Jump to content

Menu

Stacia

Members
  • Content Count

    23,771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Posts posted by Stacia

  1. 3 minutes ago, Katy said:

    The Pope is human, and is considered only infallible when interpreting doctrine.  There's some official language that Catholics use for that, but that's what it means from a protestant perspective.  The thing is many at least American devout Catholics disagree with the Pope all the time, but when you ask they say that the point is that unity is more important than being right.  Which is the opposite of the protestant point of view, which has Church splits over every doctrinal issue there is.  I wonder how all of these recent evangelical conversions feel about that, or if they even understand.

    Thanks for the clarification re: him being infallible when interpreting doctrine. That is what I understood but didn't say very well.

    I do wonder if there will be a shift or split coming (not immediately but are the seeds being sown?), similar to what is going on in various Protestant denominations.

  2. 31 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

    A good number of 'faithful' Catholics believe our pope is a communist or a socialist and can be completely ignored. 

    I had wondered about that as I have seen statements over the past few years and was surprised because I thought the Pope was supposedly the infallible leader of the (Western) Catholic church?

    Protestant churches having dust-ups over leadership doesn't seem that strange or out-of-the norm to me; unusual maybe but it does happen. But Catholics? I had thought (at least in my younger years) they toed the line for the Pope.

  3. 15 minutes ago, Farrar said:

    But in the UMC, there's a good bit of job security that you don't see in a lot of Protestant denominations where the churches have complete or nearly complete autonomy to hire who they like. Methodists purposefully shuffle ministers around, in part to keep ministers from getting more attached to their congregations than they are to the church hierarchy as a whole. Like Danae said - it's an uneasy relationship. 

    Makes sense to help avoid a cult of personality.

    • Like 4
  4. 5 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

    The Michigan Conference will absolutely go progressive or remain, but many of the small, rural churches are traditionalist and will leave to be in the conservative Methodist denomination. Unfortunately, many of them cannot make it financially without a robust organization behind them that has enough money to carry little churches while requiring very little contribution. So I think there will be a wave of rural Methodist churches combining or simply closing. I don't know if the new denomination will last long or not.

    The article indicated it was likely this megachurch will be in the separate conservative branch, if and when it happens. So I guess that will be one big moneymaker in the group.

    https://religionnews.com/2021/04/26/prominent-atlanta-area-church-leaves-united-methodist-church-over-pastors-reassignment/

     

  5. 37 minutes ago, Danae said:

    Mega churches and mega church pastors have an uneasy relationship with the UMC. The denomination is structured in a way that should avoid the cult of personality around pastors, but a whole bunch of factors including longer average appointments and changing relationship to media and social media have eroded that somewhat.  The guy you mention wouldn’t be the first to decide that the fact that a church grew huge while he was its senior pastor means that he knows more than everyone else and is therefore exempt from his ordination vows when he disagrees with the bishop and cabinet.

    The article said he had been there since 2016 as pastor. I don't know if he was there prior to that (in some other position), but I do know it has been a megachurch for about 20 years, if not more.

    Megachurches, no matter the denomination, seem to be a whole 'nother thing. I am not sure how they typically fit into their hierarchical structures....

  6. 4 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

    In the Methodist church, we have traditionalist churches calling out the progressive churches and claiming that anyone who attends a progressive church is not a true Christian. That denomination will split over the issue of homosexual ordination and gay marriage in the coming year, though this has been an issue with them since the 70's. The difference is that at one time, in general, churches sought to be more reconciliation - agree to disagree in love - and now it is just vicious name calling on both sides, and has even descended into family against family in some places and again " not a real Christian" statements being used.

    I recently read about this upcoming split (vote to be next year) because a large/megachurch in a major metro area just decided to disaffiliate with the main Methodist group. They say that it's because their pastor was told to reassign without warning (to a position on the race and reconciliation group), but the pastor doesn't want to leave his current position (in it since 2016), so he and this huge church are just breaking away. To me, it seems like there may be more there than grumpiness over a reassignment so I will be interested to see if they join the breakaway group once it is formed ("new, conservative “traditionalist” Methodist denominations. Churches and conferences would be able to vote to join those new denominations and take their properties with them.")

    I don't know much about Methodist set-up but I was pretty shocked to read about a pastor and his megachurches (2 locations) just quickly deciding to "leave", especially with these plans already in the works for the denomination at large.

  7. 4 hours ago, Frances said:

    As a now agnostic who was raised Catholic and who has always had lots of Christian friends, I don’t know that I’ve ever thought of Christians as a group as either harmless or dangerous/terrible because I’ve personally experienced such diversity within the group. Although I’m guessing some others, such as those in the LGBTQ community, might have thought the latter for quite awhile. 

    I honestly can’t say I’ve been surprised by any of what has happened in the last several years. Saddened yes, but not surprised. I have never been able to comprehend the absolute certainty that some Christians have that their beliefs are the only true and correct ones. Nor coming from a Catholic background could I understand some Christians following and idolizing self-appointed famous Christian leaders. So it’s not remotely surprising to me that that kind of extremism and certainty and idolizing of bad leaders has now spread to their beliefs around other things, including politics. It all just seems an extension of the basic in-group out-group phenomenon that is as old as time and the fact that many people seem to have an innate need to live in a black and white world because the grey is too uncertain, difficult, and scary. And it’s occurring during a time of ever increasing diversity on multiple levels in the US where the beliefs of the long dominant group of white, straight Christians are no longer unquestionably accepted as the norm. Change is hard and scary and clinging to your in-group, even as it becomes more extreme, and blaming and attacking your out-group, seems like a very much to be expected outcome if we look at history.

    I just have to echo almost every word of this except I was brought up in SBC traditon and also now consider myself agnostic. Watching from the outside, so to speak, I will echo the disappointment the OP mentioned. In fact, I will go even further to say I watch with horror (and am leaning more to an atheist viewpoint the more I see of mankind).

    My main reason for commenting is that I think there's an entwined issue of Christianity (and the paths/actions being discussed in this particular thread/the trend of Christian Nationalism) and homeschooling. I think it's another factor because it does/will affect what others (individuals, universities, etc...) will correlate in their minds when you mention hsing or your child tells someone they were hsed. It may not be the correct assumption on their part, but with the rise and power of those voices, it may well be the assumption you and/or your dc will have to counteract/overcome if it doesn't apply to you. I am well past our (secular) hsing years but the current pitch of these voices make me loath to mention that we hsed, fwiw.

    This paragraph is probably political, so I will just leave a link for those who want to read it (not to discuss here and please don't read it if an exploration of the religious/political/hsing ball of yarn is going to upset you); it's a link to an article discussing how these more extreme religious/hsing voices are working diligently to continue to expand their voices and mission sphere: https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2021/05/03/how-homeschoolers-plan-to-take-over-the-world/

    • Like 9
    • Thanks 1
  8. 4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

    Also, as it turns out, we evaluate samples on ABSOLUTE SIZE, not as a fraction of the population.

    I get that.

    5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

    As a probabilist, I’m very aware of the standard issues with gathering this kind of data. My personal opinion is that the data currently supports the cautious theory that it’s a real effect.

    I agree as a cautious theory and at some point the science will either confirm or deny it. I am saying I think early confirmation bias in general is stronger with this vaccine vs. other ones.

  9. 1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

    I had the impression that the irregular menstruation were actually decently documented. I know that they haven't actually measured that outcome in trials, but I've seen enough people pipe up about it on here that I tend to assume it's a real effect. 

     

    1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

    1) First of all, no one actually expected this to happen. So people aren't saying it because of confirmation bias.

    Bolding is mine.

    Maybe there was not initially (much) confirmation bias, but there certainly is more of it now. You yourself are saying you have confirmation bias at this point... ?

    With knowledge that this was a once-in-a-lifetime virus, as well as knowledge that there was a global rush to produce a vaccine, I think people in general were/are being hypervigilant to *anything* that may be/seem/feel different for weeks after being vaccinated. Millions of people get flu vaccinations every year (and they are slightly different every time), but there is never this level of scrutiny of "I noticed these weird things" or "I heard of someone who had these weird effects", etc. So I would argue that there has been *some* confirmation bias all along because people are actively looking for *anything or any report* of a feeling or experience that may be different..., which is then often ascribed as a possible vaccine side-effect (whether true or false).

    Eta: I would say you can see this in the big vaccination thread where many have expressed worry about the vaccine prior to getting it because they anticipate having side-effects of some sort.

    • Like 1
  10. 4 hours ago, plansrme said:

    But it reenforces my extreme bafflement (possibly not a word?) that anyone would get the vaccine while pregnant. 

     

    3 hours ago, KSera said:

    I understand why someone would, given the large increase in risk of death from Covid in pregnancy (22X increases risk) and the increased incidence in negative outcomes for both mother and baby, preterm birth, etc. On the other hand, a study of 90,000 pregnant women in the US who got the Pfizer or Moderna Covid vaccines, there were no negative effects found. This short BBC report strikes a nice balance of understanding the concern pregnant women might feel about the vaccine while presenting the facts: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-57013743

    From The Wall Street Journal:

    Covid-19 Vaccinations of Pregnant Mothers Also Protect Newborns, Studies Suggest

    One study also found antibodies in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-vaccinations-of-pregnant-mothers-also-protect-newborns-studies-suggest-11617183001

    "Pregnant women who get the coronavirus vaccine pass their antibodies on to their newborns, recent studies suggest, a promising sign that babies can acquire from their mothers some protection against Covid-19.

    At least three studies have found that women who received either the Pfizer Inc. - BioNTech SE vaccine or the Moderna Inc. shots during pregnancy had coronavirus antibodies in their umbilical-cord blood. That indicates the women’s babies got the antibodies, too.

    One of the studies also found antibodies in the breast milk of mothers who had received the vaccine during pregnancy.

    The studies didn’t look specifically at the safety of vaccinations, though in one of them, pregnant women who were vaccinated didn’t report more side effects than those who weren’t pregnant.

    Pregnant women are at higher risk of a severe case of Covid-19 and of preterm delivery if they are infected. The studies’ findings, though preliminary, suggest women could safely protect themselves and their newborns by getting vaccinated.

    ..."

    There is more info in the article about these studies these statements are based on, as well as other ongoing studies right now.

    • Like 1
  11. 30 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

    Yes, that's what they generally say with stuff like that. However, I'll say the following about my personal data collection on this forum.

    1) First of all, no one actually expected this to happen. So people aren't saying it because of confirmation bias. 

    2) Secondly, I'm sampling a consistent group of frequent posters, not random people who signed on to a website. So there isn't a serious selection bias. 

    3) Thirdly, it's quite a large effect from what I've seen. 

    I'm going to guess they'll find this effect in controlled studies as well even though they haven't yet. I am currently of the cautious opinion that it's a real effect. 

    Possibly. I think scientists just don't know yet.

    The sample size here is pretty small compared to millions of women worldwide who have gotten the vaccine. And, even here, with mostly females posting in the vaccine thread, it seems more have not had abnormal bleeding than have.

  12. 4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

    I had the impression that the irregular menstruation were actually decently documented. I know that they haven't actually measured that outcome in trials, but I've seen enough people pipe up about it on here that I tend to assume it's a real effect. 

    From that first article I linked (bolding is mine):

    "Abnormal periods will also happen by chance after people receive the COVID-19 vaccine. That doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccine caused the abnormal period. They could be related, but it’s too soon to say for sure.

    “It’s not uncommon for women to experience an atypical cycle over the course of a year,” says Dr. Griffin-Miller. “When millions of menstruating women are receiving the vaccine, the timing could certainly be coincidence.”

    • Like 3
  13. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/the-covid-19-vaccines-irregular-periods-and-spike-protein-shedding

    Some quotes:

    -----

    "Right now, there’s no scientific evidence that suggests COVID-19 vaccines are making periods irregular. 

    “Some women have reported on social media that the period after a COVID-19 vaccine was different, or changed in some way from what they usually expect,” says OB-GYN Jennifer Griffin Miller, MD, MPH. “This was not identified in the clinical trials of the vaccines. There’s also no biological mechanism, based on how the vaccines work, that would explain these occurrences.”

    -----

    "Can “vaccine shedding” cause side effects in unvaccinated people?

    No. There have been rumors of “vaccine shedding” causing side effects to people who have not been vaccinated. The idea is that someone who has been vaccinated is shedding spike protein to those around them who have not been vaccinated. 

    “We have no data to indicate that contact with somebody who has been vaccinated affects menstrual cycles,” says infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD, MPH.

    The vaccines can’t give you COVID-19. Vaccines do not contain SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. And the spike protein itself can’t shed.

    “Spike protein is primarily made locally in muscle where the vaccine is administered and may possibly be seen in low levels in the blood," says Dr. Lawler. "But it should not be shed in significant quantity in respiratory or other secretions.”

    If someone has tested positive for COVID-19, though, they are shedding virus, including the spike protein, and contagious. “We know that people with COVID-19 shed large amounts of virus from respiratory secretions,” says Dr. Lawler.

    Shedding can’t happen without a live vaccine. The mRNA vaccines – Pfizer and Moderna – are not live vaccines and do not replicate. The Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines are considered live vaccines because they both contain adenovirus. (Again, they do NOT contain the coronavirus.) But the adenovirus in both the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines can’t replicate, so there’s no way they can shed. Learn more about how adenovirus vaccines work."

    -----

    Fyi, the article is longer and has more info and links to information.

     

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 3
  14. 1 hour ago, Stacia said:

    I think this behavior (in-house counseling/dealing with it internally as long as the predator asks for forgiveness) also attracts predators, across many denominations and groups. In some cases, you have people who are not really into the religious belief part, but know they have easy access and low/no accountability if they get caught. In those cases, it is easy for them to go through counseling like that, ask for forgiveness/confess to being a sinner/pretend to be contrite, and continue being a predator.

    Basically, the processes for "accountability" make these groups safe havens/attractive places for predators.

    And I want to clarify that while there are those who will operate because they are predators, it is the church/group leadership (often patriarchal) that help perpetuate the abuses by continuing to keep things "in house" and based on the sin/repentance model. They are aware there are ongoing problems, yet they continue on the same path for "fixing" things. So, the leadership and the processes they keep in place are aiding and abetting predators.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 2
  15. 35 minutes ago, kbutton said:

     "biblical (nouthetic) counseling" which teaches that sin is sin, psychology makes artificial divisions (so, pedophilia or voyeurism are just like sex outside of marriage), and people can be forgiven/rehabilitated, so they recycle their predators because they are sorry and repentant.

    I think this behavior (in-house counseling/dealing with it internally as long as the predator asks for forgiveness) also attracts predators, across many denominations and groups. In some cases, you have people who are not really into the religious belief part, but know they have easy access and low/no accountability if they get caught. In those cases, it is easy for them to go through counseling like that, ask for forgiveness/confess to being a sinner/pretend to be contrite, and continue being a predator.

    Basically, the processes for "accountability" make these groups safe havens/attractive places for predators.

    • Like 10
    • Thanks 1
  16. 2 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

    I believe this may be the same that Ottakee posted in a spin-off thread? It’s a solid statement from Denhollander, if y’all want to join the conversation in that other thread. 

    I saw that separate post right after I made my post. I updated my post to link to the separate thread.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...