Jeremy, Is Hamilton Reconciling (to use the UMC term for Affirming)? We have many reconciling congregations in our conference.Originally Posted by Jeremy D. Scott
Jeremy, Is Hamilton Reconciling (to use the UMC term for Affirming)? We have many reconciling congregations in our conference.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
I recall the 1997 GA in San Antonio. During GA's, emeritus general superintendents usually get some time for a devotional. Eugene L. Stowe was assigned some time as well. Now I only knew him as a GS when I was a young district secretary and he was very gracious in answering the many questions I had during a break at the District Assembly, while his wife brought us tea. But from other people I heard he was quite a hard liner.
Anyway, that GA he shared how he got involved in work among AIDS victims, about to die. And he was shattered by the suffering and most of all, their loneliness. Seeing the actual people had changed him. The fact that I can still tell you about this devotional, and I forgot all the others ever since, is telling something.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm not sure how to answer your questions. Obviously, these issues that are up for discussion. I guess what I am trying to say is that the typical sexual outlet for men in same sex relationships is anal sex. And this behavior has decidedly more risk. It shortens life-spans and creates physical health issues. I am fully aware that heterosexual folks practice this behavior and it doesn't seem to be as detrimental. I just don't think it is a good idea, but then we all know that some forms of heterosexual sex can put people at greater risk too. There is some pretty crazy and perverted stuff out there.
I did see one study that showed that men experience four times the level of prolactin in the brain when they have intercourse with their wives. The Penner's wrote some interesting stuff on this and began to distinguish between commitment sex and adrenaline sex. They advise couples to take their time and not wait for the "rush" of excitement. They claim commitment sex that focuses its energies on intimacy is far more lasting and pleasing to the brain.
But, as a principle, I do not think God intends men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women.
Hmmm... I'm not sure he was calling it a non-essential. After all, it clearly states that the official position of the church continues unchanged. I read it more as a recognition that we need to keep loving those with whom we disagree, while also communicating that "the majority" on this issue is really hearing and listening to "the minority," not ignoring them or pushing them aside.
But that's just my take from reading it just now. I haven't followed much of the proceedings of the General Conference to know more of the context for it.
Are you suggesting that gays don't or cannot have commitment sex?
An interesting aside. As you know I am open and affirming, reconciling in the language of the UMC of which I am now part (next stop, when Ben and I carpool again, Constantinople) and I have never even considered the mechanics of gay sex.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
Well, that's what I read in his final plea:
For obviously, we must think alike on essential issues."We commit to disagree with respect and love, we commit to love all persons and, above all, we pledge to
seek God’s will. With regard to homosexuality, as with so many other issues, United Methodists adopt
the attitude of John Wesley who once said, "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May
we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may.""
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
It is completely unhelpful to abuse Scripture to the point where a Home loan makes one a slave, and then compare to Paul in Corinth. There is just nowhere to go then.
On another note. If we read the gospels in a way where Jesus is instituting new rules on divorce is a misread. That is not a modern tendency, but the way his hearers would have heard that message as well.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Bob, this is not our topic, but the same dangers exist for heterosexuals who engage in this practice - see sub-Saharan Africa.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Abuse scripture? Usury is clearly forbidden in scripture. That's why it says the borrower is slave to the lender. This just speaks to my point. When I ignore scripture, it's just the other fella abusing it. But when you ignore scripture, there is no other possible interpretation.
I've had this same argument countless times in my years of naznet, and it never goes anywhere. It is just too inconvenient for us to convince ourselves that we pick and choose which scriptures to follow and which to ignore, and it's just too painful to admit we might be wrong about just about anything.
By the way, I never said anything about Jesus instituting new rules on divorce. I just know he said if you divorce and remarry you have committed the sin of adultary or you have caused someone else to commit it.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Usury? You should get a new bank. Someone makes it possible for you to own a home and build equity and you call it usury? I am glad you are not a customer of mine. Here I have been building equity for 17 years, and it is only because people are sinning against me. Maybe I should have just paid rent for 17 years - I would not have built equity and paid more than I have, but at least I would have prevented Wells Fargo from sinning in my case.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Usury is the practice of charging interest.
Doug we seem to be talking past each other here, as always happens in these arguments. I do not think I'm sinning by taking a home loan, or that divorce/remarriage makes one an adulterer, or that slavery is acceptable. I don't believe any of these things.
However, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim the Bible does not teach all of these things, and many many other things we do not apply to ourselves.
My point from the beginning has been - why do we treat homosexuality differently?
Further discourse is distracting, let's just focus on Dana's original question. Blessings.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - "thanks" for this post
Inappropriate interest. Bank realizes a gain - you realize a gain. You may realize a greater gain than your lender.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
The bible clearly forbids charging any interest on any loan whatsoever. The church forbid it for over 1000 years of church history, till commerce finally found a loophole and won out.
My hope is that we do not. However, we must keep the setting of the text in mind as we decipher what message to take. Back to my point - it can be demonstrated that slavery is a vastly different practice than we envision when we use the word. The same cannot be said about homosexuality.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
The same can absolutely be said of homosexuality.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
What did the Methodist's vote? Sorry, I need plain language. I also need my friend David Pettigrew to help me over on the contraception thread...
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Laughing
No it cannot. To say that the ancients had no idea of "orientation" is simply not accurate. As early as the 5th century B.C. we have Greeks writing about men who seemed to have a predeliction toward boys. One cannot say this was unknown. It is simply not true. To just claim that Paul had no idea either is to assume facts not in evidence. It may be the case, but it would be an assumption, nothing more.
The whole idea of orientation is a very modern one. Who knows, we may look back on this idea as passe 200 years from now.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Ok, now I'm confused.
Like I said I just signed a mortgage. I can only be controversial on one subject at a time.What did the Methodist's vote? Sorry, I need plain language. I also need my friend David Pettigrew to help me over on the contraception thread...
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 5 Laughing
Sure gays can have commitment sex, however, it is like they are having sex with themselves because they engage with the same sex. It reminds me of the Woody Allen quote, "Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love." Moreover, the evidence suggests it is not very healthy and these men are at a higher risk for many health related concerns. I discussed this reality in an earlier post. I maintain that God designed us male and female and the compatibility and design of our bodies points to God's ultimate desire for humanity. I don't think it takes rocket science to figure it out. Try putting a square peg and a round hole.Are you suggesting that gays don't or cannot have commitment sex?
An interesting aside. As you know I am open and affirming, reconciling in the language of the UMC of which I am now part (next stop, when Ben and I carpool again, Constantinople) and I have never even considered the mechanics of gay sex.
I readily admit I am being simple, old fashioned and stubborn. But hey, at least I admit my biases. And remember, I have gay step-sister. Seen it firsthand.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Towards the end of the article, he spoke about "respectful co-existence" with those with whom they disagree. If any group goes down this path, they need to define what this means. At a Presbytery meeting I attended last year, I spoke out against (along with another colleague) the Past National President's stance on this very issue and we were both "cautioned" about speaking against a "fellow minister" in the church, by a person at the Presbytery who shared his views.
So does "respectful co-existence" mean: "No further comment allowed on the issue" or "No criticism allowed against those who have these views". Both are untenable positions for they seriously impinge upon "Free speech" and "open debate" which are necessary to all who would search for "truth".
Personally I am schismatic on the issue...... I don't think that we can co-exist together with those who share a different view on such a fundamental issue of how we define sinful practice.
In my denomination, we have already allowed for people who are in same sex relationships being ordained as ministers within the church at the national assembly. In reality, a practicing homosexual person still needs the support of their Synod, Presbytery and local church before they can be ordained, and as far as I know only in Victoria has this actually happened. (Our Synod has categorically rejected such a move) Nonetheless, 10,000 of our members left the church nationally over this issue.
There is now a move to recognise and solemnise Gay Marriage both within society and the church. If it goes ahead within our church I will be among the great throng of exiters who will leave the church..... and probably thereafter start another (or most probably several others if the history of Protestantism serves as a guide on such matters).
The fact remains, while we must walk in love with all people...... we can only serve with those with whom we share similar values and aspirations. On these essentials at least we must have unity!
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yeah, I don't know what kind of sex they have. I know several married lesbian couples who are very loving of each other and in the case of the one couple their twin children. A woman at church came out to me the other week. She is now part of our small group.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
OK, So I've been following the discussion between Dave and Doug with interest. Could you all help me out with a simple question. Scripture is very clear that divorce a no-no and remarrying after divorcing is a adultery. Divorce, remarriage, adultery... sin. Jesus said so. Pretty cut and dry. Not much room to debate the biblical position on these things. Right? Except that the church is very open to even ordaining people who are living in such states. So in this particular case, scripture is clear, but we look the other way.
Then we look at the scriptures pertaining to homosexuality. The levitical stuff is in such a context that we really must throw it out. The Sodom story is interpreted by Ezekiel as not relating to homosexuality at all, but rather about social justice. The Pauline text is so debated no one can really know what the relevant words mean/meant. And Jesus said nothing about it. Yet in this case we want to be dogmatic about making sure homosexuality remains a SIN with a capital S.
Can anyone please explain to me how we can interpret these texts/issues this way? and why the biblically clear issue we ignore and the biblically murky issue we uphold unswirvingly?
This seems to be the crux of the issue, but we don't seem to be getting at it very well.
Last edited by Eric Frey; May 4th, 2012 at 09:09 PM.
Post Thanks / Like - 8 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You are UMC?? I'm so excited that you are affirming and open...really? I'm so excited to find someone else on NN!Are you suggesting that gays don't or cannot have commitment sex?
An interesting aside. As you know I am open and affirming, reconciling in the language of the UMC of which I am now part (next stop, when Ben and I carpool again, Constantinople) and I have never even considered the mechanics of gay sex.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I couldn't have said it better myself. I love it. THANKS!
Yeah, I left the CotN on this district and the best fit was UMC. Quite a few reconciling churches here. My pastor is, but hasn't taken the church in that direction, yet. There are other allies here that are probably affirming.Nice to meet you HeidiYou are UMC?? I'm so excited that you are affirming and open...really? I'm so excited to find someone else on NN!
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Eric,
Matthew has the exception to divorce being marital unfaithfulness. And I would also think that what people did before they were saved would not be held against them.
Jude interprets the Sodom story as sexual immorality, so the situation was more complicated than just social justice.
In any event, being a Nazarene Pastor, I will defer to the Manual on the issue. There's Nazarenes and non-Nazarenes on this board, and I hope both will understand I am for our present position.
I am the Lone Locust of the Apocalypse! Think of me when you look to the night sky!
You should be - poorly worded post. Please note that the first "orientation" was in quotation marks. I should have said, to say the ancients had no idea that some were inclined to the same sex is incorrect.
At the same time, the language of homosexuality as orientation is a fairly recent one.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Well, I never got any complaints and we've been married 27 years!
I am the Lone Locust of the Apocalypse! Think of me when you look to the night sky!
That's officially the creepiest emoticon I've seen.Well, I never got any complaints and we've been married 27 years!
Most good things have been said far too many times and just need to be lived. - Shane ClaibornePost Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Laughing
You mean as in lecherous? Actually, it rather reminds one of Groucho Marx.
Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.
~ Stella Adler ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It takes a great deal of maturity to accept that trying to eliminate all risk eliminates life.
~ Susan Lapin ~
You say correctly that marriage after divorce is against scripture and you are right. However, God is gracious and forgives those who come to him and ask for forgiveness for all and any sin...... even the sin of divorce. So with the sin forgiven, what impediment is there to remarriage? In the context of Matthew 5: 31, 32, Jesus is really confronting a practice of divorcing one's wife for the sole purpose of being able to get another. In such a case the husband is treating his wife as a comodity to be disposed of at will and the legal process of doing so simply by the issuing of a certificate. No penitance was evident for the fact that this was a violation of God's law.
This is entirely different to a situation where to people of the same gender are engaging in sexual activity without sorrow for sin or even remorse.
We are called to walk humbly with God and one another. In practice it means to live as penitants, avoiding (if possible) the very appearance of evil.
As for the notion that homosexual practice is not sinful, well even if you can rationalise ever scripture in the bible in such a way that the homosexual practice described refers only to "Rape" or "Cultic Practice" or "Paedophilia" or "Paederasty" etc, etc..... there is no reference towards Homosexual marriage. In the scriptures a normitive relationship in which sexual intercourse takes place is one where a man and a woman are involved. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh" Genesis 2: 24. Ideally such a relationship should be a loving and committed one within the confines of marriage. It used to be said that even sex between a man and woman outside of marriage was sinful...... but in our present morally relative environment even this is condoned.
Lord help us!!!!
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You will not receive a straightforward answer to this, Eric. I promise you that.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Which means the crux of the issue is not in the interpretations of the Scriptures, but in what we bring to that interpretation.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
How do you read the scriptures in regard to your question? That is a type question that Jesus asked some people who came to Him for rulings or understanding. I think the video started with the answer. (I have read everything that is in scripture in regard to same gender sexual activity and its all negative.) They have judged correctly. They didn't like the answer.
Randy
"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"
(Psalms 27:1)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
And gave a pretty solid explanation why that answer was wrong anyway. So the discussion is, how do we read the Scriptures? Which was Dana's initial question. After 77 posts, no one has yet given an answer. See Eric's question: http://www.naznet.com/community/show...l=1#post136967
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
In any case, sexual immorality does not equal homosexuality. Which means that also according to Jude, we cannot equate the two.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
One of the reasons I have not responded much is because I've been reading. I have no theological answers to the video I posted. That's why I came here. I'm confused. I'm wondering if everything I believed before about the Bible is wrong, or if this young man is twisting the true explanation of the scripture to suit his agenda. All of that.
I will say just a couple of things, though. Someone (I am not good at keeping track of each writer, I'm sorry) briefly brought up something about men being attracted to little boys in the connotation of homosexuality. Men who are attracted to young boys are not gay, they are pedophiles. There is a huge difference, in my opinion. Pedophiles prey on small children for their sexual fulfillment. Homosexual men do not. Nor do gay people try to sway others into becoming gay. That just is not how it works. Both of my friends are very highly respected teachers, and I would have them teach my children any day of the week (well, except for the fact that my children are now adults!! ::::smiling::They would never try to persuade children to become gay. Maybe that happens in your part of the world, but not mine. In fact, up until recently, only select people in their work environment were allowed to know that they were a couple. They feared for their jobs or parental uprising. Which is stupid, if you ask me. Gay people do not go around molesting young children, and I wish that people would stop putting them in that category.
Anyway, carry on....I do appreciate that people are trying to be civil and kind for the most part. Thanks. I'm really reading and trying to digest everything that people are saying. I'll show my face once in a while!!!
Dana
Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I see all the law as law. The law is quoted by Paul and I do believe was his foundation on this and other matters. While not under law I read of acts that can lead to spiritual death.
This point of law doesn't disturb people but it was quoted by Paul "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain" So is that also invalid?
I think the Law can be used as a guide (foundation) to declare acts unlawful or lawful as did Paul. I disagree with throwing it out in this matter. As a example I agree that the death penalty for capital murder is lawful in Gods eyes because of the law I believe He (God) put into effect. I am stating "lawful" not "mandatory". We make and pass our own laws (our government)
Abomination - well then who declared it a abomination then is your question? God or man? If man so what? If God then can man declare it "lawful" in Gods eyes?
"I" can't in good conscious tell someone (who asks me) that such a lifestyle is OK with God and I am far from alone in stating that.
"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"
(Psalms 27:1)
Posting Permissions
