UMC's first openly gay bishop

[circuitrider]

DaveW, I will re-research the term abomination and get back to you.

 

[hedrick]

If you look at how abomination is used, it primarily used for impurity. Several of the things are not things that we would regard as immoral. E.g. Lev 7:18, eating an offering on the third day, or 11:13, eating the wrong kind of bird.

On the basis of this many commentators have tried to argue that abomination is about ritual impurity, but not immorality. I'm sure circuit rider will find some people who argue that as he investigates. Several writers that I generally find trustworthy say so. But I'm not convinced.

While it’s true that the uses are mostly for things that we don’t consider immoral today, it’s not so clear that the authors of Lev used it so consistent, or even that they would have distinguished between impurity and immorality. It seems reasonable to understand “these abominations” in 18:26 to refer to the whole section of 18:1-29. All of the offenses there are sexual. These are seen as fundamental enough that the former inhabitants of the land were “vomited out” for committing them.

Thus while “abominations” is often used for ritual impurity, I think the most natural reading of Lev 18 is that homosexuality (of whatever types you decide are covered by the wording) is one of several sexual sins that God considers grossly unacceptable.

My sense is that most Christians who accept homosexuality do not consider the code in Lev to be appropriate for Christians. But I don’t think it’s plausible that Lev considered it only to be ritual impurity.

 

[BearJMG]

A homosexual is defined as someone with same sex attraction.

That doesn't mean they have to act on it. They can choose to be celibate. If a homosexual priest or pastor lives celibately, there's no problem. Being tempted is not a sin.

But this woman they elected is sexually active presumably as she is married to another woman. Your point is irrelevant to the thread.

 

[BearJMG]

If you look at how abomination is used, it primarily used for impurity. Several of the things are not things that we would regard as immoral. E.g. Lev 7:18, eating an offering on the third day, or 11:13, eating the wrong kind of bird.

On the basis of this many commentators have tried to argue that abomination is about ritual impurity, but not immorality. I'm sure circuit rider will find some people who argue that as he investigates. Several writers that I generally find trustworthy say so. But I'm not convinced.

While it’s true that the uses are mostly for things that we don’t consider immoral today, it’s not so clear that the authors of Lev used it so consistent, or even that they would have distinguished between impurity and immorality. It seems reasonable to understand “these abominations” in 18:26 to refer to the whole section of 18:1-29. All of the offenses there are sexual. These are seen as fundamental enough that the former inhabitants of the land were “vomited out” for committing them.

Thus while “abominations” is often used for ritual impurity, I think the most natural reading of Lev 18 is that homosexuality (of whatever types you decide are covered by the wording) is one of several sexual sins that God considers grossly unacceptable.

My sense is that most Christians who accept homosexuality do not consider the code in Lev to be appropriate for Christians. But I don’t think it’s plausible that Lev considered it only to be ritual impurity.

Not all of the old testament law is inapplicable to Christians. Marriage is not affirmed in the bible between two of the same gender. If you can't become one sexually (in the right way) you can not BECOME one. And sex without marriage is a sin aka Adultery. So even if you for some reason throw away all of the old testament IT IS STILL WRONG. There is no evidence that God has changed. He never will. So besides what God/Jesus and the apostles have changed in the new testament like our eating habits, they did not change the fact that adultery and homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Old Testament also calls eating shell fish an abomination, the wearing of mixed fabrics an abomination, etc. It is a term used to described forbidden religious practices. There are quite a few of the Old Testament religious practices that we no longer follow as Christians including the above.

You raise a very good question, which I will now answer.

The Torah was not given to all of mankind but to the Jews: And the LORD said, "Speak to THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, saying...". Now, PART of the Torah includes those laws that are universal since Jews are also regular people (do not sin, do not murder...) and PART of it is those laws which pertain only to the Jews to which it was given (don't eat shellfish, don't mix wool and linen...).

So are the sexual prohibitions part of the universal laws, or are they part of the laws specific to Israel? If you read the list of prohibitions in Leviticus 18, there is a very interesting remark at the bottom, Leviticus 18:27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. In other words, these things were sins for Gentiles as well, as it defiled their lands.

 

[Meowzltov]

But this woman they elected is sexually active presumably as she is married to another woman. Your point is irrelevant to the thread.

I was replying to your mistaken comment that a homosexual cannot be a good example in the pulpit, when in fact a homosexual who is celibate very much can be great in the pulpit. It is a point within the point of the conversation.

 

[circuitrider]

He never will. So besides what God/Jesus and the apostles have changed in the new testament like our eating habits, they did not change the fact that adultery and homosexuality is a sin.

What do you do with the passages where it says that God changed his mind?

Also, we weren't talking about adultery, so I'm not sure why you bring that into the conversation. It just muddies the waters.

Just stating "it is a fact" doesn't make it so.

 

[circuitrider]

Again, reiterating what the MOD said, if you aren't Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene, you aren't supposed to be teaching doctrine here.

I frankly get tired of the assault from outsiders every time we want to discuss sexuality issues in our own forum. "A celibate Hebrew Catholic" I don't think counts.

 

[Meowzltov]

What do you do with the passages where it says that God changed his mind?

Which passages are those? I went to Bible Gateway and typed "God changed his mind" and got zero responses.

 

[hedrick]

Which passages are those? I went to Bible Gateway and typed "God changed his mind" and got zero responses.

The most obvious are Genesis 6:6-7 and 1 Samuel 15:11, but there are other examples. I assume you realize that "God changed his mind" isn't the only way such a statement could be worded. So doing a Bible search for it is kind of silly. If you type that phrase to Google you'll see several passages. You'll also see the conventional position that God couldn't have changed his mind, so that language was an accommodation to human understanding.

 

[circuitrider]

When people say "God never changes" I believe that because it means God's nature never changes.

When people mean "God never does anything different than God did before" I don't buy that because God started with Adam and Eve, then he had the covenant with Abraham, then he offered salvation through Jesus Christ. God doesn't always do everything the same way he always did it. in fact to say otherwise would require Christians to have to become Jews first before becoming Christians. The Apostle Paul fought against this idea with the "Judaizers" in the New Testament.

 

[Meowzltov]

The most obvious are Genesis 6:6-7 and 1 Samuel 15:11, but there are other examples. I assume you realize that "God changed his mind" isn't the only way such a statement could be worded. So doing a Bible search for it is kind of silly. If you type that phrase to Google you'll see several passages. You'll also see the conventional position that God couldn't have changed his mind, so that language was an accommodation to human understanding.

When it says the Lord repents of something, it means his feelings have changes, he now sorrows over what it has become. It doesn't mean he has changed his mind. God is omniscient: he knows the future. Knowing the future, he still did what he did when he did it.

Just an FYI, all the allusions to God's "feelings" are figurative. They are "anthropomorphisms." We cannot conceptualize an eternal being utterly unlike us, and so we describe God in ways like a human, when in fact he doesn't actually have feelings (which are due to brain activity) any more than he has a brain (since he has no physical body).

 

[circuitrider]

When it says the Lord repents of something, it means his feelings have changes, he now sorrows over what it has become. It doesn't mean he has changed his mind. God is omniscient: he knows the future. Knowing the future, he still did what he did when he did it.

You are denying the basic meaning of the word "repent." To repent of something doesn't just mean your feelings change, it means you change direction or you didn't "repent."

 

[Meowzltov]

You are denying the basic meaning of the word "repent." To repent of something doesn't just mean your feelings change, it means you change direction or you didn't "repent."

Yes, that is correct. I believe that in the case of God repenting, is it referring to a change of his feelings, which leads to a superficial difference in action. But NOT a difference in his overall nature, or Law, or plan, or anything of importance. For example, God is not going to punish all of humanity by destroying the earth again, but he does discipline the nations, and individuals. Nor does repent imply that he has sinned and is repenting in that manner. God is the same yesterday , today, and forever.

 

[hedrick]

Here's a longer list: http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Changing-His-Mind. Note that this has a mix of passages. Some show him changing his mind. Some are prophets talking about it. Some are saying that God never changes his mind. But there are still several passages that do say he changed his mind. And I'm not sure this list is complete.

I'm not giving you an explanation. I don't have one. I've always assumed that God is outside of time, seeing history "all at once," in some sense. But a literal reading of the OT would see God as reacting to his people, sometimes even with surprise. I have lots of questions about how that could be, but I'm also not happy with explaning away all passages talking about God's emotion, making decisions, etc, as anthropomorphism.

 

[Meowzltov]

When people say "God never changes" I believe that because it means God's nature never changes.

When people mean "God never does anything different than God did before" I don't buy that because God started with Adam and Eve, then he had the covenant with Abraham, then he offered salvation through Jesus Christ. God doesn't always do everything the same way he always did it. in fact to say otherwise would require Christians to have to become Jews first before becoming Christians. The Apostle Paul fought against this idea with the "Judaizers" in the New Testament.

Oh, I think we probably agree on this.

 

[circuitrider]

Yes, that is correct. I believe that in the case of God repenting, is it referring to a change of his feelings, which leads to a superficial difference in action. But NOT a difference in his overall nature, or Law, or plan, or anything of importance. For example, God is not going to punish all of humanity by destroying the earth again, but he does discipline the nations, and individuals. Nor does repent imply that he has sinned and is repenting in that manner. God is the same yesterday , today, and forever.

This is where your theology is conflicting with Methodist/Wesleyan theology. The imutibility of God is more a concept out of Calvinism than out of Wesleyan/Arminian thought. We believe God does work with, through and in God's creation. God never changing the way God does things isn't part of our theology (even if it is part of yours.)

 

[Meowzltov]

Some show him changing his mind. Some are prophets talking about it. Some are saying that God never changes his mind.

Read it. Very interesting! Especially that there is contradiction. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[Meowzltov]

This is where your theology is conflicting with Methodist/Wesleyan theology. The imutibility of God is more a concept out of Calvinism than out of Wesleyan/Arminian thought. We believe God does work with, through and in God's creation. God never changing the way God does things isn't part of our theology (even if it is part of yours.)

Well, I'm neither Calvinist, nor Wesleyan. I'm Catholic. I browsed some other Catholic forums and found that other Catholics similarly advocated my opinion. However, I would like to say that God is transcendant and infinite -- utterly beyond our understanding. It is very dangerous for me (or anyone) to try to nail him down into any formula. So I would like to say that the best possible scenario for my opinion is that it is only a partial truth, and at worst I am so completely off mark that Jesus is cringing. I'm just giving the best, most thoughtful answer that I can.

 

[Nik Onder]

For what it's worth, as a seeker looking in, there is nothing going on here that is compelling a rationally minded agnostic to want anything to do with the church. I was raised Catholic, have lived most of my life agnostic and since I have had children have recently felt called to raise them in the Methodist tradition. From what I can tell, this whole ridiculous discussion has had the input of maybe two actual Methodists....Can someone who is an actual Methodist please change my mind before I jump ship and start looking into Disciples of Christ or United Church of Christ options? As an outsider looking in, the discussion going on here is absurd and exhausting. The only reason I'm not UUA at this point is because that denom just feels too much like self-congratulatory liberalism. It means well, but really just revolves around how good it makes "you" feel. This is what I liked about Methodism: doing good works are just what you do, not about feeling good. It's not about feeling good about yourself, it's about making the world better. But if I have to put up with a 3 part theological dissertation about how one human is better or worse/more or less than another, then I need to know now so I can just move on to other options...