You aren't a believer in God so why be involved in this discussion?
Methodists Vote to Keep Traditional Marriage Stance
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
The church specifically views marriage as a holy union between man and woman. Sex outside of marriage is sin.
We recognize that being gay is naturally occurring. Correct?
If this is the case then the church is either stating that gays are basically mutants, can be converted, or that they simply aren't fit to be married.
What am I missing in my thought process?
We recognize that being gay is naturally occurring. Correct?
If this is the case then the church is either stating that gays are basically mutants, can be converted, or that they simply aren't fit to be married.
What am I missing in my thought process?
The problem arises when individuals identify themselves by their sexual orientation. Instead of talking about "gay people" and "straight people" Christians ought to recognize that we are all just "people" because we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). We are all equally sinful and equally in need of salvation by faith alone through Christ. Therefore, no one, regardless of their particular struggle with sin, is a mutant or second-class Christian.
Some, by the grace of God, have been delivered from their naturally occurring sexual sin (1 Corinthians 6:11). Paul describes the Christians in Corinth as formerly being sexually immoral but now sanctified through Christ. To be sanctified is a process whereby we die to our old sinful self and live to the righteousness that is from Christ. It doesn't mean we ever stop sinning but we grow in obedience.
But for some Christians who have same-sex attraction (SSA) they may never experience a change in orientation. That will not keep them from salvation but they cannot turn their sinful attraction into a lifestyle. No different than any other sinful disposition which arises naturally in all persons. At the risk of over-explaining, we would all agree that a Christian cannot work in the pornography business and still believe their lifestyle is acceptable to the Lord. Natural desires are not the same as sanctified desires.
As for Christian marriage, it is reserved for one man and one woman in a life-long, exclusive commitment. By definition, it excludes same-sex couples from becoming married. Let me stress, I'm only talking about ecclesiastical marriage. Obviously, under the laws of the United States any two consenting adults may enter into civil marriage because the Supreme Court redefined civil marriage in the Obergefell decision. But since we have a separation of church and state, no church is required to perform same-sex ceremonies.
Little known fact, there are many faithful Christians living with SSA who desire obedience to the Lord and are committed to living celibate lives. It's no different than people with heterosexual attraction who, for whatever reason, were never able to be married. Both are called to abstain from sexual relationships. And both should be fully welcomed as communing members of whichever church they choose to join.
So do you believe that conversion therapy is a viable option?
I believe there are troubled adolescents who act out all sorts of ways, including exploring their sexuality. For them counseling in general of course is a good thing as long as it's directed at living a responsible and wholesome life.
But wouldn't you find it incredibly troublesome putting individuals who happen to be homosexual through conversion therapy?
I don't support conversion therapy. But I don't foreclose the possibility of overcoming our sin nature (to a degree) through sanctification which is a work of the Holy Spirit with our cooperation. We should not single out one sin for special treatment that we don't use for other sins.
Thats a pretty linear take. Sex wasnt created for marriage and marriage wasnt created for sex. Homosexuals are not mutants, they are just a minority in the human condition, and their struggle against sin is no different or easier to resolve than any other sinful nature that a person can have. They are every bit as deserving of grace as any other person.
That would be peachy-keen if humans were built that way, but we're not. Human beings are sexual beings, and our sexuality needs expression. Sexual urges and desires are a totally normal part of being human. Finding pleasure and connection through sexual expression is a good thing within the boundaries of a monogamous marriage.
That's easy for you to say assuming you are a married heterosexual. What if the roles were reversed and homosexuality was 'sanctified' but heterosexuality was now available to you and your heterosexual partner? Given your logic, you both could have a loving, monogamous marriage and be faithful to God--as long as you never 'sinned' by having sex!!! Really? That's the way you would explain your position to Jesus Christ?
So despite what we now know about human sexuality as it relates to homosexuality, your position is "Doesn't matter, once a sin, always been a sin." But when one examines what Christ has actually said about sexuality and sin, his focus was on divorce and sex (or lusting) outside of the boundaries of a loving Christian marriage.
Since Gays can be legally married and can do so in some churches, why can't it be sanctified when it involved a couple wishing a life of wedding bliss together in service to their Lord Jesus Christ? Are you saying once God spoke to this issue through man 3500 years ago, it's a 'done deal'? So God never changed His mind in the Bible?
Well known fact, this business of faithful Christians living in celibacy "while keeping their SSA safely in the closet" hasn't worked too well over the centuries for the Catholic Church. This celibacy business would sure be a lot easier if human beings weren't sexual creatures.
OK it was created for procreation, intimacy, pleasure and companionship.... But only within the confines of marriage correct?
Id say thats pretty accurate, but with a caveat. Marriage is a spiritual union between 2 people and God that he wants to be a part of. Sex is a physical union between 2 people that God approves of but isnt involved in.
Given the core message of our Lord Jesus Christ, you'd have assumed that Christian churches would have been embracing Gay marriage long before the Government did.
But you'd have been wrong. Even people of faith, who you'd assume would be above it, have a way of presenting their arguments in ways meant to ensure "popular" modern-day trends (i.e. science) doesn't require them to reconsider their feelings.
There's a few parts to this. First off, the definition of marriage comes from God, not the government. Just because a couple can be married in the eyes of an ever changing government doesn't mean that God considers it a marriage. Atheists can get married in the eyes of the government but would God say that is a marriage? Secondly, the acceptance of the sex part of it has 2 facets. The societal norm and the scriptural teaching. A church doesn't necessarily have to exclude someone who has homosexual sex any more than they necessarily have to exclude someone who has sex outside of marriage, and I don't know of any Christian churches other than the Jehovahs that would take such action. Most churches view it as a sin that should be avoided but that grace covers it. So I guess the question becomes "if my church accepts gay couples to participate and the government gives them the same rights as hetero couples, why is it so important to try to redefine Gods definition of marriage"? Unless you think that what scripture said was faulted in the first place, but if thats the case then why not just take the entirety of the bible as potentially faulty?
Is there where you next insist that Christian churches should embrace the legalization and proliferation of abortion?
Or, since christ fulfilled the old law can we now resume Baal worship? Maybe embrace murder?
Aaaaand there we go again equating gay marriage with murder.
This is why no one takes your hokey ass cult seriously.
The liberal sect of chriatianity equates gay marriage to eating shrimp. Or do they? Maybe they are making a cogent point as opposed to just making stupid strawman arguments in spite of scripture?
You really arent good at this.
Gay marriage and shrimp eating is a terrible analogy, eating shrimp actively harms a creature. gay marriage allows two people to be happy and harms absolutely no one. They definitely aren't the same thing
You REALLY aren't good at this.
As I've researched what the Bible has said on marriage, I've noted how most Christians have moderated their views about divorce and second marriages over the years.
If I were to take a literal 'jt_knight-ish' definition of divorce, the vast majority of second marriage Christians would be guilty of living in constant, unrepentant sin because they've chosen to divorce and engage in an 'adulterous' (i.e. second marriage) relationship.
If I were to take a literal 'jt_knight-ish' definition of divorce, the vast majority of second marriage Christians would be guilty of living in constant, unrepentant sin because they've chosen to divorce and engage in an 'adulterous' (i.e. second marriage) relationship.
Agreed, and its why I take issue with the catholic approach to divorce, annulment, and remarriage. They are co-opting their belief structure, showing favor to human desires.
Yeah, if two teenagers get married too young and subsequently divorce, they both are forever condemned to live in a constant, unrepentant life of sin if they move on to find their true life partner, by golly!
To me this is another example of how one has to avoid getting hung up by the literal word and appreciate the spirit of the Bible's messages. When the books that make up the Bible we all know and love was written, the average life expectancy was 18 years old.
No one said it was easy being a Christian, shookster. It's all about short term sacrifice for eternal happiness.Yeah, if two teenagers get married too young and subsequently divorce, they both are forever condemned to live in a constant, unrepentant life of sin if they move on to find their true life partner, by golly!
To me this is another example of how one has to avoid getting hung up by the literal word and appreciate the spirit of the Bible's messages. When the books that make up the Bible we all know and love was written, the average life expectancy was 18 years old.
Yeah, if two teenagers get married too young and subsequently divorce, they both are forever condemned to live in a constant, unrepentant life of sin if they move on to find their true life partner, by golly!
To me this is another example of how one has to avoid getting hung up by the literal word and appreciate the spirit of the Bible's messages. When the books that make up the Bible we all know and love was written, the average life expectancy was 18 years old.
It was common practice for jewish people to be married very early. They were no less juvenile than we are today so the same standard should apply. A widow or widower is allowed to remarry. A person who's spouse who has committed adultery or fornication is also free to remarry. But just to say that a person was too young is not a valid biblical reason for divorce.
Marriage is essentially the only covenant we ever enter into with God in our lives. Thats why its imperative that a church who oversees that covenant is doing so with great consideration. That's why I'm frustrated with the catholic church and their approach, because their requirements for marriage are pretty thorough but now they are increasing the percentage of annulments based on the idea that people "make mistakes" and "should be allowed to move on and be happy". Im sorry, but if thats the case then they just need to get out of the marriage business altogether because what they are doing is respecting earthly law over spiritual law.
Back in the BC years, a person was considered lucky to live long enough to get married.
Divorce in the Bronze Age was a completely different deal then than it is today.
It's very difficult to get an annulment in the Catholic church and I know Catholic couples that weren't able to get one. My brother-in-law got an annulment because after he got married, his wife decided she no longer wanted children and was able to prove it.
I don't believe the Catholic church is co-opting their belief structure, it's part of the belief structure.
I do agree that the Catholic church has been more lenient on their allowances for annulments. It's still a lot more than most other churches do.
Uh, you may want to consider the ages of people in both the old and new testaments. Joseph was widely accepted to have been in his 90s when he married Mary. John lived at least into his 80s. The average lifespan may be longer now but its not like someone was only able to live to be 40.
I wasnt married in the catholic church for my first marriage, but was for my 2nd. At that time, the rate for annulments was around 15% and it was a 2 year long process to acheive it. Now, the rate is around 65% and that includes annulments from people who were married in the catholic church and went through the screening and betrothal process.
FTR, I had my own personal trepidations about remarriage but my ex-wife was an adulterer so I felt that I could remarry and have God honor it.
I know a guy who had his marriage annulled in the Church when he proved that his wife was cheating on him. This happened 6 months ago actually.
Yes, our entire lives! At the time the scriptures regarding marriage and divorce were written, that meant all 14 to 24 years of them!!!
Catholic marriage annulments for the wealthy and influential members of their congregations are exactly like "bone spurs" deferments during the Vietnam-era, there's always got to be a 'get out of jail' card.
It was so much easier and divorces so less common when women just listened to their husbands.
My annulment was in 2014 and the only reason it went through was because I was able to prove (actually, she proved it to them on accident) that she entered into the marriage with a pre-existing personality disorder that I wasn't aware of. The church determined that she couldn't have been entering into a covenant with God because she wasnt of right mind. Today its a much simpler process with unlimited "outs".
At the time marriage became part of the Jewish faith, people were regularly living into their 100s.
I'm not saying there haven't been some. But there have been numerous research studies on human life expectancy.
The fact of the matter is that we're living longer now than ever before in the history of our species.
So do you think God would create something for the average and have a different standard for the outlier?
