and have no interest in practicing. The middle of the road is them holding their views and practicing their faith without trying to legislate them onto everyone else.

Of course they have the right to try to legislate their beliefs, just like everyone else (I said try simply because some of the anti-gay legislation passed by people who share their views became law but were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional). This whole exchange stemmed from me simply saying that a common sentiment in this thread has been “I disagree, but they can practice whatever religion they want”, which is a live and let live attitude they don’t seem to share in respect to wanting to force their religion on everyone else.