I don't care if people lived 15 years or 150 years. It's immaterial. They are both a blink of an eye relative to eternity.
Methodists Vote to Keep Traditional Marriage Stance
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
It's not immaterial when you're talking about human beings and their marriages. Once upon a time a marriage lasted less than 10 years due to a spouse's death. Nowadays, it could last well over 50 years.
That's a lot of 'together' time.
Quick cliffs for us non Catholic folks. Is this annulment process something you both are wanting or are you pitted up against each other? The way you say proved it on accident makes it sound like it's something she didn't want known. Is this something where the person at fault can't get remarried in the church or something?
I could be mistaken but the issue appears to be either: (A) Christians are misinterpreting the Bible; or (B) the Bible is being correctly interpreted but the Bible is wrong on this issue (marriage and sexuality) and its teachings should be ignored and/or updated.
If (A), then the burden is on the party supporting same-sex marriage to offer a better interpretation. Over time, that interpretation would likely garner a majority support.
If (B), then the question becomes, by which authority do we declare the Bible to be in error? It can’t be society in general because then the question becomes “which society?” Ours? That seems presumptuous and borderline nativist. What about the civil and judicial authorities? Or scientific consensus? Or is each person an authority unto themselves?
The bottom line is that no one has to agree with what the Bible says on any particular topic, but if you disagree then you are invoking a different authority. I’m curious which authority that would be and is your faith in that authority justified? I’m not arguing this point but simply asking because it may go to the heart of the issue.
(I would apply the same reasoning to the Bible’s teaching on divorce).
If (A), then the burden is on the party supporting same-sex marriage to offer a better interpretation. Over time, that interpretation would likely garner a majority support.
If (B), then the question becomes, by which authority do we declare the Bible to be in error? It can’t be society in general because then the question becomes “which society?” Ours? That seems presumptuous and borderline nativist. What about the civil and judicial authorities? Or scientific consensus? Or is each person an authority unto themselves?
The bottom line is that no one has to agree with what the Bible says on any particular topic, but if you disagree then you are invoking a different authority. I’m curious which authority that would be and is your faith in that authority justified? I’m not arguing this point but simply asking because it may go to the heart of the issue.
(I would apply the same reasoning to the Bible’s teaching on divorce).
"I see folks leave the Catholic Church all the time over its refusal to approve a second marriage for them."
Is it common for Catholics to hold marriage ceremonies outside of the church instead of leaving? Or will that just cause problems down the road?
I mean, you can do what you want and attend Mass and no one would really know otherwise. There’s no litmus test administered when you enter the church. But if you want to receive Sacraments or in our case, have your son Baptized and receive First Communion, etc then it would probably come up.
Honestly the Church is much more lenient now than how it was years ago when it ex-communicated people at the drop of a hat
Basically the annulment process is instigated by 1 party, both the other party is interviewed if they agree to it. Along with that, affidavits have to be written by people who knew the couple prior to marriage. What the church is looking for is what they see as a legitimate reason that the marriage was not in fact a covenant marriage. It could be something as simple as the groom being drunk at the wedding or something as serious as one partner being coerced against their will. In my case, I was married for 13 years but came to find out later that my ex had a history of sexual assault against her and due to that had developed a personality disorder that I didnt recognize at the time we were married. The church viewed it as a party who was not capable at the time of making a commitment to that covenant so the considered the marriage to just be a civil union. She agreed to interview and made statements to the priest advocate that sealed the deal. She maintained the claim that our marriage was valid but the church saw otherwise.
And neither of us were or are catholic, but my new wife is so thats why i went through the process
I'm not catholic, but monsignor told me if I wanted to receive communion at mass to just go to the next town over. I was both impressed and insulted by that
Well, if you tell him you’re not Catholic to begin with then I wouldn’t be so shocked to find his response....
Invoking a different authority? You mean an authority different from the religious authorities who have sliced and diced and determined "God's Will" from the Good Book over the centuries?
I've never claimed to be any sort of Bible expert (in fact, FAR from it) but I find myself curious about a number of the things about the Bible. One is making sense of the many contradictions that exist, particularly when a strict, fundamentalist viewpoint is used in ascertaining the Will of God.
Many of the patronizing responses I've gotten over the years from the folks who are self-professed Fundamentalist Christians have made me a tad bit suspicious about the whole 'authority' issue. To be fair, it might just be that someone has yet to explain it all to me in a way my stupid, little head can get around. But if often feels to me like these folks trying very hard to preserve and protect their conservative point of view.
We hear the Bible is God's Word--uh, except when it speaks about the sin of eating shrimp or allowing women to speak in church. But when this question of 'who decided this?' is raised, we're assured with a dismissive wave of the hand that it's because of Mosaic Law, Dispensationalism, and New Covenant Theology, etc., etc., etc. Funny, I don't recall reading about that stuff anywhere in the Bible. So in other words, Biblical laws should be considered iron-clad strict--until we're told they're not.
Same is true regarding the issue of Gay marriage and Second marriages following divorce. Using the Catholic Church as an example, the church 'authority' (whoever that is) can decree that a second marriages can, in fact, be blessed (Halleluja, Praise the Lord!) while a monogamous Gay marriage cannot. When the question arises of why this is the case, the church leadership points to the Seventh Commandment and says, "duh, homosexuality is a sin." But when the same question is asked about divorce and a second marriage, the response is different despite scripture being equally 'cut and dried' on the issue. So where did this particular 'Will of God' come from?
Since you seem to be an expert on identifying which parts of the Bible are and aren’t relevant, and what God’s viewpoints actually are as it relates to “modern” issues that you deem important, can you please tell us what God thinks of the modern proliferation and celebration of abortion?
Is God in favor? Are you insistent that Christian churches start preaching to the goodness and virtues of abortion?
Or has the issue of gay marriage totally surpassed the issue of protection of life and you’re going to act annoyed that I even raise this question?
You're more than welcome to start your own thread on the subject instead of hijacking this one.
Ok so you’re just doing to duck the question even though this thread veered off the original point pages ago.
Not sure why my question would be so difficult for such an upstanding Christian such as yourself
The issue of 2nd marriages is addressed and he gave circumstances where it is acceptable.
I find that fundamentalism and liberalism (not in the political sense but in the theological sense) are two sides of the same coin. Those theologies, in my opinion, are a result of a less than thoroughgoing biblical exegesis. Liberalism appears to be largely based on the confluence of Darwinian evolutionary theory and German higher textual criticism (e.g., Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis). Both developed in Europe in the 19th century and spread to the United States in the 20th. Fundamentalism primarily arose as reaction to liberalism.
Sound biblical interpretation resists getting pulled into either of the two extremes. Instead, let scripture interpret scripture and don’t force scripture into a socio-political ideology. Sometimes this offends conservative sensibilities and sometimes it offends liberal sensibilities.
In August 2018 we thoroughly discussed the issues pertaining to the civil/ceremonial/moral distinction within the Mosaic law. It may be worth returning to that thread when asking why Christians can eat shrimp.
It may be helpful to explain why eating shrimp isnt just a form of taking advantage of Christ's atonement. It's one of the more ridiculous analogies that pro gaymarriage advocates use to disregard the old testament.
Up until the 1830s, science was widely viewed as something that was consistent with the bible, generally speaking the initial reaction to a finding was how it is consistent with the bible. It wasnt really until Huxley that the intent began to change from subjective in favor to objective indifferent to now subjective opposed. Even Darwin struggled with how his theories were consistent with scripture and his letters to his girlfriend show that struggle.
Very interesting post, jt. ![[thumb2]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1684387.png "Thumbs Up 2 [thumb2]")
First off, I learned a new word: exegesis. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
Secondly, I'm assuming the 'thorough' Biblical analysis (one neither liberal or fundamental) holds that homosexuality is a universal sin despite mankind's revised understanding of human sexuality? If so, if would appear the church's current approach to Gays is at odds with how Jesus treated women, the old, the sick, and minorities.
First off, I learned a new word: exegesis. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
Secondly, I'm assuming the 'thorough' Biblical analysis (one neither liberal or fundamental) holds that homosexuality is a universal sin despite mankind's revised understanding of human sexuality? If so, if would appear the church's current approach to Gays is at odds with how Jesus treated women, the old, the sick, and minorities.
I get it. I was just using it as a way of making my point.
"If so, if would appear the church's current approach to Gays is at odds with how Jesus treated women, the old, the sick, and minorities."
You should expand on this because I'm not seeing your point. Jesus didnt have any documented interactions that were directly related to homosexual sex or gay marriage. Its easy for a church to find a consistent approach to the other issues because there were distinct interactions with people in those circumstances. The minority aspect of it is particularly curious, because the jews were not a minority at that time but were under the authority of the Roman empire, but jesus still said to respect the laws of the land and to give unto Caesar so it creates a different dynamic than what I think you are suggesting it to be.
You should expand on this because I'm not seeing your point. Jesus didnt have any documented interactions that were directly related to homosexual sex or gay marriage. Its easy for a church to find a consistent approach to the other issues because there were distinct interactions with people in those circumstances. The minority aspect of it is particularly curious, because the jews were not a minority at that time but were under the authority of the Roman empire, but jesus still said to respect the laws of the land and to give unto Caesar so it creates a different dynamic than what I think you are suggesting it to be.
In short, yes, the Bible still holds that homosexuality is a universal sin because man is not the measure of righteousness, God is. In our fallen condition we, by nature, do that which is unrighteous. Any good we do, we do because of the grace of God. Therefore, if God declares something to be sinful then it remains sinful whether we agree or not. We can discuss why some OT ordinances aren't applied today but overall, sexual immorality of any form (homosexual or heterosexual) does not fall in that category.
Again, everyone must be treated with dignity and respect, including those with SSA. Jesus affirmed the dignity of the woman caught in adultery and forgave her but commanded her to leave her life of sin. That should be our model.
It's inaccurate to claim that homosexuality was only condemned in the Bible because of that culture's intolerance, and since we know more today we should modify our views. Scholarship seems to indicate that homosexuality and pedophilia was more widely practiced and accepted as part of everyday society in ancient Rome and Greece than it is today. That's why Paul, the apostle to the Greco-Roman world, had to speak out against it so consistently. Jesus, on the other hand, did not address it specifically because his ministry was to the Jews and it wasn't part of everyday life in first century Palestine (because God forbade Israel from living like the Canaanites when Israel entered the land--hence, avoid sexual immorality). To dismiss ideas because they are old is a form of generational bias. We're all guilty of doing it from time to time but we should be aware that it can cloud our judgment.
First in to criticize you for your reading comprehension skills.
"Jesus, on the other hand, did not address it specifically because his ministry was to the Jews and it wasn't part of everyday life in first century Palestine (because God forbade Israel from living like the Canaanites whenIsraelentered the land--hence, avoid sexualimmorality)."
An argument can be made that Jesus did address it specifically because of his references to Genesis 1 and 2.
Other than Paul in Romans 1, Jesus was probably more direct than any of the other characters/authors in the new testament in addressing the topic. On the far end, Judes comments about Sodom and Gommorah could be taken as sexual relations between man and angel or man and animal. Paul's comments in first and 2nd Timothy, and in 1st Corinthians are somewhat more explicit but also seem to be pointed. His comments in Romans 1 are pretty clear and direct. The argument against his comments would be corrolary to 1st Timothy or Ephesians regarding women leadership roles in the church, which seem to be directed towards an individual church or culture as opposed to being an edict that is timeless and without cultural influences. Pauls writings are essentially the only reason that some churches don't allow women to hold leadership roles, and yet he acknowledged Phoebe as a deacon and references Priscilla before her husband Aquilla when talking about church leadership in Romans. This is the kind of thing we need to take a little bit more time examining before adopting church doctrine. Jesus's words need little examination (outside of language interpretation) because his words werent subject to cultural norms or a description on how a church should function.
An argument can be made that Jesus did address it specifically because of his references to Genesis 1 and 2.
Other than Paul in Romans 1, Jesus was probably more direct than any of the other characters/authors in the new testament in addressing the topic. On the far end, Judes comments about Sodom and Gommorah could be taken as sexual relations between man and angel or man and animal. Paul's comments in first and 2nd Timothy, and in 1st Corinthians are somewhat more explicit but also seem to be pointed. His comments in Romans 1 are pretty clear and direct. The argument against his comments would be corrolary to 1st Timothy or Ephesians regarding women leadership roles in the church, which seem to be directed towards an individual church or culture as opposed to being an edict that is timeless and without cultural influences. Pauls writings are essentially the only reason that some churches don't allow women to hold leadership roles, and yet he acknowledged Phoebe as a deacon and references Priscilla before her husband Aquilla when talking about church leadership in Romans. This is the kind of thing we need to take a little bit more time examining before adopting church doctrine. Jesus's words need little examination (outside of language interpretation) because his words werent subject to cultural norms or a description on how a church should function.
Hows that? Catholic church dogma states that only a person who has gone through catholic church confirmation can receive communion or confession. By his own admission, he recognized that he feels that I am worthy of receiving both but due to the political/structural nature of the church he cant personally administer them to me. Doesnt that seem odd? I asked him at one point whether or not he would allow Billy Graham to receive communion from him and he really struggled with it, but eventually deferred to the point that the church wouldn't allow it although he would be ok with it personally. Then I asked him how he thought Paul would react to that position (based on his confrontation of Peter in Galatians) and he was visibly upset at the thought.
The whole issue comes down to whether a church should be more inclusive or more exclusive. There are dangers in both. Should we be inclusive to the point of bastardizing the church with paganism like they did in the 7-8-900s, or be exclusive like the church in Spain was in the 14 and 1500s?
I don't dismiss "the idea" that homosexuality is a sin because it was written 3500 years ago, I dismiss it because it is assumes (quite naturally I should add given man's ignorance at the time) immoral sexual 'temptations.' But within the context of a monogamous, Gay Christian marriage (an oxymoron for some), it aligns with the same blessings & the same sins one can find in a heterosexual relationship.
While I can appreciate your perspective on this matter, the ultimate 'decider' regarding this matter will be -- and always has been -- the faithful themselves.
According to the Pew Research Center, the number of adults describing themselves at Christians has dropped in just the past seven years from 78.4% to 70.6%. If we hope to reverse this trend, we have to do a better job of connecting the powerful messages of Christ to people living in today's world. So while I can appreciate the urge to resist 'catering to modern societal whims,' the stark reality is that a hostile homosexual climate within Christian churches is certainly not going to reverse this trend.
Frankly, I see the United Methodist Church at a "no-win" crossroads when it comes to its membership: Either the international church splits or the American churches will see their memberships (outside of the south) plummet as the church's traditional progressive base seek out other churches more compatible with their belief in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Does it seem odd that a Priest personally related to you and got along with you well, but stated that Catholic doctrine did not permit him to serve you communion when you stated you weren’t a Catholic and did not receive any prior Sacraments? No. That’s one of the least surprising things that I’ve read.
What seems odd is that he thinks I'm worthy of communion but cant allow me to partake in it due to church doctrine.
Based on Catholic doctrine you are absolutely not worthy. His opinion means naught in this particular matter, he was simply being a good Christian.
I was ready to leave this conversation alone for a while since I've said more than I intended to but this article was just posted today and it's excellent. It discusses biblical exegesis and the issues of same-sex marriage and inter-racial marriage. I could summarize or just let those who are interested in reading it to draw their own conclusions.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...-prejudiced-as-opposing-interracial-marriage/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...-prejudiced-as-opposing-interracial-marriage/
Along the same line since we appear to be running out of steam, I mentioned this discussion to my wife and she said it reminded her of a great book she'd read last fall. I've started it myself today and am finding it a fun and fascinating read.
It's called "Unlearning God" by Philip Gulley.
Shouldn't being a christian take precedence over being a catholic?
Aren't Catholics Christian? Besides, if you go investigate, there are legitimate reasons why some people, both Catholics and non-Catholics alike, aren't allowed to receive communion. And they aren't nefarious reasons, either.
I'm not saying they are nefarious. I understand the rationale behind it: the church allowed itself to be bastardized by accepting pagan practices, now they take a more exclusive view to protect the sacraments. Thats fine, but when a church would refuse to serve communion to someone like Billy Graham then its probably become a little bit too exclusive.
Peter was sharing communion with the gentiles until James told him to knock it off. Then Paul stepped in and set Peter right. That in and of itself should be enough to convince the Catholic church that communion is for all believers, not just Catholics.
I disagree. How can one fully appreciate Communion without being educated about what it really is? Communion is far more than a symbolic ritual.
