Sodomite weddings at the UMC

[FireDragon76]

You cannot willfully submit to authority that runs counter to the Bible. You need to separate. Leadership is making the decision to go an unScriptural direction. What makes it a church as defined by Scripture? Because they claim to follow Jesus Christ? Because they have been around for a long time? Paul expressed concern in his last address to the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20, especially verse 30). Today, it isn't one church in a city. There are many places that call themselves churches with no unity between them in one city, why would you not separate yourself from the unclean? (as suggested in 2 Cor 6:17), if you have that option?

Being a Christian now days is more complicated. Sometimes its more important to be faithful than to be pure.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Being a Christian now days is more complicated. Sometimes its more important to be faithful than to be pure.

Faithful to what? Can you give an example of what you are saying?

 

[FireDragon76]

Faithful to what? Can you give an example of what you are saying?

Sometimes people might feel its better to stick in a denomination to witness to what they believe to be the right way to believe, than simply tucking tail and leaving and forming yet another denomination. Sometimes people are in a denomination because that's honestly where they think God wills them to be.

 

[Dave-W]

The Bible is clear that sodomy is a sin, and quite a severe one.

The bible is clear about male homosexuality.

But where does it define "sodomy?"

 

[DW1980]

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?

Not at all

I believe that what the Bible writers wrote was inspired by God, and therefore inerrant. I do not believe that scribes copying this, or translators doing their work are inspired by God. So do I feel free to question a translation or interpretation? Yes.

There was a time when we had no issue with slavery, Christians today disagree on "clear" Scriptural teaching on things like women in ministry. Likewise I believe Christians can disagree on same-sex relationships.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

You did not give a close reading of what I said. I said there were many places prohibiting MALE-MALE homosexuality in both testaments; but Romans 1 is the ONLY place in scripture FEMALE-FEMALE homosexuality is even mentioned.

I made no such statement. Of course marriage is given BY EXAMPLE as one man and one (or more) women. There is no verse that DEFINES what it is. There was no need for a definition as everyone knew what marriage was. (far better than we do today)

It sounds like you are playing some "legaleeze" game. What about Gen 2:18,20-24 and repeated partially again in Eph 5:31-33? Gen 1:28 would be impossible for a male-male or female-female combination to fulfill. So while "husband" and "wife" may not be expressly denoted as "male" and "female" respectively and "marriage" may not even be officially defined, it was certainly understood to mean a man and a woman from the beginning of the account of the Scriptures--Old Testament and New Testament. The linking of two males or two females in some sexual way has always been considered a perversion by Scriptures, though cultures in the Old and New Testaments have always tried to do their own thing--apart from God.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The bible is clear about male homosexuality.

But where does it define "sodomy?"

Why would you think that God wouldn't want males together and would want females together?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Not at all

I believe that what the Bible writers wrote was inspired by God, and therefore inerrant. I do not believe that scribes copying this, or translators doing their work are inspired by God. So do I feel free to question a translation or interpretation? Yes.

There was a time when we had no issue with slavery, Christians today disagree on "clear" Scriptural teaching on things like women in ministry. Likewise I believe Christians can disagree on same-sex relationships.

Why would the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture and was sent to lead us into all Truth want to confuse Christians by leading some to think same-sex relationships are okay and some that they aren't? The Holy Spirit I believe in, isn't the author of confusion. He will lead all who truly seek God's Truth to the same place.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Sometimes people might feel its better to stick in a denomination to witness to what they believe to be the right way to believe, than simply tucking tail and leaving and forming yet another denomination. Sometimes people are in a denomination because that's honestly where they think God wills them to be.

So, then, you are suggesting being faithful to the traditions/denominations of men, rather than the One behind the Scriptures themselves. If God has someone stay, then sure, anyone should do what God tells them to do. But, one had better be sure it is God and not their lack of willingness to move. People I knew in the UMC in Pennsylvania didn't stay in the UMC because God told them to. They stayed for a multitude of different personal reasons, feeling led by God was never one of them mentioned to me.

 

[DW1980]

Why would the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture and was sent to lead us into all Truth want to confuse Christians by leading some to think same-sex relationships are okay and some that they aren't? The Holy Spirit I believe in, isn't the author of confusion. He will lead all who truly seek God's Truth to the same place.

Hi

I totally agree with you on this, I also do not believe the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion. There is a pattern throughout Church history where our beliefs and practices in different areas have "evolved". Until fairly recently Christians had no real issue with slavery, or prohibiting women from leading in Church for example. Today I don't know of any Christian who would support slavery (in fact Christians are taking the lead in many ways in raising awareness of this). Many Churches (most?) now have no problem with women pastors.

The Bible has not changed, but our understanding has. I don't think that we're any less committed to the authority of Scripture (I know to me that is central). But I do believe that the Holy Spirit is doing exactly what you said, leading God's people to truth. If in the past we have heard the Spirit saying, "look again, that's not what I meant", I see no reason why He couldn't be doing the same with same-sex relationships today. So many Churches have commissioned theological studies and panels to look at this, and are concluding that same-sex relationships are fine. Are they all deaf to the Holy Spirit?

"Traditional" understandings of homosexuality have caused so much heartache and pain, led many to despair and suicide, and broken families apart. Yet Churches which embrace gay people have seen that they (and often their families) find healing and wholeness, and a deeper walk with the Lord. This is not driving people away from Jesus, it's drawing them closer. To me that seems consistent with what the Holy Spirit would do.

The Holy Spirit, as you said, inspired Scripture, so it's vital that we are open to His leading, not what society says, not what our cultures say, and be willing to adapt to His leading.

 

[Dave-W]

Why would you think that God wouldn't want males together and would want females together?

Why are you twisting my words?
Where did I say God "wanted" anything?

I was just saying He was not specifically prohibiting something. That is a big difference.

 

[Dave-W]

The linking of two males or two females in some sexual way has always been considered a perversion by Scriptures,

I know there are many examples of scripture on 2 males.

Can you give me any scripture other than Romans 1 for 2 females?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Hi

I totally agree with you on this, I also do not believe the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion. There is a pattern throughout Church history where our beliefs and practices in different areas have "evolved". Until fairly recently Christians had no real issue with slavery, or prohibiting women from leading in Church for example. Today I don't know of any Christian who would support slavery (in fact Christians are taking the lead in many ways in raising awareness of this). Many Churches (most?) now have no problem with women pastors.

The Bible has not changed, but our understanding has. I don't think that we're any less committed to the authority of Scripture (I know to me that is central). But I do believe that the Holy Spirit is doing exactly what you said, leading God's people to truth. If in the past we have heard the Spirit saying, "look again, that's not what I meant", I see no reason why He couldn't be doing the same with same-sex relationships today. So many Churches have commissioned theological studies and panels to look at this, and are concluding that same-sex relationships are fine. Are they all deaf to the Holy Spirit?

"Traditional" understandings of homosexuality have caused so much heartache and pain, led many to despair and suicide, and broken families apart. Yet Churches which embrace gay people have seen that they (and often their families) find healing and wholeness, and a deeper walk with the Lord. This is not driving people away from Jesus, it's drawing them closer. To me that seems consistent with what the Holy Spirit would do.

The Holy Spirit, as you said, inspired Scripture, so it's vital that we are open to His leading, not what society says, not what our cultures say, and be willing to adapt to His leading.

(1) I don't believe in evolution. Things are getting worse, not better. Jesus, knowing the future, questioned if He would find faith when He returns. Maybe the scholars aren't moving us closer to God, but farther away. What if their worldly knowledge and titles line them more up with the pharisees in Jesus' day, than with the Spirit-filled faithful who "walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh" and who are led by the Spirit into all Truth?
(2) Just because people twisted Scripture to mean what they wanted it to mean doesn't mean what they thought was ever right--I agree with you on that. God doesn't have to honor what people think about what He says. God just has to honor His Word--as He intended it to mean. I don't believe unwillful slavery is supported in the New Testament at all, including in Philemon. And, forced slavery violates "loving your neighbor as yourself." What can the possible justification for unwillful slavery be--other than a self-centered "serving money" purpose, right?
(3) In contrast, there is not one reference to a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman in Scripture that is upheld as an example to follow in the Old Testament or the New Testament. There is not one reference of support to a man laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman that isn't spoken against. If a person is demonized, do you help them by supporting what they do while demonized? If you do, how are you helping them to get free?
(4) What if groups that just cater to today's culture are simply delivering people to the gates of hell and getting them primed for entry to hell? It was Jesus who said "Not everyone that says to Me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of My Father who is in heaven." He goes on to say "many will say, 'Lord, Lord'": didn't we do this, or that in Your Name? And Jesus response is: "I never knew you, depart from Me, you that work iniquity." (Matt 7:21-27). Romans 1:18-32 looks dangerously like 2 Thes 2:10-12. Given the progression of releases in Revelation, is it more likely that newer "understandings" that clearly violate Scriptures or older "understandings" on those same subjects are the "delusion"? What kind of a mind is likely to accept a delusion, a reprobate mind or a healthy God-knowing and God-fearing mind?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I know there are many examples of scripture on 2 males.

Can you give me any scripture other than Romans 1 for 2 females?

Why do you think that is? Did you happen to notice that Leviticus 18 is clearly written to be prohibitions for males? And, in Leviticus 20, the only time a woman is mentioned as the subject is related to her approaching a beast and lying down there. Do you think that means that God doesn't care what a woman does and all the prohibitions only apply to males?

So when Paul speaks about God "giving people over to vile affections where EVEN THEIR women did change the natural use into that which is against nature," do you find that God is being inconsistent--based on your knowledge and understanding--since even in the New Testament, it seems there are more references to men doing it than women doing it? Do you actually think God condones women who do it and just doesn't like when the men do?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Why are you twisting my words?
Where did I say God "wanted" anything?

I was just saying He was not specifically prohibiting something. That is a big difference.

I'm not twisting your words. You have made the distinction for some reason. There are only two tracks. Either you believe God didn't mention women as often because what women do doesn't matter to Him or you believe that God just highlighted one more than the other, but the implication is that both are bad--especially considering the Romans 1 verses that clearly suggest that preferring same sex is perverted and not normal or intended--whether male or female.

I don't know why it is soooo important to you to make the distinction that it is only mentioned in Romans 1--as if that invalidates the wrongness of two women lying together. What value are you adding?

 

[Dave-W]

Why do you think that is?

I first noticed that discrepancy years ago. Knowing that God does nothing by accident, I have prayed and researched to find the answer. I have a theory, but that is all that it is.

Did you happen to notice that Leviticus 18 is clearly written to be prohibitions for males?

Absolutely.

And, in Leviticus 20, the only time a woman is mentioned as the subject is related to her approaching a beast and lying down there.

Yes. God and the human scripture writers were not shy in saying EXACTLY what was not allowed. So any omission had to be intentional.

My theory is based on God's mercy and love for us, His creation.

Another interesting omission is God including scriptures such as this:

Exodus 21:10
If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.​

God says that even in a multiple wife marriage, the "conjugal rights" cannot be diminished. IOW, God is concerned that she has regular/frequent sexual satisfaction. No such command exists concerning husbands' sexual satisfaction. And I believe that was intentional as well.

Now to my theory: Remember Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines? That is 1000 women he is (by the law of Moses) responsible to keep sexually satisfied. Do the math. If he has 3 women each night, it would take almost a year to get to each one only once.

If you are a wife, would that be often enough? NO.

And could he even keep up such a pace for that long? VERY Doubtful.

So God allowed the women to legally "take care" of each other. While it was not the best idea, or ideal in any way, at least there was a legal way to reach satisfaction.

With the demise of complex marriage in the late 2nd temple period, God finally had Paul describe that situation as being a fruit of the fallen nature of mankind.

Please remember, that is NOT scripture. It is only my theory.

Remember, the bulk of scripture (both OT and NT) is mitigating the ill effects of fallen humans living in a fallen world. There are things allowed in scripture (like divorce) that God dislikes, but allows for our sake and safety.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I first noticed that discrepancy years ago. Knowing that God does nothing by accident, I have prayed and researched to find the answer. I have a theory, but that is all that it is.
Absolutely.

Yes. God and the human scripture writers were not shy in saying EXACTLY what was not allowed. So any omission had to be intentional.

My theory is based on God's mercy and love for us, His creation.

Another interesting omission is God including scriptures such as this:

Exodus 21:10
If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.​

God says that even in a multiple wife marriage, the "conjugal rights" cannot be diminished. IOW, God is concerned that she has regular/frequent sexual satisfaction. No such command exists concerning husbands' sexual satisfaction. And I believe that was intentional as well.

Now to my theory: Remember Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines? That is 1000 women he is (by the law of Moses) responsible to keep sexually satisfied. Do the math. If he has 3 women each night, it would take almost a year to get to each one only once.

If you are a wife, would that be often enough? NO.

And could he even keep up such a pace for that long? VERY Doubtful.

So God allowed the women to legally "take care" of each other. While it was not the best idea, or ideal in any way, at least there was a legal way to reach satisfaction.

With the demise of complex marriage in the late 2nd temple period, God finally had Paul describe that situation as being a fruit of the fallen nature of mankind.

Please remember, that is NOT scripture. It is only my theory.

Remember, the bulk of scripture (both OT and NT) is mitigating the ill effects of fallen humans living in a fallen world. There are things allowed in scripture (like divorce) that God dislikes, but allows for our sake and safety.

Interesting theory.

Why would it take another woman to meet the sexual needs of another woman? Why couldn't she take care of her own needs? It seems it would be less likely to create a messy situation, like where women might come to a place where they prefer women--which "goes against nature the natural use." At least masturbation wouldn't create the potential of an unhealthy soul tie.

Jesus was also pretty clear about divorce, in contrast to what Moses allowed. Anyone who does it for any reason other than unfaithfulness (adultery) on the other's part is guilty of adultery. Isn't that what Jesus said?

 

[DW1980]

(1) I don't believe in evolution. Things are getting worse, not better. Jesus, knowing the future, questioned if He would find faith when He returns. Maybe the scholars aren't moving us closer to God, but farther away. What if their worldly knowledge and titles line them more up with the pharisees in Jesus' day, than with the Spirit-filled faithful who "walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh" and who are led by the Spirit into all Truth?
(2) Just because people twisted Scripture to mean what they wanted it to mean doesn't mean what they thought was ever right--I agree with you on that. God doesn't have to honor what people think about what He says. God just has to honor His Word--as He intended it to mean. I don't believe unwillful slavery is supported in the New Testament at all, including in Philemon. And, forced slavery violates "loving your neighbor as yourself." What can the possible justification for unwillful slavery be--other than a self-centered "serving money" purpose, right?
(3) In contrast, there is not one reference to a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman in Scripture that is upheld as an example to follow in the Old Testament or the New Testament. There is not one reference of support to a man laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman that isn't spoken against. If a person is demonized, do you help them by supporting what they do while demonized? If you do, how are you helping them to get free?
(4) What if groups that just cater to today's culture are simply delivering people to the gates of hell and getting them primed for entry to hell? It was Jesus who said "Not everyone that says to Me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of My Father who is in heaven." He goes on to say "many will say, 'Lord, Lord'": didn't we do this, or that in Your Name? And Jesus response is: "I never knew you, depart from Me, you that work iniquity." (Matt 7:21-27). Romans 1:18-32 looks dangerously like 2 Thes 2:10-12. Given the progression of releases in Revelation, is it more likely that newer "understandings" that clearly violate Scriptures or older "understandings" on those same subjects are the "delusion"? What kind of a mind is likely to accept a delusion, a reprobate mind or a healthy God-knowing and God-fearing mind?

I actually agree with virtually everything you have said

1) I don't believe in evolution either, I deliberately put that in quote marks, for want of a better word. I agree with you to a point on scholars - there are undoubtedly lots I wouldn't trust as they have their own liberal agendas. But, there are lots of great scholars, who are where they are because they love the Lord, and the Bible. We need them. For example, unless you speak Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, we need them to translate the Bible into English for us.
2) I think we are in 100% agreement here. The issue is that there was a point when Christians didn't have an issue with slavery. If you look back over records you find that those supporting slave owners were the ones quoting Scripture. What you have said reflects a modern understanding of the Bible (which I agree with you on!). The point is, the Bible was used - wrongly - to support a system that we now wouldn't tolerate.
3) You're right, there is no gay marriage in the Bible. But, marriage was different then, women were not accorded equal status, polygamy was common (King David etc), and levirite marriage commanded in Scripture. In fact when Jesus was asked about this, he didn't say it's wrong (Matthew 22:23-33). Our modern understanding of marriage is to live as close to the created ideal, Adam and Eve.
It's interesting you mention that there is no supportive text for a man lying with a man, or woman with woman. All 6 verses are clearly linked with sexual abuse (for example, Sodom was clearly attempted gang rape, which has nothing to do with two people who love each other). Equally there is no prohibition against two people who love each other!
I would also hope that you are not suggesting gay people are demonized. Supporting them means accepting them as they are, pointing to a personal relationship with Jesus as the only hope for salvation. Above all it means love.
4) Again I agree with you. The Bible also states that spiritual authorities can do the same thing - so we need to watch our doctrine closely, and I share your concern about "new" teachings. The Bible is full of such warnings: "Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming." (Eph 4:14) But I also know that Jesus said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10) What does the "traditional" view do except literally steal people's sense of worth, leaving them believing that they have no hope, literally killing people, and destroying lives and families? If we know a tree by its fruit then I can't support that.

I hope this helps explain where I am coming from

 

[Dave-W]

Why would it take another woman to meet the sexual needs of another woman? Why couldn't she take care of her own needs? It seems it would be less likely to create a messy situation, like where women might come to a place where they prefer women--which "goes against nature the natural use." At least masturbation wouldn't create the potential of an unhealthy soul tie.

"Unhealthy soul ties" are those forged outside of covenant. 2 women in a harem are in covenant with each other due to their both being married to the same guy. Taking care of one's self (only clear scriptural reference is a woman) often leaves one with an emptiness in the pit of the stomach, longing to be joined to someone else. (devil usually tells us this is guilt from God condemning us - a lie) Those sensations were meant to be shared.

 

[CQmethodist]

I am a gay, Christian man who is married to another man. We both believe deeply in God. I do not see anything in the Scriptures used to bludgeon LGBT people that reflects my relationship with my husband. It is not lustful, it is not abusive, it is not done in the worship of false gods. Some may condemn me, but I really can't say that I care what they think.