Sodomite weddings at the UMC

[Albion]

I hope you will indeed not parse my post above and make it seem different than it says above.

If I just write too long in posts, just tell me. I am always trying to shorten, even when I include another important part of something in an edit. But I'd like to write even shorter and better and less confusingly!

I didn't say anything about the length of your post. (?) I tend to think that shorter posts are more effective, but that wasn't a concern of mine here.

 

[Halbhh]

I didn't say anything about the length of your post. (?)

But you parsed it? Read through and consider. To me it appears you are suggesting I parsed sodomy intercourse as if not a sin. But is that accurate? No. It is not.

Post #58 is a response to the exact wording in the early part of the quoted post #6 -- whether sodomy is some special category of especially dangerous sin, worse than stealing.

 

[Albion]

I didn't say that either. Why don't we just let it drop.

 

[Halbhh]

I didn't say that either. Why don't we just let it drop.

Ok. Just so I don't confuse everyone, I was responding to post #6 suggesting this sin was worse than stealing. It's not worse than stealing. It's not a special category of especially dangerous sin, but merely among the many sins. It's a level of sin like you or I or anyone has done -- sin, but not for example in the special category of those most hated by God, nor in the 10 Commandments, but a more garden-variety sin.

 

[Halbhh]

And for clarity, we cannot assume that gay couples are always doing that sin! We can't 'guess' at others' sins. Either we have to see it happen, or they have to tell us it happens. Otherwise we are specifically instructed not to guess (John chapter 7: "do not judge on appearances")

It's tough, that instruction in Matthew 7:1-5. It's always tougher to examine our own selves! I think a good aid for me I read recently is Psalm 139, when one reads through fully. Search us Lord, and help us to see our own wrongs.

 

[redleghunter]

Your name "compassion 4 humanity" doesn't seem to match your words. Tell me would you immediately leave your church if your pastor watched inappropriate content? Or took a little money from the offering plate after its counted, or preached in a prideful spirit instead of humility? None of us are perfect. Honestly I would rather see a loving gay couple together than some of the abusive strait relationships I've seen/experienced. The OT puts such a focus on homosexuality because in those times it was alot less about relationships, and alot more about sex. Hence the rape attempt at Sodom. There are many other things the Bible allows/ prohibits- owning slaves is ok, but a wife having rights is not. This is why the New Law of Christ is much more important and what we Christians follow.

Interesting. You know if one of your EO priest came out of the closet he would no longer be pastoring a parish.

 

[Oldmantook]

You are correct. The UMC has been going downhill for the past several years. They even allowed an unrepentant lesbian to become a bishop not too long ago. To be honest, I've ignored the downward trajectory of my denomination, thinking that things will be fine so long as the church I attend doesn't follow suit. Nonetheless, I'm planning on trying a different church this Sunday. In fact, I've already picked it out and read up on it.

i wish you well as you search for God's will to be done in your life!

 

[redleghunter]

However Gay marriage wasn't even an issue back then.

On the contrary there were same sex marriages in the 1st century AD NT era. Not among Christians but was seen in the Greco-Roman society. Although frowned upon by many historical writers:

Martial, the first-century A.D. Roman poet, reports incidences of male-male marriage as kinds of perversions, but not uncommon perversions, speaking in one epigram (I.24) of a man who “played the bride yesterday.” In another (12.42) he says mockingly, “Bearded Callistratus gave himself in marriage to…Afer, in the manner in which a virgin usually gives herself in marriage to a male. The torches shone in front, the bridal veils covered his face, and wedding toasts were not absent, either. A dowry was also named. Does that not seem enough yet for you, Rome? Are you waiting for him to give birth?”

In Juvenal’s Second Satire (117), we hear of one Gracchus, “arraying himself in the flounces and train and veil of a bride,” now a “new-made bride reclining on the bosom of her husband.” Such seems to have been the usual way of male-male nuptials among the Romans, one of the men actually dressing up as a woman and playing the part of a woman.

The notoriously debauched emperor Elagabalus (ruled 218-222) married and then divorced five women. But he considered his male chariot driver to be his “husband,” and he also married one Zoticus, an athlete. Elagabalus loved to dress up as a queen, quite literally. (Gay marriage and homosexuality were part of moral landscape in Ancient Rome)​

Of course the most well-known case was Nero:

In 65 AD, the mad Pontiff Nero crowned all his other debauches by a same-sex marriage. Nero married a male look-alike of his murdered wife Poppaea Sabina. Here is a report by the Roman historian Suetonius:

Besides the abuse of free-born lads, and the debauch of married women, he committed a rape upon Rubria, a Vestal Virgin. He was upon the point of marrying Acte, his freedwoman, having suborned some men of consular rank to swear that she was of royal descent. He gelded the boy Sporus, and endeavoured to transform him into a woman. He even went so far as to marry him, with all the usual formalities of a marriage settlement, the rose-coloured nuptial veil, and a numerous company at the wedding. When the ceremony was over, he had him conducted like a bride to his own house, and treated him as his wife. It was jocularly observed by some person, "that it would have been well for mankind, had such a wife fallen to the lot of his father Domitius." This Sporus he carried about with him in a litter round the solemn assemblies and fairs of Greece, and afterwards at Rome through the Sigillaria, dressed in the rich attire of an empress; kissing him from time to time as they rode together. (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Nero, XXVIII). ​

Here is another report from Roman historian Cassius Dio:

Now Nero called Sporus "Sabina" not merely because, owing to his resemblance to her he had been made a eunuch, but because the boy, like the mistress, had been solemnly married to him in Greece, Tigellinus giving the bride away, as the law ordained. All the Greeks held a celebration in honour of their marriage, uttering all the customary good wishes, even to the extent of praying that legitimate children might be born to them. After that Nero had two bedfellows at once, Pythagoras to play the rôle of husband to him, and Sporus that of wife. The latter, in addition to other forms of address, was termed "lady," "queen," and "mistress." Yet why should one wonder at this, seeing that Nero would fasten naked boys and girls to stakes, and then putting on the hide of a wild beast would attack them and satisfy his brutal lust under the appearance of devouring parts of their bodies? Such were the indecencies of Nero. (Cassius Dio, Roman History, LXII, 13). (Emperor Nero's Perverted Same-Sex Marriage!!)​

 

[redleghunter]

There are no "levels" of sin in the eyes of God, only in the eyes of man. Homosexuality is seen by men as especially bad because of the revulsion most men feel when they see it. In God's eyes all sin puts us in the same place.

Along with lying and several other sins, homosexual sex is seen as an abomination. Ranked up there with those who burned their infants to Molech.

I agree sin is sin and James said if we break one law we break them all. But you don't see anyone here defending other sins as now permissible. There was a reason Jesus established church discipline in Matthew 18 even after a discourse on forgiveness and the parable of the Lost Sheep.

Matthew 18: NKJV
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

And then ties it up by ensuring all hearing knows we are to forgive our brethren when they transgress with the parable of the Unforgiving Servant.

Everyone of us struggle with some sort of sin as we still have these fallen bodies. The point is we are not to 'sanctify' our sins as not sins. That's what we are seeing in many churches is an acceptance of the sin. Jesus and His apostles never taught this.

 

[redleghunter]

If you are saying abusers are saints then I will resay that yes, I would rather see a loving homosexual couple then a strait couple where there is an abuser. After all Christ seemed to emphasize loving others more than just keeping the law, which is what I believe you are doing.

Well both are not honoring the Lord the way they live. There's a big difference between someone who acknowledges their sin and seeks God's grace to flee the sin. It is another to write it off as 'loving.' That is not confronting the sin and we are commanded not to let the flesh rule us but walk in the Spirit of Truth.

Galatians 5:16-17
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.


Ephesians 5:8
for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light


1 John 2:6
the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.


Galatians 5:25
If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

 

[redleghunter]

Until you can say you've walked in the shoes of someone with same sex attraction, you wouldn't be able to understand. I think it is far worse for someone to beat their wife in a marriage, then for a man who has a choice to be completely alone or love who he is naturally attracted to who happens to be the same gender.

I don't know why you keep comparing sin with sin and then say "far worse." Both are sins.

You are correct indicating we all don't suffer from the same temptations and sins. That is why God established objective morals in His Word. We don't rail against each other arguing these things but God's morals which are objective. That is why even as fellow sinners we do justice to our brethren by teaching what God has commanded. We are called blessed for doing so:

Matthew 5: NKJV
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Halbhh]

Along with lying and several other sins, homosexual sex is seen as an abomination. Ranked up there with those who burned their infants to Molech.

I'd like to learn that if that is so. Can you show or point me to the scriptures saying that? About the other point that all sins are wrong, we already agree of course. There are special levels of worse sins, like the seven sin God hates for instance, but still, all sin is wrong, not just some.

Comparing it to sacrificing children to idols though is dramatic, and would have to be supported. We know that burning children to idols is "even" a worse sin than most things --

"You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods." -- Deu 12:31

Here the word "even" seems to show this is worse even than other serious sins.

 

[redleghunter]

Also you are forgetting that that verse says "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

quite a list of sin there, almost like all sin is equal in the eyes of God.

How many self avowed and openly adulterers, thieves, drunkards and idolaters do you see campaigning churches to be ordained and accepting of their sin?

 

[Halbhh]

How many self avowed and openly adulterers, thieves, drunkards and idolaters do you see campaigning churches to be ordained and accepting of their sin?

Right. It's a special situation to endorse a sin. That's why Paul wrote for one flaunting a certain sin in one city to be expelled.

Please see additionally though post #65 above though. We aren't to just guess what sins people are doing.

Both are wrong:
A) to endorse sin
B) to guess at sins in others on just appearances

 

[redleghunter]

I'd like to learn that if that is so. Can you show or point me to the scriptures saying that? About the other point that all sins are wrong, we already agree of course. There are special levels of worse sins, like the seven sin God hates for instance, but still, all sin is wrong, not just some.

As I mentioned there were several sins called abominations. Idolatry being up there among them all. Here are a few:

2 Kings 16:3
But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.


2 Chronicles 28:3
Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.


Deuteronomy 12:31
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.


Lev 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I will note some of the modern English Bibles may use detestable instead of abomination.

 

[redleghunter]

And for clarity, we cannot assume that gay couples are always doing that sin! We can't 'guess' at others' sins. Either we have to see it happen, or they have to tell us it happens. Otherwise we are specifically instructed not to guess (John chapter 7: "do not judge on appearances")

Yes John 7 is sobering. As fellow Christians we are all washed in the same Royal Blood of Christ. It is He we are to follow as the example and not our own perceived 'righteousness' and measure others by. Meaning when we rebuke a brother it is not based on our perceived level of 'holiness' but the Holiness of God. Well knowing our own faults and failures and sharing such with our brethren as a fellow sojourning pilgrim in an unholy land (the world). That's how I think we need to put this in perspective. We are to bear one another's burdens and not brow beat each other.

Which of course means we would expect our brother or sister to be humble and contrite in facing their sin as we personally should be. Not excusing sin because everyone is a sinner.

I was mainly addressing church discipline in my comments. For example, a same sex couple wants to join your church and you are the pastor. They have two adopted kids. They don't see their relationship as sinful and believe since they are a loving couple God honors their union. How do you respond?

It's tough, that instruction in Matthew 7:1-5. It's always tougher to examine our own selves! I think a good aid for me I read recently is Psalm 139, when one reads through fully. Search us Lord, and help us to see our own wrongs.

Indeed and such takes much humility and a contrite heart.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm tired of "Christians" claiming suggesting "nobody is perfect" as if it condones sin and you just have to be a little better than those around you OR since we all sin, nobody should declare anything wrong. That is the most absurd logic I have ever heard.

The above is the definition of post-modern moral relativism which has permeated the church.

 

[Halbhh]

As I mentioned there were several sins called abominations. Idolatry being up there among them all. Here are a few:

2 Kings 16:3
But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.


2 Chronicles 28:3
Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.


Deuteronomy 12:31
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.


Lev 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I will note some of the modern English Bibles may use detestable instead of abomination.

Right, that's the same wording I'm familiar with, and we already agree it's a sin, and also destatable/abomination, but I am trying to ask about your saying it was even up to the level, the special level of sacrificing children in fire to idols, specifically. In particular. That's the question I'm asking about, specifically. Not whether it's sin, not whether it's an abomination -- those we see already. But whether it has a special level like as you yourself wrote "
Ranked up there with those who burned their infants to Molech." Which we see in Deuteronomy 12:31 is an abomination separated out I think as a worse level by the choice of the word "even". It's significant to rank it up at the level which was a primary cause for the utter destruction of Cannanite cities by Israel under instruction where even the animals and infants were to be put to the sword in the OT. Of course it doesn't have to be "even" that level to be already a serious sin (garden variety sins are serious we know!) like adultery, or as Christ instructs us lusting after someone not our spouse in our own heart secretly.

 

[redleghunter]

You are comparing sins that harm others to a consensual relationship between two people?

The consensual relationship you describe (homosexual relationship) does do harm and is sin. Or is it your opinion it is not?

We are all sinners, and we are all called to be perfect, but it is not something we can all achieve, that is why compassion is necessary.

This is true. However, we are told to flee from sin and not live in it.

"For the standard by which you judge, that is how you will be judged".

That's true. But ultimately we are all judged by God and His standards. God also holds us accountable for not telling others about His Holy standards:

Ezekiel 33: New King James Version (NKJV)


33 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, speak to the children of your people, and say to them: ‘When I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, 3 when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’

7 “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. 8 When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 9 Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.

10 “Therefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: ‘Thus you say, “If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?”’ 11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

 

[Halbhh]

I was mainly addressing church discipline in my comments. For example, a same sex couple wants to join your church and you are the pastor. They have two adopted kids. They don't see their relationship as sinful and believe since they are a loving couple God honors their union. How do you respond?

That's a truly very important question, and high stakes! High stakes because of the sharp and even salvation level issue of whether we welcome other believers in Matthew 18 in the separating of those who do welcome even the least of His on one hand and those who do not welcome even the least on the other hand.

In your specific question I quoted, I cannot see an indication they are doing the sin of sodomy intercourse, and I do know it's very possibly (not just a slight possibility, but probably more commonplace than we have been led to guess in popular culture) that they might very well not do it at all . If they are not specifically endorsing or flaunting the sin of sodomy intercourse, which is not at all gay marriage -- it's a sin even a traditional married man/woman couple can do, and some do -- then we could not turn them away without actually directly endangering our very own salvation!

Consider, how many in the congregation are already continuing, today, to indulge in the abomination of pride (Proverbs 16:5)?

How many right now are secretely sinning in lusting in the heart after someone not their spouse?

All sin, and of course we know we have to confess and repent at times. (I know you agree, but I'm drawing the full picture of a church as it is, day to day)