Sodomite weddings at the UMC

[Halbhh]

Are we no longer discussing "Sodomite weddings at the UMC?"

No, we came back to the OP topic again, and then again began to dicuss aspects of the topic, again. I think you'll see that if you read through exhaustively.

 

[Deadworm]

Compassion 4: "Cool story, bro. The pro-sodomy interpretation of scriptures which you brought up isn't original.

As I made clear, I favor traditional marriage. But you have not earned your anti-gay vitriol. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when one exclusively relies on shallow internet tripe rather than scholarly books in the issue, which you obviously haven't read. Academic commentaries on Genesis 19 recognize that the Sodomite desire to rape the male visitors is heterosexual xenophobia, not gay sexual perversion.
So your use of the term displays ignorance of the correct scholarly consensus.

Consider, for example, the charge in Romans 1:26-27 that same-sex sexual relationship are "against nature (Greek: physis)." There was no knowledge of genetics in Paul's day. Indeed, Paul reflects the Stoic understanding of the expression "against nature" as a violation of social convention. For Seneca, for example, hot baths, potted plants, banquets after sunset, and a man's passive sexual role were all considered "against nature" (contra naturam)" (quoted from Martti Nissinin's excellent book on the subject, "Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, p. 105).

redleghunter: "All of the above wiped out with the words of Christ )in Matthew 19).

Pro-gay marriage advocates would dismiss your claim as nonsense on 4 grounds:
(1) Jesus condones the gay orientation (Matthew 19:12).
(2) Gay marriage was not an option in the culture of the time, and so, exclusively heterosexual marriage cannot be inferred from Jesus support of traditional marriage
(3) The Bible never considers the possibility of 2 gay people in a genuinely loving and committed relationship. Therefore, the gay marriage issue can't be decided on the basis of bibllcal prooftexting.
(4) The claim that the purpose of biblical marriage is procreative is irrelevant because marriage between elderly people beyond child-bearing years is biblically permissible.

 

[redleghunter]

I haven't needed to explain why King David, author of many of the Psalms, and even "a man after God's own heart", had so very many wives. I hope I'm not pressed to explain that one! I don't know how to, but....I do feel it's not an issue. It's not....something we have to explain. But it does (this is not mean to derail the thread) raise that question when some want to add the wording "one man one woman". I could observe I think one man and one woman is best, just so you won't think I feel any other way, lol.

Polygamy was not part of God's design for marriage. Those were decisions made by men and in just about every case having the more than one wife ended up with strife, murder, hate etc.

 

[redleghunter]

Pro-gay marriage advocates would dismiss your claim as nonsense on 4 grounds:
(1) Jesus condones the gay orientation (Matthew 19:12).

Not established. Eunuchs were not identified in the Law as homosexual. Such would not even be permissible according the Law which Jesus and the apostles lived under.

Jesus is specific: ones born that way (with no stones); ones where men cut the stones off; and those who spiritually remain celibate. I will not entertain the eisegesis of this one.

(2) Gay marriage was not an option in the culture of the time, and so, exclusively heterosexual marriage cannot be inferred from Jesus support of traditional marriage

Sure it was. The Gentiles engaged in same sex marriage. I posted such already.

(3) The Bible never considers the possibility of 2 gay people in a genuinely loving and committed relationship. Therefore, the gay marriage issue can't be decided on the basis of bibllcal prooftexting.

Of course the "Bible" does not, but Jesus did. See Matthew 19 again. Jesus lays out the design for marriage as from the beginning---one man and one woman.

(4) The claim that the purpose of biblical marriage is procreative is irrelevant because marriage between elderly people beyond child-bearing years is biblically permissible.

What makes this point irrelevant is that Jesus tells us once again in Matthew 19 the definition of marriage. Which means, the sophistry of the devils advocate assertions fall flat on their faces as not one of them refutes the definition of marriage established "since the beginning."

 

[redleghunter]

EO priests aren't as well known for "bashing gays" from the pulpit.

Really? Suppose a deacon comes in and wants to be married to his same sex partner? What will the EO priest say?

 

[redleghunter]

(There is zero about gay relationships in this quote. But there is something very crucial for us all though.)

I think you are missing the important definition of marriage Jesus displays here. He is reaffirming God's original design for marriage. It's inescapable. one man, one woman become one flesh. As it was in the beginning---taking us all the way back to Genesis 2:24.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Really? Suppose a deacon comes in and wants to be married to his same sex partner? What will the EO priest say?

No. But in a loving way. Since EO view sin a bit differently then the west you may not understand how we operate with such things. We are conservative, but overwhelmingly loving.

 

[redleghunter]

No. But in a loving way. Since EO view sin a bit differently then the west you may not understand how we operate with such things. We are conservative, but overwhelmingly loving.

Which is the right approach and in which no one, not even the OP, argues against.
The OP is about a major Christian church normalizing sin. There's the big difference. We have a pastor in defiance of God's teachings on what actually constitutes a marriage.

Now if an EO priest came out in the same venue, I would gather he would be removed and replaced. Am I correct? And then the church leadership (perhaps the bishop) would minister to him after his removal. Then of course I'm sure the bishop would remind the flock to pray for this priest and reinforce church teachings on marriage. Am I off here?

 

[Halbhh]

I think you are missing the important definition of marriage Jesus displays here. He is reaffirming God's original design for marriage. It's inescapable. one man, one woman become one flesh. As it was in the beginning---taking us all the way back to Genesis 2:24.

That Matthew 19 passage is as you see reading it about whether we can divorce -- why we should not because of the bond of being one together -- and about adultery, and also about the gift given to some for celibacy. But Genesis 2 is indeed wonderful to tell us more of that wonderful bond God has given -- How marriage is inside us, how it is experienced between a man and a woman for them -- truly the two become one -- in their hearts, truly bonded together!

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

----------
See, this is not to tell us a mere factual thing like specification of genders. It's about the oneness we are given in faithful love, through the gift from God, that makes us make a new family. It's not about other types of various relationships, not one way nor the other way. Not the subject matter.

Of course there are other kinds of deep love. Like that of Jonathan and David:

"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women."

This also is not about other kinds of relationships except the one addressed, a real love between two men, not sexual we can expect since David showed otherwise generally. We simply should not read in extra things. What is already there plainly is wonderful, and that's why it is there, not for other unsaid meanings.

 

[redleghunter]

That Matthew 19 passage is as you see reading it about whether we can divorce -- why we should not because of the bond of being one together -- and about adultery,

Yes see how Jesus addresses both. By clearly defining what marriage is. He states the design of God for human marriage. That's the point. When controversy came up about divorce Jesus defines what marriage truly is in the eyes of God. We should not be surprised He did it this way as you always define the absolute before addressing the periphery questions...in this case divorce.

 

[Halbhh]

Ok, that viewpoint at least makes sense, but Genesis 2 is already compelling and deep and profound without reading extra things onto it not suggested by the wording (e.g. one example would be to read some stuff extra onto the wording (adding it on) like some meaning about gender indentity or some such). Please also see the remainder of post 109 above where I added some more.

 

[redleghunter]

This also is not about other kinds of relationships except the one addressed, a real love between two men, not sexual we can expect since David showed otherwise generally. We simply should not read in extra things. What is already there plainly is wonderful, and that's why it is there, not for other unsaid meanings.

The David and Jonathan relationship was what the Greeks would call the definition of philia love:

Philia (/ˈfɪljə/ or /ˈfɪliə/; Ancient Greek: φιλία), often translated "brotherly love", is one of the four ancient Greek words for love: philia, storge, agape and eros. In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, philia is usually translated as "friendship" or affection. The complete opposite is called a phobia.

There are some who believe such a deep brotherly love is what homosexuals mistake for the eros same sex attraction.

As with anything in God's creation, humans can take something beautiful and holy and go beyond the design's intent. I believe such was the case with Satan and our original fall.

Not to be confused with agape love which is sacrificial. And storge love which is what a parent has for their children.

 

[redleghunter]

What about this?

‘Sad day’ for United Church, says atheist minister Gretta Vosper | Toronto Star

If your pastor turns out to be an atheist, is it loving to remove them?

 

[Halbhh]

What about this?

‘Sad day’ for United Church, says atheist minister Gretta Vosper | Toronto Star

If your pastor turns out to be an atheist, is it loving to remove them?

Oh certainly. My view is the elders of a chruch can and should. Also, would that every minister who does not truly believe in Christ risen would take a leave at minimum, and/or resign.

Relating this back to the OP, if a pastor is in a gay relationship which is continent (a word used at times by Catholics I've seen to indicate refraining from intercourse), then....well, is it really different than a philia love?

 

[hedrick]

But you have not earned your anti-gay vitriol. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when one exclusively relies on shallow internet tripe rather than scholarly books in the issue, which you obviously haven't read.

I agree with most of this posting. But applying Mat 19:12 to gays requires some interpretative freedom. The most likely original meaning of those born as eunuchs is those who are infertile. In the early OT eunuchs (mostly clearly, in the literal sense of castrated people) are considered at best as second-class citizens. Deut 23:1 excludes them entirely. Is 56:3-6 however says that if they keep the law, they are as acceptable as anyone else. Jesus, as typical, agrees with Isaiah here.

I think it would be misleading to claim that Jesus was specifically thinking of gays here. Applying this to gays requires a bit of a leap of analogy, but I think it's a valid one. If you accept (as I do) that these are people who without any choice of their own have a sexuality that is traditionally considered to exclude them from the Assembly, I don't think it's unreasonable to apply Is 56, and thus Mat 19, to them. However this requires a willingness to follow Jesus' spirit beyond the letter, so I certainly don't expect all Christians to agree.

To my knowledge, the only place you can make a plausible claim that Jesus knowingly dealt with a gay person was Mat 8:5 ff. The word translated "servant" is actually "boy." There are fairly plausible claims that in this context it actually implied a servant who is his homosexual partner. However, while this use of boy seems well established, applying it to this passage seems to be a minority view. Luke 1:2 could be understood as having this implication. (A reasonable translation would be "dear.")

 

[compassion 4 humanity]

Hi

Can I suggest that this is not what is happening? Many Christians believe that same-sex marriage is okay, but it's not based on a rejection of Scripture. It's based on an understanding that the original texts in context refer to abusive relationships (for example, Martin Luther translated arsenokoitai which appears in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, as "abusers of boys").

I agree that sodomy constitutes abuse. Specifically, it is abuse against nature and the Word of God.

You argue that anti-gay scriptures are really about abusive relationships where a homosexual adult takes advantage of a minor to fulfill his sexual proclivities. But your thesis isn't correct. If it were, it would clearly spell it out in the Bible and leave no ambiguities. Also, if your idea is right, that would suggest the Holy Word of God is imperfect due to supposed translations errors. Do you really wish to question the inerrancy of the Bible?

 

[compassion 4 humanity]

So....I cannot conclude that for example sodomy intercourse is worse than adultery in the heart (lusting after someone not one's spouse). I cannot conclude is it more serious than stealing.

While I won't go so far as to say that a married person who lusts after someone other than his or her spouse is just as bad, or even worse, than committing sodomy, I agree that it's an awful sin for which repentance is needed. Still, homosexuality is a far graver sin. That is why God prescribed the death penalty for it in the Old Testament but didn't order lustful, married people to die for having adulterous thoughts.

Also, there are varying degrees of theft. Stealing $10 is significantly more harmless than sodomy, but stealing someone's life inheritance worth $1,000,000 and leaving them destitute is probably worse than sodomy.

 

[seeking.IAM]

The UMC has been kicking this can up the road for some quite time. I hope they muster some courage, make a decision, and let the chips fall where they may. Let's see how brave they are at the next General Conference.

 

[hedrick]

The UMC has been kicking this can up the road for some quite time. I hope they muster some courage, make a decision, and let the chips fall where they may. Let's see how brave they are at the next General Conference.

I don't think it can be delayed further. They've got a jurisdiction that is accepting gay ordination. There are others that will likely follow. Either they do nothing, in which case there's a de facto split, or they do something.

 

[dreadnought]

There are numerous parts in the Bible where homosexuality is condemned. For example, in Leviticus 18:22, sodomy is rightfully called an "abomination." And in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, scripture says that sodomites will not inherit the Kingdom of God. To put it another way, active homosexuals who don't repent will suffer eternal agony in the burning, fiery depths of hell.

There are some Christians who unfortunately deal with same-sex attraction, but they never act on their desires and seek the counsel of God for dealing with their immoral lust. They aren't sinning because they aren't committing sodomy despite liking those of the same gender. Most importantly, they keep their feelings to themselves.

However, a grave sin has happened within the United Methodist Church. A male UMC minister married another man! Even worse: his congregation "overwhelming supports" him and his sodomy proclivities! Read about it here: Gay Methodist minister David Meredith, church claim victory The article talks about a UMC committee charging the queer preacher with misconduct.

What has the United Methodist Church come to? Why is a man in deep homosexual sin allowed to preach in the first place? And why on earth does his congregation support him? If I went to a religious service here at my UMC church and our minister announced that he is gay and intends to marry his sodomite lover, it would be my last time ever attending that church. I would promptly find another church to join.

I would disagree with you on one point. I would rather stay and fight than leave the church.

Our bishop is a lesbian (California-Nevada Conference). I'm sure the majority of pastors in this conference support her lifestyle. Yes, what is becoming of our church? But let's not leave it. Let's stand our ground.