UMC General Conference 2016

circuitrider · Jul 29, 2015

JCFantasy23 said:
I agree with circuitrider - let's not repeat the argument that kept going on and on in the other thread. It's obvious there's not unity in agreement, but oh well, it happens.

Right. And you can't argue people into agreement or unity either one.

Ohorseman · Jul 29, 2015

circuitrider said:
I believe I have solid Biblical scholarship behind me views. I believe if I trotted out all the scholarship on the issue that supports my views no matter what I post you'd reject it.

OK, so lets not do all that then. Instead let us just focus on 2 and only 2 things:

1. Christ's description of marriage & how very specific His words are
2. Is it a sin for a 53 year old man to marry a 15 year old boy with parental consent ? ( It is legal under the law in certain states & thus they are indeed "equal" under the law as it pertains to marriage.)

No civil rights stuff. No women rights stuff. No slavery stuff. No Sodom and Gomorrah and the other scriptures. I do not want you to be "trotting out all the scholarship" on the subject. No history lesson. No politics. Let's just focus on these 2 things . I would very much like to see the believers of the same-sex marriage doctrine directly speak to these 2 issues... directly, not indirectly. I am begging you. If you convince me on these 2 things then I will research this more on my own because I will be convinced that you might be on to something.

I am a Methodist asking a Methodist minister to please explain some doctrine. Please.

circuitrider · Jul 29, 2015

I'll try to be clear for you ohorseman.

I don't believe I live in a state where a 15 year old can marry even with parental consent. Is this a for real example of a real state or is this a hypothetical? I'm curious because I've never lived in a state where any 15 year old can get married.

But starting with that, (question 2) I don't believe a 15 year old and a 53 year old should get married period. I'd not perform a wedding between two people of such far age differences. I also believe 15 is too young to get married though I know in history in the more frontier period of our history women were married off at a younger age. In Iowa you have to be 18 to be married and I've never performed a wedding for anyone younger than that.

As to question 1, Jesus was never asked a question about same sex marriage. Jesus statements about marriage don't directly related to same sex marriage. Jesus is silent on the issue. Jesus does speak positively about the values of marriage between men and women but since he is never asked about same sex marriage to our knowledge or speaks about it in the New Testament we can't argue from Jesus silence that he opposes (or supports) something that he doesn't speak about in the Bible. In fact it is quite likely that there was no equivalent to equal same partner same sex marriage because there was also no equal male/female marriage either. The women was basically the property of the man.

Is that direct enough?

Ohorseman · Jul 29, 2015

Thank you for your directness.

Here is a link to the marriageable ages. Look under the comments section of the chart for the ages WITHOUT consent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Ohorseman · Jul 29, 2015

That was for countries. Now... here it the more important link because it breaks it down by state and tells the ages without parental consent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

xpower · Jul 29, 2015

Ohorseman said:
OK, so lets not do all that then. Instead let us just focus on 2 and only 2 things:

1. Christ's description of marriage & how very specific His words are
2. Is it a sin for a 53 year old man to marry a 15 year old boy with parental consent ? ( It is legal under the law in certain states & thus they are indeed "equal" under the law as it pertains to marriage.)

No civil rights stuff. No women rights stuff. No slavery stuff. No Sodom and Gomorrah and the other scriptures. I do not want you to be "trotting out all the scholarship" on the subject. No history lesson. No politics. Let's just focus on these 2 things . I would very much like to see the believers of the same-sex marriage doctrine directly speak to these 2 issues... directly, not indirectly. I am begging you. If you convince me on these 2 things then I will research this more on my own because I will be convinced that you might be on to something.

I am a Methodist asking a Methodist minister to please explain some doctrine. Please.

Is it a sin for a 53 year old man to marry a 15 year old girl ?

Also what the government considers marriage(a civil union) i never considered marriage. Sounds like people are over arguing the word marriage or semantics.

circuitrider · Jul 29, 2015

Ohorseman said:
That was for countries. Now... here it the more important link because it breaks it down by state and tells the ages without parental consent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

Thanks for the information. Parental consent or not, I'd not perform a wedding for someone under 18.

circuitrider · Jul 29, 2015

xpower said:
Is it a sin for a 53 year old man to marry a 15 year old girl ?

Also what the government considers marriage(a civil union) i never considered marriage. Sounds like people are over arguing the word marriage or semantics.

A can't declare something a sin when the Bible or Christian doctrine doesn't speak to it. But I'd consider a 15 year old marrying a 53 year old a really bad idea and therefore wouldn't perform the wedding.

By the Discipline I have the right to choose who I will or will not perform weddings for in the context of heterosexual weddings.

circuitrider · Jul 29, 2015

xpower said:
Sounds like people are over arguing the word marriage or semantics.

Well for legal reasons I have to consider them the same thing in that I'm only authorized by the state and by the UMC to perform weddings that are legal to perform. In some states there is even a legal penalty on a minister who performs a wedding without a wedding license.

Ohorseman · Jul 29, 2015

Thanks for explaining your position concerning Jesus' description of marriage. It helps me understand.

So, the bottom line here is that some Christians view the Bible in different ways, as well as Christ.

I have the belief that the Bible addresses all that needs to be addressed (the whole "nothing new under the sun" idea) concerning "what is sin" and God's "response to sin" (God's love). Sure, it is short on answers pertaining to creation, end of days details, as well as certain doctrinal matters (as evidence by our disagreements and splits, spits, and more splits). We argue over those things. But I don't get the arguing over the "what is sin". To see what is sin, we look for the patterns in the Bible. Simply, I see repeated over and over again the indication that homosexuality is a sin. That's the pattern. Believers in same sex marriage say the pattern is wrong and argue against each and every point of the pattern. I would buy into it if it were just one or two points (scriptures). As that would not really be a pattern. But there is way, way, way more than one or two instances where the Bible makes that point, and it even does it in stories that seem to demonstrate that it is sin. But we agreed to not argue those things line by line and I will respect that (that is why I attempted to be non-specific here).

Concerning what Jesus said about marriage... if I believe that the Bible is complete on matters of sin: then I believe that the words of Jesus were perfect and complete without omission and that his description of marriage is the sinless model to refer to. We revere all that he did and said & so that description to me is true, complete, and holy without mistake or shortcoming. To suggest that Jesus just did not bring it up because it was a non-issue in his day suggests an inadequacy and that does not compute in my faith. I think ultimately that is why some of us are so very offended. It hits against something we think is sacred concerning Christ. I guess some do not share in that view of the Bible and Christ. To me, your position denies the divinity of Christ as it suggests that his perfection was restrained by his culture and time.

Thanks for responding.

circuitrider · Jul 29, 2015

For United Methodists our doctrine states that the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. And that what is not explicitly taught in the Bible no one is required to believe.

So while I believe the Bible has all the answer necessary for salvation it doesn't contain the answer to every possible question that could ever be asked on any subject. IMHO homosexuality and same sex marriage are just such subjects.

What I see the Bible teaching on those subjects is based on what was going on in Jesus' or Paul's day with marriage. They didn't try to answer questions no one was asking. There was no such thing as equal marriages of any kind. People's marriages were not for love. They were arrangements by parents. So we already don't do straight marriage the way it was done in the Bible either.

So it is really hard to answer questions about the way marriage is today when it is different in many ways to what marriage was about in the Bible.

xpower · Jul 29, 2015

Hey circuitrider check you're inbox i want to ask you something

circuitrider · Jul 29, 2015

xpower said:
Hey circuitrider check you're inbox i want to ask you something

I saw it xpower. I've just not had time to read the article. But I'll do that and get back to you on it.

Ohorseman · Jul 30, 2015

circuitrider said:
And that what is not explicitly taught in the Bible no one is required to believe.

But I DO believe it is explicitly taught in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I base that upon the pattern. The Old Testament directly states it is a sin multiple times. The New Testament makes reference to that multiple times. A pattern. And this pattern is reinforced through the EXCLUSION concept, & this speaks just as loudly as the other. What I mean by this is that there are no stories about gay love where we learn something. There is Abraham and Sari, David and Bathsheba, Samson and Delilah, etc. etc. There are no stories of gay couples, unless we invent that David must have had a thing with Jonathon, or Jesus had thing with that disciple he kissed, or Moses and Aaron were actually not brothers but instead were a gay couple (just made that last one up as an example). Further, the concept of same-sex marriage is not talked about in Proverbs, Song of of Solomon, etc. There is a notable absence of it - it is not included at the discussion table because homosexuality was deemed sin.

circuitrider said:
What I see the Bible teaching on those subjects is based on what was going on in Jesus' or Paul's day with marriage. They didn't try to answer questions no one was asking. There was no such thing as equal marriages of any kind. People's marriages were not for love.

I do not believe that either. I base that belief upon Paul's writings about how a man should love his wife and put her first. I also believe that Joseph loved Mary. I believe that David loved Bathsheba. I believe that Abraham loved Sari. I believe that Adam loved Eve. These guys loved their wife and did not see them as property.

At times Jesus answered questions and at times he just taught : Sermon on the Mount, Lord's Prayer, etc., etc. Are we to believe that Jesus is now like... opps, forgot to cover that. Again, that is pushing against the divinity of Christ.

circuitrider · Jul 30, 2015

ohorseman, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

What you see as a pattern I don't see at all. I see it is a concocted pattern. The original Greek of the NT reads to me that Paul isn't talking about homosexuality, same sex marriage, etc. Jesus doesn't mention the topic anywhere.

It is clear that the Bible does not teach about every subject we can come up with. That's why John Wesley wrote into our Articles of Religion that if it wasn't in the Bible we didn't have to believe it.

No I don't think Jesus overlooked or forgot something. There are many many topics that Jesus does not speak about in the Bible. The biggest reason is that the point of the Bible isn't to answer every possible question that we might have about any future moral issue. And answering those issues of moral behavior aren't the main point of the Bible.

The Bible was written that human beings might experience a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Moral behavior is important. But a lot of people are moral and have no relationship with God. Just being moral or following a set of moral rules won't save you.

The Bible is here to give us answers to all things necessary for salvation not all things.

Article V — Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

I believe that one of the reasons that nearly every Christian group in the US is having a struggle over this issue is that it isn't clear in scripture. It also isn't mentioned by Jesus. And isn't mentioned in any of the creeds of the Church.

Now my preference would be that we stop here. Because this is a topic where we can go around and around and around on. As I said in a previous post. We disagree and that isn't likely to change. The topic of this thread is what should the GC do in 2016. Not yet another thread about opposing views on homosexuality.

Ohorseman · Jul 31, 2015

xpower said:
Is it a sin for a 53 year old man to marry a 15 year old girl ?

No, it is not sin. We just prefer not to have it. Though circuitrider would not perform such ceremony it is acceptable under the law. Unless protective measures come (and they will not) legal pederasty (legal man and boy sex/marriage) will be next - after bi-sexual arrangements involving open marriages and/or multiple partner marriages. Why should people who have such orientations and preferences be denied. (Not really a question.)

xpower said:
Also what the government considers marriage(a civil union) i never considered marriage. Sounds like people are over arguing the word marriage or semantics.

No, we are arguing over whether the Methodist Church should define marriage in the same way that the government does. I say it should not. Circuitrider says that it should. We are putting forth the reasons why we believe what we believe so as to better understand... at least that is my perspective, because I do not understand the otherside. We argue a bit because I cannot see a scriptural basis for being pro-same sex marriage & circuitridger sees an absence of scripture directly stating that same sex marriage is sin as an open door for such a thing.

From mine and the majority's perspective, the scriptures have a pattern of indicating that homosexuality is sin yet such behavior is equated to eating shrimp by those that disagree. Proponents of this same sex marriage position claim that Paul ONLY speaks against pederasty (man & boy sex) and then that Jesus gave his stamp of acceptance for homosexuality when he healed the Roman Centurion 's boy servant who was actually his sex slave (pederasty). Their case is a whirlwind of contradictions, conjectures, & conundrums that come as a storm against the divinity of Christ.

I do think that this would be no big deal had the government called it a "civil union" rather than marriage. But it is not equal rights under the law that they seek. The Methodist Church is an easy entrance-way for those that want to disprove that homosexuality is a sin, mainly because of Methodist philosophy & because Methodists generally speaking do not know their Bibles and so the congregation does not hold the pastors accountable. Yes, accountability should be a 2 way street but it's not. And so some Methodist Pastors are preaching pro-homosexual doctrines.

circuitrider said:
I believe that one of the reasons that nearly every Christian group in the US is having a struggle over this issue is that it isn't clear in scripture. It also isn't mentioned by Jesus. And isn't mentioned in any of the creeds of the Church.

You speak truth when you say "one of the reasons". But I say, it is not clear to them in scripture. Also, Jesus addresses this but they do not listen. And, if one listens carefully our creed most certainly does mention it 3 or 4 times:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,

One has to listen... to each line... and think hard about its full application. But some do not listen because of hard hearts (refusal to admit sin).

Circuitridger, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to talk to me a little about this. Think hard brother on the below art and verse. It's deep but I think you will get it. Acceptance of your minority interpretations strongly suggests grand conspiracy by the church to methodically disparage the LGBT community. If that is true then the church deserves to crash and burn along with all the early church fathers and clergy down through time to here and now. And only you and those like you deserve to enter the kingdom.

IF THOU BE THE SON OF GOD
COMMAND THIS STONE THAT
IT BE MADE INTO BREAD

xpower · Aug 1, 2015

Ohorseman said:
No, it is not sin. We just prefer not to have it. Though circuitrider would not perform such ceremony it is acceptable under the law. Unless protective measures come (and they will not) legal pederasty (legal man and boy sex/marriage) will be next - after bi-sexual arrangements involving open marriages and/or multiple partner marriages. Why should people who have such orientations and preferences be denied. (Not really a question.)

No, we are arguing over whether the Methodist Church should define marriage in the same way that the government does. I say it should not. Circuitrider says that it should. We are putting forth the reasons why we believe what we believe so as to better understand... at least that is my perspective, because I do not understand the otherside. We argue a bit because I cannot see a scriptural basis for being pro-same sex marriage & circuitridger sees an absence of scripture directly stating that same sex marriage is sin as an open door for such a thing.

From mine and the majority's perspective, the scriptures have a pattern of indicating that homosexuality is sin yet such behavior is equated to eating shrimp by those that disagree. Proponents of this same sex marriage position claim that Paul ONLY speaks against pederasty (man & boy sex) and then that Jesus gave his stamp of acceptance for homosexuality when he healed the Roman Centurion 's boy servant who was actually his sex slave (pederasty). Their case is a whirlwind of contradictions, conjectures, & conundrums that come as a storm against the divinity of Christ.

I do think that this would be no big deal had the government called it a "civil union" rather than marriage. But it is not equal rights under the law that they seek. The Methodist Church is an easy entrance-way for those that want to disprove that homosexuality is a sin, mainly because of Methodist philosophy & because Methodists generally speaking do not know their Bibles and so the congregation does not hold the pastors accountable. Yes, accountability should be a 2 way street but it's not. And so some Methodist Pastors are preaching pro-homosexual doctrines.

You speak truth when you say "one of the reasons". But I say, it is not clear to them in scripture. Also, Jesus addresses this but they do not listen. And, if one listens carefully our creed most certainly does mention it 3 or 4 times:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,

One has to listen... to each line... and think hard about its full application. But some do not listen because of hard hearts (refusal to admit sin).

Circuitridger, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to talk to me a little about this. Think hard brother on the below art and verse. It's deep but I think you will get it. Acceptance of your minority interpretations strongly suggests grand conspiracy by the church to methodically disparage the LGBT community. If that is true then the church deserves to crash and burn along with all the early church fathers and clergy down through time to here and now. And only you and those like you deserve to enter the kingdom.

IF THOU BE THE SON OF GOD
COMMAND THIS STONE THAT
IT BE MADE INTO BREAD

May i ask? what is wrong with multiple partner marriages? where in the Bible does it say polygamy is wrong?

xpower · Aug 1, 2015

Where in the Bible does it say being born with same-sex attraction is wrong?

Ohorseman · Aug 1, 2015

xpower said:
May i ask? what is wrong with multiple partner marriages? where in the Bible does it say polygamy is wrong?

It says it here:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus talked about marriage in response to the Pharisees asking him about whether it was lawful to end a marriage. I provide this a few posts back, xpower. It clearly says the "two" shall become "one". Then repeats it. Jesus also mentions "male and female", and he makes reference to the genders twice as well. This is to emphasis those points.

Some take the position that it was a heterosexual question to which Jesus gave a heterosexual answer. With that line of thinking, I suppose one could also say that it was a monogamous question to which Jesus gave a monogamous answer. Again, with that line of thinking, one could also say that Jesus said nothing about inappropriate behavior with animals and so one could marry their pet then have sex with it and it would not be sin. It is true he did not. So, why not... after all, we eat shrimp now and wear mixed fabrics. I do not believe this. I believe that Jesus did not talk about inappropriate behavior with animals and such because it was understood already that it was sin, along with homosexuality.

It is my hope that many decision makers at UMC General Conference 2016 split the church. Otherwise, all this will just keep coming up.

Ohorseman · Aug 1, 2015

xpower said:
Where in the Bible does it say being born with same-sex attraction is wrong?

The Bible does not say that directly. The Bible teaches that we are born sinners. Here is a link that claims to have 55 verses about being born in sin. I have not thoroughly checked out the site - but at least it is not an atheistic site like some Methodist pastors use as a source and refer others to.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/being_born_in_sin

So, we are born sinners. What is sin? That is what circuitridger and I disagree about and that is what they will attempt to address at UMC General Conference 2016, & hopefully that will come in the form of a split... and I mean a complete split. Not, OK, we have option A or you can have option B... but we are one big United Methodist Church family. Won't work for me.

UMC General Conference 2016

United Methodist

Take up your cross and follow Me

United Methodist

Take up your cross and follow Me

Take up your cross and follow Me

Newbie

United Methodist

United Methodist

United Methodist

Take up your cross and follow Me

United Methodist

Newbie

United Methodist

Take up your cross and follow Me

United Methodist

Take up your cross and follow Me

Newbie

Newbie

Take up your cross and follow Me

Take up your cross and follow Me

Similar threads