United Methodist progressives gather to discuss LGBTQ-friendly plan

[Aussie Pete]

The kind of ceremony is variable and in itself unimportant, but it makes a difference whether two persons just live together or whether they are bound together by a marriage. Every culture has some marriage ceremony. So we can say which people are married and which are not.


Well, some liberals will argue that God doesn't reject same-sex "marriage".

If there was one instance of a same sex relationship in the Bible, the liberals might have a point. There is none. However, there are statements prohibiting same gender sex. I have read the arguments for homosexual relationships. They are specious, they are unscriptural and only the deceived could believe them.

 

[helmut]

To avoid a misunderstandig: I don't defend the liberal position, I just pointed to the fact that the words used by Maria Billingsley were not unambigious, they could used by a liberal, too.

If there was one instance of a same sex relationship in the Bible, the liberals might have a point. There is none. However, there are statements prohibiting same gender sex. I have read the arguments for homosexual relationships. They are specious, they are unscriptural and only the deceived could believe them.

By and large, I can underwrite this.

 

[hedrick]

Well, some liberals will argue that God doesn't reject same-sex "marriage".

He doesn’t. But look back at your question. It has a built in assumption that he does, resulting in a question that can’t be answered.

 

[Aussie Pete]

He doesn’t. But look back at your question. It has a built in assumption that he does, resulting in a question that can’t be answered.

God rejects same sex acts full stop. Homosexuals in OT times were subject to the death penalty. It's not easy getting married in those circumstances. Of course the Law applied to Israel, not the Gentiles.

 

[hedrick]

If there was one instance of a same sex relationship in the Bible, the liberals might have a point. There is none.

The Bible doesn't normally describe sexual relationships, whether among married people or otherwise. It doesn't even mention people's wives unless there's some specific reason to do so. As far as I know, there's no marriage ceremony described in the OT. This doesn't mean that God doesn't sanction marriage.

As a result there's no way to respond to this. There are relationships that could have been same-sex: David and Jonathan, Esther, and the Centurion and his "boy." But there's simply no way to know. It could have been widespread among Israel, and we'd never know; the fact that there's a law against it doesn't tell us what people actually did, nor what people understood that law to cover.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The Bible doesn't normally describe sexual relationships, whether among married people or otherwise. It doesn't even mention people's wives unless there's some specific reason to do so. As a result there's no way to respond to this. There are relationships that could have been same-sex: David and Jonathan, Esther, and the Centurion and his "boy." But there's simply no way to know. It could have been widespread among Israel, and we'd never know; the fact that there's a law against it doesn't tell us what people actually did.

If David and Jonathon had a relationship contrary to God's law, he would have been exposed. God exposed the wrong relationship with Bathsheba. Incidents of rape, incest, and adultery were written about. Homosexuality is just one of the sins that disqualifies someone from the Kingdom of God. I do not consider one sin worse than another. But trying to justify sin is plain wrong. God help those who lead others astray. I would not like to be in their shoes.

 

[hedrick]

If David and Jonathon had a relationship contrary to God's law, he would have been exposed. God exposed the wrong relationship with Bathsheba. Incidents of rape, incest, and adultery were written about.

It's possible that it never happened. But how likely is that? Perhaps not every sin was exposed, or perhaps not everyone saw it as wrong. This kind of argument has too little basis to be useful.

 

[helmut]

look back at your question. It has a built in assumption that he does, resulting in a question that can’t be answered.

English is not my mother tongue, so I may have made a mistake. I stated one position (that God does not regard same-sex marriages as real marriages), and pointed that people have different opinions about that. At least this is what I tried to say ...

As to which answer I think correct, I will state it in other postings (and read first what others have already said).

 

[Monksailor]

My grandfather served faithfully as a Reverend in the Methodist Church his whole life after he returned home from WWI and went to seminary college and after he retired he continued to serve till he died and I loved him very much, regardless how very little we were allowed to see and experience his robust love and joy.
I share that because I want you to realize that I do NOT take what I say lightly. The UMC was probably still formulating its "laws and by laws" or such in 1972 as it was only a babe then, having just been founded only 4 yrs earlier in DALLAS, TX. The UMC has been known as a very liberal church. If my memory serves me right, it was the first denomination in the USA to welcome a professed homosexual into the pulpit. My grandfather died in his retirement about the same year the UMC was born and I remember thinking how he'd probably "turn over in the grave" if he knew how the UMC was making a mockery of God's Holy Word. I cannot believe that they take it upon themselves to defy Paul's warnings (a curse) about not taking the sacrament of communion "unworthily" and make it open to any and all, regardless of their faith or standing with the Lord. So, give them a little bit more time and your LBGTQZM group will be "ministering" to you from the pulpit and anything else they please to do.

 

[hedrick]

English is not my mother tongue, so I may have made a mistake. I stated one position (that God does not regard same-sex marriages as real marriages, and pointed that people have different opinions about that. At least this is what I tried to say ...

Ah. I think a majority in the UMC in the US, at least at the level of governing boards, are at least willing to coexist with those who consider gay ordination and gay marriage OK. That would mean accepting gay pastors as colleagues, even if you're not willing to do gay marriage yourself. I base this on the most recent vote for representatives to the next General Conference.

That's about all that it's appropriate to say in this thread. Debate about whether homosexuality is acceptable isn't permitted in this forum. (It's easy to forget, since the forum you'd expect this to be in -- the Methodist forum -- does permit that.)

 

[helmut]

There are relationships that could have been same-sex: David and Jonathan

Well, Saul hinted at that, and made Jonathan angry (1.Sam 20:30). But I can't see any evidence it was more than a friendship between men. I suppose it started in the 19th century that close relationships between men were all classified under "homo".

Esther

You lost me. Where is a hint about Esther being lesbian?

and the Centurion and his "boy."

There is no reason that a term which was applied to sons or slaves for personal service should denote a homosexual lover. In former centuries, every army officer had a boy for personal service (cleaning the room, cleaning boots etc.) - were all officers gay in those days?

But there's simply no way to know.

What we do know is that practicing gay sexuality was forbidden in ancient Israel (Lev 18:22), and this is confirmed in the NT (e.g. Rom 1:27). The terms are rather clear: Man lying with man (this would be "sleeping with" in modern English).

It could have been widespread among Israel, and we'd never know; the fact that there's a law against it doesn't tell us what people actually did

You are right that we don't know how many sinners were there in ancient Israel. This is not only true with men sleeping with men, but also with adultery, robbery, murder or any other sin (ok, with idolatry we might try an educated guess based on archeological evidence). There are texts that mention a sin in a way showing it occurred too often - but what "too often" actually meant is a matter of speculation.

But a sin is a sin, regardless how often it is practiced. God does not stop considering any act as non-sinful because many persons commit it.

 

[helmut]

Debate about whether homosexuality is acceptable isn't permitted in this forum. (It's easy to forget, since the forum you'd expect this to be in -- the Methodist forum -- does permit that.)

It was You who started such a debate by saying He doesnt (i.e. "God does not reject same-sex marriages"). I read your warning only after I had entered this discussion, too.

 

[hedrick]

Well, Saul hinted at that, and made Jonathan angry (1.Sam 20:30).

I'm not to continue this, since I just remembered that this is in a forum where discussions about the acceptability of gays isn't permitted. But this is an interesting passage, whose implications in this context I hadn't considered. You're right about what it seems to imply, though I'll have to check commentaries to see if people who know more about the culture agree. (I only have one commentary on 1 Sam, and it doesn't really explain this verse.)

 

[Monksailor]

I think that we need to start using a different word for those who rebel against and reinterpret God's Word to say something totally opposite of what it says, or want a socialist society, or do things which oppose what has traditionally been done for the mere sake of being different (spiting tradition merely out of an adolescent-type of rebellion-some traditions ARE very good), or promote anything which God has told us is sin or REWRITING/lying about history in order to promote one's biased agenda and on and on. We need to stop deluding ourselves and call that type of behavior what it REALLY is. Progressive doesn't even describe that type of behavior but that is part of the deception used by the promoters of doing that which God has told us not to do going all the way back to Eve and satan in the Garden. The word "progressive" may have gained entry into dictionaries as used here in this thread but it has nothing to do with making progress. In fact, these who call them selves "progressive" today are in fact saboteurs of progress to the nth degree. We currently have one of the most PROGRESSIVE Presidents that I can remember in office and I am well over a half century young in age. He has made more progress in office than any other I can remember and it would have been so much more for our country if he hadn't been and wouldn't be sabotaged by "progressives" ever corner he turned. No, "progressive" for a rebellious group of people whose agenda is so heavily burdened with things which God has denounced and which history has already proven destructive for a society is a TERRIBLE choice to accurately describe their actions and words. But a clever deception.

 

[Monksailor]

I just read post #53 to Hedrick. I guess what I just said wasn't allowed here in this niche. I apologize to those of you who were offended. You can just dismiss what I said as "narrow minded" or an ol' fuddy duddy stuck in the mud or whatever label liberals have come up with to dismiss that which they are against. I will leave because in all good conscience I will not change our understanding of God's Word.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The Bible doesn't normally describe sexual relationships, whether among married people or otherwise. It doesn't even mention people's wives unless there's some specific reason to do so. As far as I know, there's no marriage ceremony described in the OT. This doesn't mean that God doesn't sanction marriage.

As a result there's no way to respond to this. There are relationships that could have been same-sex: David and Jonathan, Esther, and the Centurion and his "boy." But there's simply no way to know. It could have been widespread among Israel, and we'd never know; the fact that there's a law against it doesn't tell us what people actually did, nor what people understood that law to cover.

From 82-106 in the Mitzot, it list's all forbidden sexual relations. These are all in Leviticus, which includes homosexual relations as well as incest, inappropriate behavior with animals and castration. These are moral laws and apply to all Christians today. If sodomy is ok now then so is incest and inappropriate behavior with animals. We can not pick and choose, they ALL apply.
Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 18 - New King James Version

 

[Monksailor]

The Bible doesn't normally describe sexual relationships, whether among married people or otherwise. It doesn't even mention people's wives unless there's some specific reason to do so. As far as I know, there's no marriage ceremony described in the OT. This doesn't mean that God doesn't sanction marriage.

As a result there's no way to respond to this. There are relationships that could have been same-sex: David and Jonathan, Esther, and the Centurion and his "boy." But there's simply no way to know. It could have been widespread among Israel, and we'd never know; the fact that there's a law against it doesn't tell us what people actually did, nor what people understood that law to cover.

If one REALLY wanted to know they could find out by searching Jewish history outside of Biblical documentation. I am sure that such documentation exists to reveal your query one way or another. Regardless of what people did or how they may have misinterpreted verses like Leviticus 18:22, Genesis 3:1-7 or Exodus 20:14, for ex. (gotten from https://www.focusonthefamily.com/get-help/revisionist-gay-theology-did-god-really-say/#ref2) it is very clear to the open mind what God was saying.

 

[rjs330]

It's possible that it never happened. But how likely is that? Perhaps not every sin was exposed, or perhaps not everyone saw it as wrong. This kind of argument has too little basis to be useful.

It's far more likely there was no homosexual relationship than there was. To speculate sin where none is listed is a horrible thing to do. What on Earth are we doing?

 

[rjs330]

This UMC deal reminds me of the the scripture that says there will be a falling away. What is happening in the church today when sin become accepted. You might as well say that adultery is no longer considered sinful and we allow practicing adulterers in the pulpit and accept it as normal. Or thieves or, well you name it.

 

[sdowney717]

No they do not stand a chance in the Methodist Church. The church is international and the LGBT movement is local by comparison. My wife & I knows the people in the Philippines and Hong Kong that get appointed to go to the conference and we have personally talked to them so we know what the general attitude is in the Church. There are always picketers outside of the conference. They always appoint a group to discuss this issue. A recommendation is made and the representatives vote it down.

I was a part of an Episcopal Church group that separated from the Episcopal Church when they began to ordain LGBT people. They began their own Anglican Diocese with about 70 churches in a tri state area. This was no small thing for some because their buildings were owned by the Episcopal Church. So one of the churches I attended had to give up their building and buy a new building all over again. This was an inner city church designed to assist the homeless inner city people. So the LGBT community hurt their own cause by refusing the help that was being offered to them. They want to convert the church. They are not open and receptive to the being converted themselves.

Church is about reaching out and helping those that are in need. A Church is about the promotion of Jesus, not the promotion of any individual cause. People try to use the church to gain support for things, but that is not what the church is here to do. People try to get support for their social, political or environmental issues but that is not the purpose or mission of the Church. We are to be in the world, not of this world. A church is not something we hijack, a church is what we are to build. We are to compel people to come in to join the church. Not try to convert the church to promote our agenda.

Yes promoting a cause, especially an ungodly one like this as in marrying homosexuals or ordaining them or allowing them to preach, is a contention causing dissensions, which means it is a work of the FLESH. Which it obviously is, they want all people to accept their choices as good and wholesome and blessed of God.
God has it all very well covered what are works of the flesh. And clearly these people who practice as in they are unrepentant of them, are not filled with His Spirit, they are filled with the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience , as in they are SATANICALLY inspired.. And yes they are in the visible church and they trouble the true church as Jude spoke about.

Galatians 5:19-21 New King James Version (NKJV)
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.